navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Protesting the protestors....
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Protesting the protestors.... Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

0 posted 2003-03-27 09:02 PM



It's a crazy world when the war supporters are well-behaved and the anti-war protestors are violent. SHouldn't it be the other way around??? It's not. Supporters acknowledge the protesters to march to their views and yet the protestors attack the supporters when they are presenting theirs. What happened to the "everyone has a right to give their views" philosophy? In Oregon the fire chief had all of the American flags taken off the firetrucks and uniforms of the firefighters because they were being attacked by anti-war protestors when they responded to put out fires the protestors started. Attack firefighters for wearing the American flag? These people call themselves Americans? They are not. Wayne Gretsky, undoubtedly the greatest hockey player in history and a Canadian treasure admired by millions, villified by his own countrymen for saying he supports Bush...this is allowing people to have their own views? No, it is the action of a group so defensive that they have to attack whoever does not share their views. Why are they defensive? I have my own theory......

     Bush and Blair claim that the main objective of the war is to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.  I'll buy that. I doubt that more than a handful of people on the planet with any knowledge of world affairs don't believe that Iraq has them. Would they be used against democratic countries? Who can say? But I don't think that the reason we give for being there is important. Hundreds of thousands of people - normal, average, man-on-the-street people have been tortured, raped and murdered by the regime running the country. THAT should be enough reason....enough for freedom-loving people everywhere to get together and end that madness for the sake of the millions of people living in fear and being abused by a maniacal dictator. People who wouldn't stand by to watch a child being beaten to death in front of their eyes look at the atrocities committed there, mumble "It's not my problem" and walk away. No, they don't walk away...they scream profanities at the people trying to stop it! Blair stated today that, over the past year, 400,000 children under the age of four died in Iraq last year from starvation. Doesn't that make anyone angry at all? Iraqis will claim it's because of the UN economic sanctions but the sanctions did not prevent Hussein from spending tens of millions of dollars on palaces and who knows how much funneled into private offshore accounts. Iraq is a wealthy country....how could that fact be? We know how it can be. Every Iraqui who has left Iraq and appeared on tv has spoken about the army and the secret police and the secret police watching the secret police and the fedayeen watching them. They speak of the fear people live in and the executions and murders that occur daily and without reason or consequence. Doesn't that bother anyone at all? Everyone knows this....even the anti-war protestors. My question is this.....if the intervention supporters are for stopping the killing of the Iraqi people, what are the anti-war protestors for? If the supporters want to see the Iraqui people be able to live without fear, without being indiscriminately murdered - in other words - to have a chance to live the way every human being on this planet should be allowed to live, then what do the protestors want to see? If the supporters are for life, what are the protestors for?

    That is how we come to the defensiveness of the protestors. They cannot say they are not for life for the Iraqi people. They may not even be able to admit that to themselves. Instead they come up with different reasons....Bush is crazy - it's for oil - Americans are power-hungry - so on and so on and so on, whatever reason they can come up with to justify non-participation. They say these things knowing full well that Iraquis are victims of a monstrous regime but, in saying they are oposed to intervention they have to basically say they don't care. They have to say let the atrocities continue as long as we don't get involved which is exactly what would happen were we not involved. That is their Achilles heel. That is why their defensiveness explodes when opposed. It exposes them as being indifferent to the plight of the oppressed. It takes away their self-proclaimed righteousness. No, they are not indifferent, they proclaim loudly....they just don't want the people there who are trying to stop it.

    Strong cares for the weak. Strength speaks out for those who have no voice, be it a father taking care of his family or affluent countries caring for those being taken advantage of. In a perfect world, the United Nations would recognize murderous regimes and oust them from power but this is not a perfect world and the United Nations are united in name only. Fortunately there are other countries, successful in their own right, willing to come to the aid of those who have become victims of tyrants. I am proud to be a citizen of one of those countries. I am proud of a country like England willing to stand with us. Austrailia, who (with all due respect) has not been known as a military world superpower, sent troops when they didn't have to because they wanted to participate in the preservation of peace in the world and because they believe in man's right to live free. I have learned to have a tremendous amount of respect for Austrailia. Yes, it is much easier to sit in one's comfortable house, enjoying the advantages of democracy and close one's eyes to the suffering of those not able to enjoy those same rights...but to protest against those willing to take action? That's incredible. Whatever the anti-war protestors say, they cannot say they are not aware of the torture, murder and genocide the Iraqui tribes live under - and, in not being able to say that, they are saying they are opposing any action which would cause it to change. They are marching against killing at the same time they are condoning it. No wonder thay are so angry.

    In one of the most poignant scenes I will ever see, an American soldier was on tv last night, passing out food and water to Iraqui children. The reporter asked him what he was thinking and that hardened soldier, with tears streaming down his face, softly said, "Now I know why I am here."  What a shame so many others others cannot share that same feeling.....

© Copyright 2003 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved
Crazy Eddie
Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178

1 posted 2003-03-27 09:48 PM



It’s certainly one point of view Balladeer but it does beg a couple of questions.

If saving the people of Iraq was so paramount why hasn’t anyone done anything about it before or was everyone simply saying “not my problem” and if it’s so important in Iraq why not all the other countries where similar things are happening?

People have been dying in Iraq, and other countries, for years and not all of them at the hands of the regime or from hunger, though I agree those causes have accounted for tragic numbers. If you get time search the internet for ‘depleted uranium+Iraq’ it’s not pleasant reading but it’s always interesting to see the situation from another angle.

Regardless of the to and fro arguments that can be made to support or contest your assertions at the end of the day how the Iraqi people react in the coming months is going to be the deciding factor and not the minority of guerrilla protesters. If the Iraqi people embrace the coalition forces en-masse and a peaceful Iraq results from the war then the decision to intercede will be vindicated, if the Iraqi people resist the intervention of the coalition forces the situation could become untenable and result in even more loss of innocent lives.

I can’t speak for all protesters, I not even sure if I can claim to be a protester, I simply don’t believe that the mechanics of how we got into the war were correct though I accept that war was probably the ultimate outcome. Perhaps some people aren’t protesting against the war, maybe they’re protesting that it’s happened too early or too late either way I agree fighting on the streets to stop fighting on the streets does seem a tad ludicrous.

rosepetals25
Deputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Elite
since 2000-05-31
Posts 3076
PA
2 posted 2003-03-27 10:19 PM


I agree with you 150% Balladeer.. You have just said exactly what I have been trying to say since this thing started.  You just did alot better

Tara

"in my field of paper flowers
and candy clouds of lullaby
i lie inside myself for hours
and watch my purple sky fly over me"
- Imaginary by Evanes

regards2you
Member Elite
since 2002-10-01
Posts 3940
California
3 posted 2003-03-27 10:22 PM



This is perfectly said.  Though you made me cry, at least, finally,  someone has said how I feel and think, far better than I ever could, and included  some issues of which I was not even aware.  

And far as outcome...I think sometimes we simply must take risks when it is for the right reasons.

And to me, almost 1/2 a million children dying in a wealthy country is reason enough, EVEN if my only son and three grandsons (not old enough) all had to go to war right now. Even if I had to, I would!
And that is only one of the only reasons.

Thank you for this and your ability to reason out the situation and comments about it and about protestors, anti and pro war.... and, for  your courage for speaking out.

Sincerely, Pat  
    

  


..without surrender, be on good terms with all persons..
        "Desiderata"
  

[This message has been edited by regards2you (03-27-2003 10:25 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
4 posted 2003-03-27 10:34 PM


Eddie, you present some excellent thoughts there. Why wasn't it done before....now THERE is an excellent question indeed because it should have been. Sadly it had to be combined with another tragedy for it to reach such a level of importance. After the events of 9/11 we learned more about the middle East than we had ever known before....I'm referring to the average man on the street, of course. We learned facts of Afghanistan, the taliban (I don't think one person in 500 would have been able to define 'taliban' before 9/11), the topography, the history and make-up of the country....we learned more of Iraq - the facts behind Hussein gassing his own people, the Kurdish museum filled with evidences of the atrocities committed on them by the regime, and the history of his reign of power along with his sons. And I must say in all fairness now that, if it weren't for the search of WMD, we still would have done nothing, to our shame. That's why I said in my piece that the reason for us being there finally doesn't matter to me....the fact that we ARE there and that the Iraqui people will benefit is what I consider important.

    What about all of the other countries? Fair question. Obviously, we can't take them all on at the same time. I think this may be a beginning, though. Perhaps this will put enough lead in the UN's pencil that they may take a different view of cruel dictatorships and take some action. It at least is serving some notice to the world and it appears to me, by the comments from North Korea, they may be wondering if they are next since they fit the same criteria. The United States and the few allies willing to lend military support can't do it all....it's going to take a concentrated effort on the part of many countries. As I say, hopefully this is a beginning of the end of regimes that rule by torture,  murder and fear. Hey, I can hope...

You are also right to state the the proof of the pudding will be in how the Iraqui people react to the allied forces. Right now I think they are torn. First of all, they don't know if we will be successful. Iraqui television portrays the battles filled with Iraqui victories and speeches by Hussein assuring everyone the Americans are being, and will be, defeated. People are not going to stick their necks out condemning Hussein if they are not 100% sure he's out....otherwise they would be afraid of being killed after the war as traitors. Second, they do not know if the Americans and allies are coming as "occupiers". No country wants to be taken over, occupied and ruled by another country. So they wait. When Hussein is out of power and his special armies dispersed, when they have no fear of being shot, when they see that the Allied forces are there only to initiate a new Iraqui government and help rebuild the country and then they leave....then will they be free to display their true feelings and I have little doubt they will be feelings of jubilation and thanks.

"I agree fighting on the streets to stop fighting on the streets does seem a tad ludicrous."....you did good in your reply, Eddie, but this one is not worthy of you. It's not that simplistic and I know you know that. Thank you for a well-presented response, sir


...and I thank you, Tara. I know you feel the same way...

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
5 posted 2003-03-27 10:40 PM


Thank you, Pat, for such a warm and sincere reply. Yes, it is true that peace has a price and no one wants to be the generation that pays that price but sometimes that's the way the cards fall. I would also be over there if I could...I believe in the cause.
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
6 posted 2003-03-27 10:41 PM


Now, I know why I should leave the writing to cooler heads. You hae said exactly what needed to be said, and haev done it oh, so eloquently.
Now, Eddie, in an attempt to answer a couple of your questions, "Why now?", and "Why Iraq?" (to paraphrase):
I made a statement in another section of this that Negotiation + Discussion = WWII. Taking a close look at history will show that negotiating with hitler, and "discussing" things with him led to his feeling invincible, and taking more territory. Eventually, when the situation got to be too dangerous, something had to be done. The same thing has happened here. The situation got to the point where something had to be done, and- unfortunately- it had to be done this way.
As for "Why Iraq, and not the others?"... Plain and simple, most of the others weren't important enough. Bosnia was starting to unsettle many of the nations involved with NATO, so we went in there... The Panamanian Government was supporting Drug cartels, so we went in there. Rowanda is in the middle of the desert, and has no real ties with us, or our allies, and holds nothing for us... we didn't go in there. Do I agree??? Absolutely not. Do I like the selection process??? Absolutely not. Do I accept it??? Unfortunatley, yes. As an American, I am taught to question my government, and to demand accountability from those in my government. As a Marine, I was taught that once the high-velocity lead starts finding its way into American bodies, the time for questioning is over. Right, or wrong, like it or not, I have got to give my support to my President, and to my Brothers and Sisters in the heat.
Everyone keeps saying that they don't want another VietNam, so they sit in the street, and march, and protest everything about the troops and the conflicts and the governments. They seem to have forgotten that it was the protestors that influenced governmental policy to the point where they refused to do ANYTHING... including winning, and that led to thousands of Americas brightest sacrificing beyond the point they should have been. If you don't agree, then G-d Bless you and your right to feel that way, just please do it in a PEACEFUL way, and support those doing the bleeding. (that last part wasn't for you, Eddie, but for the others who are protesting violence with hatred and violence).

Imagine all the People living life in peace...
John Lennon

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
7 posted 2003-03-27 10:45 PM


My thanks, Ringo. Very seldom am I accused of having a "cool" head

I like your assessment also...

Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286
United States
8 posted 2003-03-27 11:38 PM


Yup, right here in Phoenix too! The protestors attack and the supporters are peaceful. Hmmm...

You said it well. Never will international affairs be solved with simplistic logic. ALL of us want peace. But peace at any cost isn't peace at all.

If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again.

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
9 posted 2003-03-28 03:53 AM


Balladeer-

'As I say, hopefully this is a beginning of the end of regimes that rule by torture,  murder and fear. '

But not shock and awe? Tongue-in-cheek, it's a cheap shot and I know it... but I personally am having some serious problems with the administration's word choices when it comes to foreign policy. However... that's a totally different topic- so back to the top:

Yeah, people who are protesting violence becoming violent is the most debilitating thing they could possibly do to themselves, and especially to their credibility. It's like having a "Kill in the name of Gandhi" club or something... essentially, they say "violent means don't work" but... wait a minute. Can't have your cake and eat it too... you can argue that it works, that it doesn't work... even that it's situational... but I don't think a peace rally can be rationalized as a proper place to exert violence...

'Hundreds of thousands of people - normal, average, man-on-the-street people have been tortured, raped and murdered by the regime running the country. THAT should be enough reason....'

I don't know about that... and it's not because I don't care about the suffering of others. I mean... it's not like the American government has ever mistreated its own people, right? We never, say, tried to exterminate Native Americans because they were inconvenient to our control of the continent...nor did we import huge numbers of people to be enslaved on our shores... nor did we ever racially profile people of a certain nationality into internment camps... nor do millions go without health insurance here.

I'm not trying to compare Bush to Saddam... at least not in the "Bush is the real terrorist" sense. However, America hardly has a spotless background when it comes to human/civil rights. No nation does. While we're better than a great many... I don't see what gives us the moral authority to go in based on human suffering... when all kinds of American corporations (*cough* Nike) employ sweatshop workers for pittance wages, thus contributing to worldwide poverty and engaging in active exploitation- when's the last time we boycotted tennis shoes? Why do we drive everywhere and do it in style when that causes us to be far too dependent on oil from the middle east?

'People who wouldn't stand by to watch a child being beaten to death in front of their eyes look at the atrocities committed there, mumble "It's not my problem" and walk away. No, they don't walk away...they scream profanities at the people trying to stop it!'

I very strongly disapprove of American hostility toward our own troops. While I personally have serious qualms with militaries in general, and the ways that they function, those soldiers are people, and it really makes me angry that some people are supposedly all for human rights, and kindness, and peace- yet they can't cage their own hatred long enough to have kindness for someone who probably isn't in some gleeful state about the prospect of killing... or being killed.

That said... I think you are twisting meanings here. You believe that this war is going to be fought to save children and citizens (and I agree that it will, but I think that's a biproduct more than anyting else), but your argument that people are protesting saving children because they don't care until they get a chance to be angry at their own government (that's how I'm interpreting what you said) really doesn't hold weight with me. While that might be an element (how many of them check the labels on things they buy to help combat oppressive globalization trends? How many of them help out at soup kitchens?) I think what most people are protesting is the actuality of a pre-emptive war, and also the method with which we are doing it. (On the former, my feelings are mixed; on the latter, I feel very strongly that we were much too headstrong).

'If the supporters are for life, what are the protestors for?'

You make it sound like the abortion debate.

I'm really much too tired to address the rest of this tonight... but I'll hopefully be back to check on this thread.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
10 posted 2003-03-28 09:22 AM


LOL! Yes, hush, it is like the abortion debate...you know, the one where protestors kill doctors to protest killing. I agree with you completely.

I expected reactions like yours and I don't not say that in a critical or sarcastic sense. After all, you can't call someone unfeeling to the slaughter of innocents without expecting rebuttal. Your method is predictable, too. The best defense is a good offense. Point the finger in another direction.

"We never, say, tried to exterminate Native Americans because they were inconvenient to our control of the continent...nor did we import huge numbers of people to be enslaved on our shores... nor did we ever racially profile people of a certain nationality into internment camps... nor do millions go without health insurance here. "

"America hardly has a spotless background when it comes to human/civil rights"

"I don't see what gives us the moral authority to go in based on human suffering... when all kinds of American corporations (*cough* Nike) employ sweatshop workers for pittance wages, thus contributing to worldwide poverty and engaging in active exploitation-"

"Clinton wasn't so bad because Thomas Jefferson slept with slaves.."

Oops! The last one is mine

As I said in my piece, one can come up with all kinds of reasonings to justify their thoughts and give excuses to hide the fact that they are against stopping wholesale murder.

I'm afraid you misunderstood the point of my post. I did not put it there to hail the American government as knight-in-shining-armor saviors of the world out to rid the earth of evil-doers. Certainly, over the course of history American governments have done sleazy things. Their treatment of the American Indian is inexcusable, for example. So what? That has nothing to do with what I am saying at all. While I am not debating whether or not the government should have gone there, I think many lives will be saved from our being there and the Iraqi people will come out of it with a better chance of living a decent life because of it. Do I expect everyone to agree with me? Of course not. I only ask that those who do not, state your own views but do not attack us for stating ours.

"You believe that this war is going to be fought to save children and citizens (and I agree that it will, but I think that's a biproduct more than anyting else)"

SO WHAT??? Does that diminish its importance, hush, that it's a bi-product? You make it sound like it loses important because it's not the stated main objective.

"I don't see what gives us the moral authority to go in based on human suffering."

I find that to be a sad statement. Being part of the human race grants us moral authority. One needs a moral authority to help the unfortunate unable to help themselves? One needs a license for decency? You don't need a "moral authority". You simply need enough decency and caring to want to stamp out genocide and murder of innocent people. What you are supposed to be as a human being should make you feel that way. By all means, sit back and say "Why us? Let someone else do it or just let it continue.." We can get away with that for a lifetime. Why us? Because we can...and because it is right.

So then the protestors will say in self-defense, not to be called unfeeling to the plight of the Iraqi, well we meant we don't believe there should have been war NOW. After over a decade of disregard to UN demands, after a decade of Hussein doing the Baghdad two-step and pulling politician strings like puppets, after 12 years of hundreds of thousands of children dying of hunger and atrocities, they still think we can negotiate with time. No, they don't. They simply want it delayed. Ayn Rand once made the statement to a reporter, "Delay is the past tense of denial." When he asked her what she meant she said, I'll tell you later - and walked away. That is the delay they want. Let it be someone else's problem.

No, I don't think we went there only to free the Iraqi people. It would have been music to my ears to have heard a President say, "We are going to Iraq to save hundreds of thousands of lives and free an entire nation from the torture, murder and atrocities committed on it's citizens by an insane dictator." That was not going to happen. Imagine the protesting then!!! I do believe, however, that this "byproduct" you refer to is more than enough reason to be proud to be there. That's my own point of view. For those who feel that it is not worth our getting involved to help a nation in that state, no problem. I don't expect everyone to be as adamant about human freedom as I may be. I just happened to have been in countries where fear was the predominant feature in young faces who would never have the opportunity to grow up as I did.

For the protestors who scream "Bush is worse than Hussein" and such other brainless slogans I have nothing to say. For the rest, protest to your heart's content but allow others to state their views also....why is that so hard for you to do?

It is said we are there to find the weapons Hussein has hidden but they didn't name it "Operation Find the Weapons". They named it "Iraqi Freedom" and that will be the accomplishment that counts, I believe.

So check labels, help out in soup kitchens and boycott tennis shoes, whatever it is that makes you feel you're doing your part....and support our soldiers who are risking their lives for the freedom of others...

suthern
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Seraphic
since 1999-07-29
Posts 20723
Louisiana
11 posted 2003-03-28 11:05 AM


If Kit had a curtsy smiley, I'd be using it here, Bal. *S*

Lacking that...



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

12 posted 2003-03-28 11:25 AM


I couldn't agree more, Michael.  

Below is a link to send our "Thanks" to the brave men and women putting their lives on the line for us and the rest of the free world. I hope everyone here takes a few seconds (literally) to sign it, no matter their personal philosophy regarding war.
http://www.defendamerica.mil/nmam.html

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
13 posted 2003-03-28 01:40 PM


Thanks for the link, Denise, and the thumb, Suthern gal

I would really like to continue this but I'm leaving within the hour for the week-end and won't be able to respond to any further comments until I return....it's gonna be a no-computer weekend! I wouldn't want anyone to think I was ignoring their imput.

Have a great week-end, everyone

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

14 posted 2003-03-28 01:44 PM


Have a great weekend, Michael. It is hard for me though to imagine you computerless for that length of time! I'm sure you'll muddle through somehow!
rosepetals25
Deputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Elite
since 2000-05-31
Posts 3076
PA
15 posted 2003-03-28 03:07 PM


No computer for the whole weekend I hope the withdraw doesn't get to bad Just remember to breath and you should be ok!

Have a good weekend

Tara

"in my field of paper flowers
and candy clouds of lullaby
i lie inside myself for hours
and watch my purple sky fly over me"
- Imaginary by Evanes

KristieSue
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-01-31
Posts 1460
PA, US
16 posted 2003-03-28 03:18 PM


M'deer...I couldn't have spoken my feelings more eloquently.

Failure isn't failure if a lesson from it is learned ~ KS

bsquirrel
Deputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-01-03
Posts 7855

17 posted 2003-03-28 07:20 PM


Ah, I remember when freedom of speech was a valued American right. Actually, no I don't.

And besides, there's a better way to protest Bush -- vote him out of office by hitting the polls come 2004.

Let the bells of freedom ring.

Titia Geertman
Member Ascendant
since 2001-05-07
Posts 5182
Netherlands
18 posted 2003-03-28 09:05 PM



AMEN Deer, I've nothing to add, you said it all clear and loud and I agree completely!

How long should we have waited for Saddam turning into a good guy, forever?
How long does one argue with an unwilling child. I know lots of people argue forever and still loose in the end.

Bravo and I hope you've had a nice weekend.

Titia

Like scattered leaves...my words will flow

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
19 posted 2003-03-29 02:58 AM


Balladeer-

'I'm afraid you misunderstood the point of my post. I did not put it there to hail the American government as knight-in-shining-armor saviors of the world out to rid the earth of evil-doers.'

I know you didn't mean to imply that... however, I'm not so sure about our administration. There's a reason this is called 'Iraqi Freedom'... and I think it has a hell of a lot more to do with politics and tugging on people's emotions (actually, I'd call it yanking) to get them to support this war. To clarify- Supposedly, our premise for being there is to find WMD. So why isn't it called "Operation disarm Iraq?" Because it's much more effective to use loaded terms like "freedom." I mean, who's against freedom, right?

'Their treatment of the American Indian is inexcusable, for example. So what? That has nothing to do with what I am saying at all.'

I think it does. What would have happenned if another nation intervened in our treatment of the Native Americans? Would they have had the right? Should somebody have stopped us? Taken out our obviously cruel government and put their own form of government in its place?

'"You believe that this war is going to be fought to save children and citizens (and I agree that it will, but I think that's a biproduct more than anyting else)"

SO WHAT??? Does that diminish its importance, hush, that it's a bi-product? You make it sound like it loses important because it's not the stated main objective.'

I think it's being used to distract from the main issues at hand. Before the war started, basically all I heard was "short war" and "disarm Saddam"... but now it's all "humanitarian aid" this and "liberation" that. I think humanitarian aid and individual freedoms of all people are very important... which is why it angers me that those ideas have been worked into the rhetoric as  a distraction so that it's harder to protest what's going on. I feel like it's being used as a loophole... a "Well it's okay to do this because we're really liberating people..." response to any criticism- and that's unfair to anybody seeking the truth.

'You simply need enough decency and caring to want to stamp out genocide and murder of innocent people. What you are supposed to be as a human being should make you feel that way. By all means, sit back and say "Why us? Let someone else do it or just let it continue.." We can get away with that for a lifetime. Why us? Because we can...and because it is right.'

My moral authority qualm here is based on the issue I brought up eariler. What gives us (as America) the moral authority to intervene based on human rights when we allow, and even foster exploitation overseas by our own corporations? Just as the protestors can't have their cake and eat it too, an economically controlled democracy can't plead human rights when it serves their purpose (be it economic, strategic, or moral) and ignore them when it suits American business.

It's not so much a "why us" issue with me as a "why them" issue. Why Iraq? Why now? It certainly isn't all about human rights, or we'd be taking more measures across the board in areas of our influence (both within the country and without) to improve situations for people worldwide. It can't just be about WMD, because North Korea is suspected to have a more dangerous stockpile than Iraq. So naturally, I become suspicious that those two reasons for going in aren't the whole story- there are missing pieces of the pie.

'So then the protestors will say in self-defense, not to be called unfeeling to the plight of the Iraqi, well we meant we don't believe there should have been war NOW.'

I won't say that. It's not the now that I have a problem with- it's the how. It's the fact that we're riding in there touting democracy... and yet, we feel that we don't have to listen (and *gasp* maybe even concede to) the majority because we have moral conviction, personal interests, and, most of all, strength, on our side. What kind of democracy is that?

[This message has been edited by hush (03-29-2003 03:02 AM).]

Crazy Eddie
Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178

20 posted 2003-03-29 01:15 PM



There are a lot of useful points being made, so many that it’s going to take me a while to touch base on all of them but I believe it’s time well spent. Not in an attempt to try and convince anyone that I’m right or to prove they’re wrong, I’d be a fool to try either, but it’s important that opinions on both sides are heard and that people at least attempt to keep a dialogue going. If that doesn’t happen the polarisation of differing opinions amongst us could pose a greater threat to democracy than either Iraq or terrorism could ever hope to muster.

Ringo,

quote:
Taking a close look at history will show that negotiating with hitler, and "discussing" things with him led to his feeling invincible, and taking more territory. Eventually, when the situation got to be too dangerous, something had to be done. The same thing has happened here. The situation got to the point where something had to be done, and- unfortunately- it had to be done this way.


History can be read in many ways and although WWII isn’t an ideal comparison with what’s happening in Iraq the events leading up to it certainly bear scrutiny. There is a generally held belief that the appeasement of Hitler was a resounding failure, that it served no useful purpose. With regard to averting the war this can’t be denied but as a method of coalescing opposition against Hitler appeasement was an unparalleled success. You have to appreciate that WWII came at a time when the horror of WWI was still fresh in the memory of those involved. Can you imagine the numbers of protesters that would have resulted if War had been declared without the consensus that it was unavoidable that the failure of appeasement allowed?

This is where the parallel with Iraq and the events leading up to the current conflict are most vivid, America with the new found realisation that terrorism posed a serious threat to it’s security decided to confront that threat. What America and the coalition failed to do was convince people that there was no other option, they allowed room for doubt and guaranteed the paradox of protesters who are inherently opposed to the Iraqi regime but equally opposed to military action at this time.

WWII would almost certainly have happened with or without appeasement, in my opinion the probability is that even with an extended attempt at diplomacy the Iraqi war was unavoidable too. What an extended attempt at diplomacy could have offered however is an almost universal acceptance that this was the only option.

With regard to Vietnam you seem to be inferring that the protesters tied the hands of the government of the day, that if left to get on with it the American military would have achieved a decisive victory, I don’t think that’s true. America was bogged down in a guerrilla war fighting a people and not an army, the topography and necessary tactics dictated that America could never win a total victory, it just took time for people to realise that fact. The protesters didn’t stop the war or stymie the government until it was ineffectual, in the end the protesters were just a mirror of that realisation.

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

21 posted 2003-03-29 07:00 PM


History can be reread, reinterpreted, and rewritten to rationalize any position.  I have to admit the logic of appeasement to Hitler was a good thing because it prevented war protesters is one I am going to have to chew on for awhile.  I wonder how many of the millions the Jews who were exterminated along with the millions of civilian and military casualities would have preferred to have war protestors over death and maiming?

Jason Lyle
Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438
With my darkling
22 posted 2003-03-29 08:22 PM


Let me add a short but base point to the discussion, I will discard all philosophy.If you support or develop WMD, or terrorist.If you rule your country in tryancy, If your people starve to death while you build palaces.We will dismantle you, kill you, destroy you.If you seek allies in war, we will destroy them.If you seek justification, we will give it to you after the fact.And if you ever commit the crimes you did on 9/11, we will punish your country for generations.peace comes to you in a bigger bomb, test this truth.(not so short I guess)
Jason

Crazy Eddie
Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178

23 posted 2003-03-29 08:59 PM



Tim

The German Jews would undoubtedly have preferred earlier action even if that caused doubt and division among the people regarding the necessity to go to war. I’m sure they’d have preferred intervention in 1933 when the first concentration camp was opened and if knowledge of its construction and use was general known I’d like to think they may have got their wish. My point though was that appeasement by Chamberlain in 38 amalgamated the feeling that everything that could be done to avoid war had been done. So much so that war when it came in 39 was regretted but accepted en-masse as the only remaining option.

Without the general acceptance among the populace and the resolve and determination that it created regarding the war against Germany the outcome could have been a lot different.

Your point, and a very valid one, is that in the twelve months while Chamberlain was trying to avoid war people were suffering and a war in 38 could possibly have reduced that suffering. I believe that without appeasement and the consensus that it created it is doubtful that a war would have been declared before the invasion of France in 1940 if at all.

Crazy Eddie
Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178

24 posted 2003-03-29 09:07 PM


Jason,

quote:
If you support or develop WMD, or terrorist.If you rule your country in tryancy, If your people starve to death while you build palaces.


Is that some of the above or all of the above?

If it’s some then Great Britain develops WMD along with a whole raft of other countries, are you suggesting bombing London? If it’s all then it would have been easier to say “if you are Iraq” because it’s the only country I can think of that all the above applies to.

[This message has been edited by Crazy Eddie (03-29-2003 09:08 PM).]

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

25 posted 2003-03-29 10:39 PM


and you miss my point.  Had Hitler been stopped when it was clear he was in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, there would not have been a war, or if there had been a war, Germany would not have had a significant military force. The inaction did not merely delay the war, it allowed the magnitude of the war to be compounded exponentially. Regional conflict versus the Holocaust and world war; that is what history and logic would indictate. Sorry, just don't see any basis at all for your position except as a rationalization to a present situation that is unrelated.  To say Chamberlain's appeasement policy had a positive influence on the outcome of WWII is a bit much for me.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
26 posted 2003-03-29 10:43 PM


Well, well, well...It's great to be back and great to see all of the participation and sharing of views on this topic. Thanks to you all...


hush says...
"What would have happenned if another nation intervened in our treatment of the Native Americans? Would they have had the right? Should somebody have stopped us? Taken out our obviously cruel government and put their own form of government in its place?"

Although this may come as a shock to you, my answer to you hypothetical question would be yes. Any other democratic country would have had the moral authority to invade us and replace our government with other American leaders not advocating the slaughter and imprisonment of the American Indian. No one had the power to do it but they would have had the right because we were wrong.

I have to smile because you seem almost miffed that Bush is using decency as a reason thereby making the protestor's job harder...what an evil thing to do!

bsquirrel said it all...the best revenge is to vote Bush out of office if you are against him and his decisions. I have little doubt he mentally kissed his chances of re-election goodbye by initiating this action. In my book that gives more validity to his convictions...

To all of the questions presented in this thread there is one simple answer......time will tell.



Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

27 posted 2003-03-29 10:48 PM


and I do apologize for getting off the topic of the thread.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
28 posted 2003-03-29 11:17 PM


Tim, you did get off the topic but you touch on important similarities which I agree with. Thank you for the input...
Auguste
Deputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-02-16
Posts 3953
By the sea
29 posted 2003-03-29 11:35 PM


If I were younger I'd also be over there, because I feel the cause is just and want to see the Iraqi people finally come to understand what freedom, not hunger, torture, rape and execution, feels like.  

I'm very proud of our "volunteer" men and women in uniform, their courage, their sacrifice, their willingness to risk all to help bring about a safer world and freedom to a long suffering people.  

As we sit back in our recliners watching cable tv, sucking on a beer, and ordering pizza in air conditioned homes, it's easy to take freedom for granted and also easy to not remember the great sacrifices that have been made to ensure some of us can be couch potatoes.  Freedom carries a great price tag.  My father knew that, as did my brother.  

I stand behind our president, our nation and our troops that are in harm's way and refuse to de-moralize them when they are giving they're all to help a hurting people and helping to keep our great country safe.  God bless them!  

    

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
30 posted 2003-03-30 08:38 AM


I think there are many issues that can and should be discussed about some of the early blunders of the Bush admin on the diplomatic front -- realizing that the end result is the same -- war -- it's just a matter of who would have been on board and who wouldn't.

Looking at the 30% in the U.S. who still do not favor this action (at this time) it's pretty easy to see that it is a diverse group where about half the people are using this opportunity to lash out at the Bush administration because they don't care about anything excepting politics -- the other half are genuine objectors who have different reasons for not supporting war in general.

Still, I think there are two questions that can be asked of any war protestor -- abroad or at home -- those are -- who do you want to win--the Coalition or Saddam Hussein? And the second question is -- in that light, and given that your actions (although your right to free speech isn't and shouldn't be abrogated) aren't going to change the situation -- in what manner should you conduct yourself?

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (03-30-2003 08:42 AM).]

Crazy Eddie
Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178

31 posted 2003-03-30 10:21 AM


Tim,

I don’t think you need to apologise either my view is that the actions leading to WWII and the actions that led to this current conflict are relevant in that their comparison serves to highlight the consensus of one and the divisions created in the other.

And I don’t believe I missed your point, I simply don’t agree with it.

I do agree however that if, based upon what we know now, Hitler had been stopped in 1935 by all the allied nations, including America, standing together the war may have been avoided. My disagreement is that I don’t believe that ever could have happened given the circumstances at the time.

In 1935 when it was clear that Hitler was in breach of the treaty of Versailles we could have tried diplomacy (which we in fact did) or we could have gone to war to force him to comply. My assertion is that at that time war was far from an obvious choice, America itself didn’t see the necessity. This isn’t surprising when you realise that the “breach” in question was that Germany had re-introduced conscription in Germany, hardly a clear reason to go to war. Diplomacy at this point led to appeasement in 1938 and the failure of appeasement in 1939 created the consensus that allowed war to take place.

If you equate protesters with a lack of consensus or division of views then military action in 1935 would have had them in spades not to mention that with the benefit of hindsight the allies didn’t have the military muscle to forcefully stop Germany in 1935. If war had been undertaken at that time in all probability we would have been defeated.

If we draw a parallel with what occurred before the conflict in Iraq the coalition forces have started military action in 1935 so to speak, without a clear consensus and with obvious divisions of opinion. Using WWII as a template the natural conclusion (which is I believe your point) is that this could ultimately save lives and suffering. History, or the “wait and see method” suggested by several people will prove this either way. My assertion is that just as diplomacy through appeasement led to consensus in 1939 a continuation of diplomacy to achieve a consensus in 2003 would have been preferable.

LR,

quote:
I think there are many issues that can and should be discussed about some of the early blunders of the Bush admin on the diplomatic front -- realizing that the end result is the same -- war -- it's just a matter of who would have been on board and who wouldn't.


I totally agree with this, in fact I wish I could have stated it so succinctly.

Answering your two questions isn’t as easy as it at first seems but I’ll give it a go.

“who do you want to win--the Coalition or Saddam Hussein?”

Easy - the coalition

“given that your actions (although your right to free speech isn't and shouldn't be abrogated) aren't going to change the situation -- in what manner should you conduct yourself? “

Hmm… You should support the war but:

Your question is loaded, if I believed my actions aren’t going to change the situation the answer is obvious but the protesters just as obviously don’t believe that by their actions they can’t change the situation.

[This message has been edited by Crazy Eddie (03-30-2003 10:22 AM).]

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
32 posted 2003-03-30 09:35 PM


Eddie,
I appreciate you viewpoints on my post... and the explaination you gave on WWII is definately something to mull over. I am, however, going to have to slightly disagree with you on the VietNam topic...
As I grew up surrounded by VN vets (dad was in the Marines, and as a result, my best friends growing up were mostly VN vets), and in an attempt to understand my father, I did extensive research on that particular time in history, and it all boiled down to... well, it's never one thing... one of the main reasons for the loss of the conflict was the lack of action on the part of the politicians. The US went in there and was starting to do damage (reference: Operation Starlight, the first major campaign involving the Marines) until the war became unpopular. Then, usually right around election time, Johnson would de-escalate the war (as did Nixon during his time), and then get back to it. NOT ONE major campaign was lost by the Americans, however, by not letting the fighting men do their jobs, it caused more damage.
Other causes were Johnson's micromanaging the war (including deciding himself what the primary targets were) and then Robert macnamara trying to bring the war in under budget... And it goes on.
However, getting back to my original point...
Because the politicians were so worried about keeping their jobs and staying in power, they bowed down to the protestors, and tried to play both ends of the war... The saying is that you can't serve two masters, and they proved the point quite admirable (unfortunately). If the protestors in the 60's would have stood beside the fighting man, and the government, Johnson would have still been the wrong President for the war, however, the war would have been fought properly and would have possibly had a different outcome.
The only good thing I can see coming out of that entire time was the music.
Those are just my thoughts.

Imagine all the People living life in peace...
John Lennon

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

33 posted 2003-03-30 10:04 PM


I cannot change history so easily to support my moral positions.  Whether it was passive or active appeasement, (both occured for many, many years, and obviously not only by Chamberlain), the appeasement allowed for the creation of Hitler's armies and ultimately the slaughter of millions of people.  Hitler violated so many agreements and parts of the Versailles Treaty, it would be difficult to enumerate them all. Hitler could well have been stopped without a significant war had any number of nations decided to stand up to him by enforcing any number of provisions of Versailles.  I well understand your position, I just totally fail to see any support for it whatsover in historical perspective.  I have no idea of what the outcome of today's war will be, but it is a fact what the results of appeasement to Hitler were.  
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
34 posted 2003-03-30 10:22 PM


quote:
I cannot change history so easily to support my moral positions.


Um, who changed history?

The overriding assumption in every post so far, Tim, is that everybody saw Hitler as the threat he did eventually become.

Call people stupid, but many saw Hitler as a bulwark against what they considered the greater threat to the status quo:

the Soviet Union.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Or were they right, just at the wrong time?


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
35 posted 2003-03-30 10:54 PM


Ringo,

I agree with your assessment, more or less, of Vietnam.

But what would a victory in Vietnam have looked like? A united Vietnam under a pro-American regime with American troops on the border of China?

Again?

  

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
36 posted 2003-03-30 11:11 PM


You brought up an interesting question... What would it look like?? I was but a simple Marine and am the least qualified person to guess... however, since you haev me thinking about it:
My guess is that it would have initially been a very tense situation, with the timesand the tension between our nations, even after Nixon's visits. Eventually, I feel it would have moved towards the situation we had in Europe where we had a pro-American government with American troops along the East Bloc borders. Still some tense moments, and definate distrust, without the physical barriers with which to maintain security.
To be completely honest about that situation, I think it would have probably been more tense than Germany, due to the fact that South VietNam (and the re-unified VietNam by default) had one of the most corrupt governments in the world at the time, something that the change mid war did nothing to alleviate. Nothing would have changed, as the corruption would have been on the "winning" side of the process.
This "what if" scenario actually has me wondering... I think I'll call over a few friends who have experience and some expertiese (sp) in this area (global politics) and tomorrow, we'll figure it out over a case of beer and a rack of bbq ribs.

Imagine all the People living life in peace...
John Lennon

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

37 posted 2003-03-31 12:05 PM


I can't say I am qualified to call anyone stupid, but you have raised an entirely different issue.  That is the point. In 20/20 hindsight, appeasement was not the proper solution.  Governments at the time had reason to fear the Soviet Union.  Chamberlain feared war with anyone. The United States was in an isolationist frame of mind. But that is not point being referenced.  The point being made, at least as far I could ascertain, was that appeasement allowed for a consensus building of nations against Hitler which was a positive.  I do not condemn the motivations of those at the time, just indicating that their decisions did not bode the world well. If it is your opinion that appeasement in retrospect was a positive as it coelesced the forces against Hitler, then it was a positive foreign policy.  I have to respectfully disagree and yes, I do feel the historical facts indicate quite clearly that appeasement as a policy failed quite miserably.  I readily acknowledge this is a 20/20 hindsight observation.  
Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

38 posted 2003-03-31 12:33 PM


and I hope in the future that hindsight will not show present policies failed so badly.  And I have no reason to doubt the good intentions and honor of the men making the decisions today as those who made the decisions pre-WWII, I just pray for not so disastorous results.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
39 posted 2003-03-31 12:54 PM



Well said hush and well said squirrel, and of course great points by all. I won't chime in because as a canadian I'd probably just get shot down lol

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
40 posted 2003-03-31 06:13 AM


Aenimal, one point:  Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and can offer them up in any conversation.  No one gets shot down unless they cross the guidelines for respect and tolerance as set forth by Ron.  This has been a good discussion across the board - I would like to see it continue.
KristieSue
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-01-31
Posts 1460
PA, US
41 posted 2003-03-31 07:28 AM


and...(Not speaking for myself)Just because the President makes choices for this country, does not mean that he speaks for all of the people here.  Just because Canada's government made certain decisions does not mean that the entire country feels that way.  The more people that chime in (civally (sp?) the more interesting it is.

so Aenimal????......

Failure isn't failure if a lesson from it is learned ~ KS

Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622
Ala bam a
42 posted 2003-03-31 07:37 AM


Yep....Balladeer had to leave..he was heading to Panama City to dance on stage at the MTV/Spring break thinggie.....
hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
43 posted 2003-03-31 11:54 AM


Balladeer-

'I have to smile because you seem almost miffed that Bush is using decency as a reason thereby making the protestor's job harder...what an evil thing to do!'

But is decency a reason to go in, or an excuse? I'd be interested in what you have to say about the rest of my previous post, if you have a chance.

Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622
Ala bam a
44 posted 2003-03-31 12:48 PM


I do find it interesting that the protestors are protesting Bush, and this war though...The coalition has killed less people, fed more people, then Saddam has...but, I guess he has that right?...(in his country, he and only he has that right though)....I think the protestors must be correct however, everyone should turn their heads when these kind of crimes are happening to humanity, daily...hourly...and the U.S. and the rest of us "do-gooders" should just mind our own business and let them just kill everyone under Saddam's orders...after all, diplomacy was doing wonders...don't you think?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
45 posted 2003-03-31 02:28 PM


Okay, hush. I didn't see a lot that needed to be commented on but I'll give you my thoughts...

"I think it's (saving the Iraqi people) being used to distract from the main issues at hand..."

...you don't say what the "main issues" you refer to..are.

"My moral authority qualm here is based on the issue I brought up eariler. What gives us (as America) the moral authority to intervene based on human rights when we allow, and even foster exploitation overseas by our own corporations? Just as the protestors can't have their cake and eat it too, an economically controlled democracy can't plead human rights when it serves their purpose (be it economic, strategic, or moral) and ignore them when it suits American business. "

Which overseas exploitation by our corporations are you referring to? Where are we ignoring human rights when it suits our purpose? It's very easy to pen sentences like that to sound good but they are worthless without examples. Besides, if I agree (which I have) that there are shameful things in America's past, does that mean we are excluded from moral actions? Because Italy had Mussolini does that mean they will never be recognized as being able to able act in a moral way? We can say that about every country or government in the world. I think it's silly to say that, since we mistreated the Indians over a century ago, we can't take any action we call moralistic because of it. Yet, by your examples, that is what you are saying.

"and yet, we feel that we don't have to listen (and *gasp* maybe even concede to) the majority because we have moral conviction, personal interests, and, most of all, strength, on our side. What kind of democracy is that? "

hush, you feel that the majority should rule simply because it is the majority? If you have an important decision to make regarding your family or life do you take a poll of the neighborhood and go by whatever they say simply based on their numbers? I hope not! You are stating one of the reasons why I hold our current administration in such high regards. Against world-wide protest they are holding their position and are not being influenced not to continue doing what they feel is right. That's what gets my respect....not someone who would bow down to majority's will if they felt it less of a hassle to do so. No, it's not democratic. America was not created as a democratic country. It was created to be a republic. A true democracy would never work in any country. Since there is always a large difference in percentage between the haves and have-nots, in a true democracy (one person, one vote) the have-nots would always be voting against the haves...and winning. It would be chaotic. We have democracy to the point where we elect our representatives and leaders. After that we are represented by the leaders we have placed there. We have given them the power to act in our bests interests. We don't get to raise our hands and vote on every decision that comes up. Is that the democracy you want? I doubt it..

If you have any facts, I'll be glad to hear them. SImply to have an "uneasy feeling" or "suspicion that there are hidden agendas" is not enough. We ALL have uneasy feelings. Nobody likes war. I hate to see some of the things I am seeing on tv and I would like for everything to be happy and peaceful with no killings and people's rights being respected. Was it like that before the war began? Nope, but it was easier for us to ignore then, wasn't it?

Yes, you began your other response with a cheap shot and then followed with another. The interesting thing is that, even acknowledging that it WAS a cheap shot, you posted it anyway. Ask yourself why....


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
46 posted 2003-03-31 05:50 PM


quote:
and I hope in the future that hindsight will not show present policies failed so badly.  And I have no reason to doubt the good intentions and honor of the men making the decisions today as those who made the decisions pre-WWII, I just pray for not so disastorous results.


I agree. If you put me in a foxhole, I pray as well.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
47 posted 2003-03-31 07:12 PM


Michael,

quote:
Where are we ignoring human rights when it suits our purpose?


Are you kidding?

Do you want a list?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
48 posted 2003-03-31 07:42 PM


Forget the list -- let's just say...

CHINA!!!!!!!!!

This whole thing about morality shows the entire failing of the Bush admin's diplomatic front.... and why there were some people in America who were worried about electing someone with his -- er -- language skills....

The axis of evil is why he couldn't sell this war abroad.

If he'd focused on the word 'danger' instead of 'evil' we'd be looking at an entirely different planet today.

Danger people can understand.

Evil -- is just too nebulous.

And then they remember words like 'crusade'.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
49 posted 2003-03-31 07:43 PM


No spitting contest with you today, Brad...sorry. I'm aware of your views. I have little doubt you can find human rights violations in anything the government does...I'll pass.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
50 posted 2003-03-31 07:48 PM


Almost forgot -- if we're going to play the what if game with the Nam football -- we have to ask the converse as well....

What would the Pacific Rim look like if we hadn't gone in at all?  eh?

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
51 posted 2003-03-31 08:19 PM


quote:
No spitting contest with you today, Brad...sorry. I'm aware of your views. I have little doubt you can find human rights violations in anything the government does...I'll pass.


So much for believing in facts.

It must be nice to argue with strawmen.


Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
52 posted 2003-03-31 08:30 PM


Michael,
Although I am about as Pro-Conflict/Troops/Administration as it is possible to get, I do have to mention one glaring moment in recent events where the United States government has "overlooked" human rights violations when it didn't serve them to see... In Rowanda. There was genocide being committed wholesale, and we as Americans did absolutely nothing. Rowanda haas nothing for us, and there were no allies, or national interests to give us any reasons to get involved. I am not slamming the American Government, as the entire world pretty much left them to their own devices.
I understand that this has nothing, really, to do with the current situation in the Middle East. I just wanted to point out one (besides China) instance tht you had asked for.

Imagine all the People living life in peace...
John Lennon

Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286
United States
53 posted 2003-03-31 08:43 PM


It ain't easy being a super power...

I find it impossible to run a business for 80 people without significant criticism. Little wonder trying to make decisions on behalf of 100's of millions creates dispute. But if any one of us ran the country there'd be even more criticism.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
54 posted 2003-03-31 09:42 PM


Ringo, I certainly agree with that. Hush's comment was our ignoring human rights violations whenever it suited American companies. I know of no American companies that benefitted our not going into Rowanda. I do remember when we tried to deliver food and aid to Africa and it led to wars and local gang bosses taking all of the foods and supplies for themselves. I also remember thousands of Africans starving to death daily while our trucks filled with food sat there with the government refusing to allow them to be given out because the government claimed they might be unsafe for human consumption. How much unsafer could they be for people dying of hunger?

With so many countries committing human rights violations it would be an impossibility to go after all of them. I had to smile at our feisty little Texan today. He went after China, RUssia, Cambodia, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Zimbabwe, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Cuba, among others with accusations complete with examples of severe human rights violations. I have to say that I am happy to see that. For more years than I can remember nations have considered America to be an excellent target for accusations of what they themselves were guilty of while holding out their hands for American dollars. They are finding out they're up against a fellow who ain't buying that any more. We are fighting an army that executes POW's, uses women and children as shields, hides their soldiers in civilian clothes, fires indiscriminately on their own towns, shoots their own citizens in the back if they try to surrender, uses suicide bombing, fires a rocket into a shopping mall in Kuwait.....and if a civilian gets killed inadvertently by American action, national protests from these countries with horrible human rights policies want America to stand up and apologize and act ashamed. It's refreshing to see dubya call them at their own game. I just wish he hadn't taken on so many at one time!!!!

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
55 posted 2003-04-01 02:01 PM


I'm not going to get into the whole discussion but Balladeer wrote:

In one of the most poignant scenes I will ever see, an American soldier was on tv last night, passing out food and water to Iraqui children. The reporter asked him what he was thinking and that hardened soldier, with tears streaming down his face, softly said, "Now I know why I am here."  What a shame so many others others cannot share that same feeling.....

In war the first use of media is propaganda, haven't we learned this watching old newsreels or from Eisenstaedt's famous picture of the sailor kissing the nurse in times square on V-J day(He admitted it was not a candid but posed shot)?

I find it disturbing that people can't see through (or refuse to) fabrications. Whether it be the media coverage or the reasons for war itself.

What I find most disturbing watching it from next door, is the new Patriotism that has sprung up during the war. It's not patriotism that disturbs me but the label placed on anybody who disagrees with the government as unpatriotic

There is also a naive notion that while foreign governments and dictators will, the American government will not lie to its people. If history has taught anything, though it doesn't seem to have, is that ALL governments can and will tell people what they need to hear in order to get support for war.

In tapes released Lyndon B Johnson privately admitted the incident at the Gulf of Tonkin which led to the escalation of American involvment in Vietnam may not have occured at all.
"When we got through with all the firing,we concluded maybe they hadn't fired at all."

This revelation didn't stop him from pursuing the war nor did his, again private, admission that the US never had a solid "plan for victory, militarily or diplomatically."

Let me say that while I disagree with war I still believe that there should have been a little more Canadian involvment instead of the post war aide mission. But said the decision was made We've chosen to stick with the UN ruling and that is after all what the UN was made for and I don't think it should be undermined.
  
What I find offensive is some Americans attitude against Canada's position. Bashing us as an ally for not going in. Or flippantly attacking what kind of contribution we would have made anyway with our army which while, it quite frankly is in a sorry state, has some of the most well trained soldiers some of which are fighting alongside US troops as part of an excahnge program.

If I may add, we've been and still are in Afghanistan. Our world class snipers were a huge but unsung help, you may remember us helping in Korea and you maybe earning key victories in two World wars. The second of which btw didn't include American involvment for the first two years despite a ruthless dictator.
Also it might interest you to know that canadian technology is there, in armored vehicles and computer/radar technology.
Also the hovering technology on some fighter jets so hey take it easy on us, we're hockeyplayers and lovers not fighters.

But see I've lost my train of thought and it became about my own pride and patriotism and that is why I am already quite tired of this war and this narrowminded ugliness it spawns. Besides I said i wans't going to get involved in the discussion..lol

[This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-01-2003 02:09 PM).]

garysgirl
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2002-09-29
Posts 19237
Florida, USA
56 posted 2003-04-01 03:36 PM


I said when I first opened up this thread that I wasn't going to say anything, and I honestly did not intend to. I'm not going to say anything about what I think our President should have or should not have done.

What I would like to say is that I think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Maybe it's because I've been in enough disturbances in my past private life. I don't know. But, I do feel that if the people in our United States (not our allies or people from other countries), but our own country, don't try to come together more for each other and put some of their opinions aside for the time being, we are going to have real trouble over here. I'm not talking about the support of our troops, because I feel that anyone who is a citizen of the United States of America should support the men and women who are fighting for them, even if they don't.

What is happening here is only a small portion of how our country as a whole is reacting to this war. The emotions are running so high that if things don't change our own people are going to start killing each other over these issues of the war, the government, and our president. Has anyone ever thought about that some of our weaker enemies may be planning on something like this happening?

So many people are bringing other political differences they have into these issues. Just reading some of the poetry, the replies, and this thread makes me believe this even more. Has anyone just sat back and read and watched the posts that are being made? Some of them are just trying to cause an argument and discord.

I see that Ron tries to stay out of it until things get so heated that he has to step in. By the way, I have only read just a few comments on this thread, so I'm not talking to anyone in particular....just everybody in general who is wanting to argue and cause discord.

Well, I might have made some enemies myself by speaking what I think about the conduct of some of our own people. I really don't want that. My intention is just to maybe get somebody to step back and see how we as a country are acting about the whole situation. After all, we are a great country and UNITED  WE  STAND, right? And also, I am very proud to be an American.

Thank you for your time.
Ethel

[This message has been edited by garysgirl (04-03-2003 06:07 PM).]

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
57 posted 2003-04-01 03:52 PM


Ethel I hope you know I agree that troops should be supported and I do and i thinkmost people do, the issue is not the troops or turning our backs on them, but the causes and lies in war which we shouldnt turn our backs on
garysgirl
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2002-09-29
Posts 19237
Florida, USA
58 posted 2003-04-01 04:16 PM


But, Raph, even though most people are supporting the troops, the emotions are so high that more trouble is going to happen in America if our own people don't try to keep themselves under control.

As I said in my earlier reply, I haven't even read all of this thread, so I really don't know what has been said in all of the replies. I just know what is happening in my own community, and my own family. Some of the people who are anti-war feel so strongly in keeping peace that they are willing to fight  for it and for anti-violence. Now, does that make sense to you?

I heard of an incident just the other day where a man went to Wal-Mart and started  talking to a another man he didn't even know in the parking lot about the war. Before even finding out what the second man's views were about the war, our government, or our president, he started really putting them down and got violently angry. This is just one small incident of what's happening all over America.

By the way, I also think it's wrong for the people on the other side of these issues to turn to violence to try to prove their points.

[This message has been edited by garysgirl (04-03-2003 06:27 PM).]

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
59 posted 2003-04-01 05:34 PM


Aenimal, I will gove you the viewpoint that there are many who feel anti-governmental feelings are un-patriotic, however, I will also give you the opposite viewpoint that there are more of us (Americans) who feel just the opposite. By crook, or by design, most of my friends, and business associates, and most of the people I deal with on a daily basis are either active duty military, or have formerly served our nation in her armed services. With one or two exceptions, everyone I have talked to has said that they have absolutely nothing against anyone who opposes the war... PEACEFULLY. The American Constitution gives every citizen the right to peaceful assembly. More people that I can count have done their duty to help support that right. Even though I am a Conservative by thoughts, and a Republican by registration, there are many things that I disagree with concerning our President. In another post (or maybe this one) I made the statement that President Clinton was a better Domestic leader. Most of the people that I associate myself with feel that it is every citizens right, and more importantly, responsibility to question EVERYTHING their government does and to make their own decisions about what they believe. However, once America's young men and women started bleeding, it was time (in our opinions) to stop all of the bickering and stand behind the troops, and the President. We may not agree with what he is doing, or the reasons thereof, however, the bickering is counter productive, and the violence and hatred done in the name of peace is doing nothing but hindering the war effort.
Anyways, I got off the subject.
As allies, Cnanda should have backed up the Coalition, however, we do not control the Canadian government any more than we can control any other government around the world. The Canadian PM decided it was best for the citizens of his nation to stay out of this fight, and I-along with many others-respect your decisions, and your right to make them. We just ask that you make your opinions known peacefully, and that you respect our government's right to do as it feels best for it's citizens.

Imagine all the People living life in peace...
John Lennon

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
60 posted 2003-04-01 06:01 PM


Again as I've said I agree you should get behind you troops for they are putting their lives in danger. But that doesn't mean you should stop protesting this silly action.
And Ringo while the Canadian government didn't see fit to assisting in this *ahem* war, you should know that there are soldiers STILL holding fort in Afghanistan and once you pull those troops out and into Iraq who do you think will be left?
We made our decision based on and respecting the UN.
We also made our decision based upon our resources knowing that the Taliban and Afghanistan would be left to us as well as the cleanup and aide of Iraq.
We are not hirrible allies, we've been there in Somalia, Yugoslavia and the wars I mentioned before.
And listen, I think patriotism can be a beautiful thing but all things can be distorted. As for the peace protesters acting violently do you honestly think they speak for all peace protesters? I condemn their acts equally. I'm just giving counterpoints to remind people there is more to this than what the government and media would have you believe. And sometimes it takes an outside view to reveal things you may not see either? Believe in your country, have pride in yur country but don't think that government is infallible or incapable of lies.

[This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-01-2003 07:07 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
61 posted 2003-04-01 07:24 PM


Aenimal, I must take exception with you possible insinuation that the footage of the soldier was staged. It was at the tail end of a 10 minute piece showing the Iraqi children cautiously coming up to the Americans to receive the food and water handed out to them and then smiling broadly when it was in their hands. The soldier just looked at the children and told the reporter that he had cousins and children of friends that age and, the longer he talked, one could see that he was fighting back his tears until they got to be too much. If that was acting that soldier has one hell of a future in Hollywood. Had it been set up as a propoganda item, it was the perfect clip to be shown over and over like the pic of the sailor and girl kissing. Guess what? It's never been shown since...at least from anywhere I've seen. If you had seen it I don't think you would have considered it staged. Since you obviously didn't see it, it's disheartening to see your veiled almost-accusation that it could have been faked. That's quite a bit of skepticism you have there...and one could see it as fairly insulting.

As far as opinions against the Canadian gov't's decision not to send troops, I have seen nothing like that in this entire thread until your entry. The Canadian government will do what it thinks is best for Canada and it will live with its decision.....as it should be.

CocoBaci
Member Elite
since 2000-05-06
Posts 3043

62 posted 2003-04-01 10:01 PM


"there is more to this than what the government and media would have you believe"

I totally whole-heartedly concur...
*~coco~*

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
63 posted 2003-04-01 10:17 PM


Balladeer you know better than to think I'd come here and insult anybody on this board. While the piece may not have been staged it was broadcast for the precise impact that it had on you. That is still propaganda, let's say there was footage of a soldier doing something awful or disrespectful to the Iraqi people, what are the odds that that would be shown.
Your comment to the piece was ""Now I know why I am here."  What a shame so many others others cannot share that same feeling....." as if this one piece of footage summed up the real reason for the war which would be naive.
As for my comments about Canadians I at NO point claimed that comments came from this board or that it was the general view of Americans, I merely stated my perspective on things I've found disturbing both on the news and in some public opinion. We get American television stations and watch American news. I've seen and heard comments by senators and critics about canadians, I've received or have had friends recieve jokes and comments from american counterparts.
Also I was responding to Ringo by saying that while we did not join you in this questionable war as an ally, we were the first with you in Afghanistan and are still stationed there and we expect that once the US takes its reinforcements out of the region we will send more troops to maintain the situation there as well as the aide in Iraq.
I haven't said anything insulting or offensive and If I did it was unintentional and hope this response cleans up any loose ends. I have studied media and photgraphy and know the power they hold.

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

64 posted 2003-04-01 11:00 PM


me wonders if it is always patriotic to protest, or only patriotic to protest when the protester is protesting something we personally feel ought to be protested against.  It is not automatically right to protest, it is a right.  There is a bit of a difference.  One is not patriotic because they protest. The Klu Klux Klan protests along with the Posse Comitatus folk, but somehow I suspect they aren't viewed as patriots by a significant number of people.  Their right to protest is equal to anyone elses right to protest, because they have a right to do so as Americans.  That does not mean they are not bigots, racists and despicable individuals.  For some reason unbeknownst to me, if you call the President of the United States of America a moron; you burn an American flag, or undermine your country by your actions, then one feels they should not be criticized or called on any statement made because protesting is American and patriotic.  Nope, it is not patriotism, it is an American right that a great many people have given their lives for.  Any number of issues can be protested against and the protester be a complete idiot and unpatriotic, but that is anyone's right, and that is what makes America the country it is. The idea that somehow protesters are to be given free reign and not accountable for their actions is what I don't always comprehend.  Personally, I think anyone who would call the President of the United States a moron is pretty much showing their own intellect.  If their mental abilities are limited to name calling to support their positions, then so be it.  That is their right, but this idea that the American government is somehow an entity apart from the people of the United States is beyond my simple comprehension.  If you call the leaders of my country morons, then you are calling my country moronic, and calling me a moron. You certainly have a right to do so, but do not expect to think you are patriotic. You are insulting me and at the same time exercising a right I hold precious.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
65 posted 2003-04-01 11:43 PM


Aenimal...consider the loose ends cleared up. It was my fault for overreacting based on the force with which that footage hit me. As I said before it is definitely one of the most poignant pieces I have ever seen displayed. It was impromptu, honest and very real. To read into your words that it could have all been a preconceived sham struck me badly....my apologies for misreading your intentions.

As far as the Canadian issue is concerned, at this time of the year we have tens of thousands of Canadians here in South Florida as we do every year at this time. I play golf with a group of 400 of them 5 days a week so I have a lot of contact with them. It's very interesting how many of them are quite defensive this year, as if they feel that our opinions of them have decreased because their government has chosen not to join the campaign in Iraq. They could not be more wrong, of course, because Canada has always been a strong ally and no American I know would ever feel that way but there is indeed a defensive attitude on their part. Some of them come right out and say "We should be there with you", others say it is their government's choice, not theirs..others don't say anything but one can tell that they are uncomfortable. I guess it's just because our two countries have always been side-by-side in every major event in our history and, to have something this major going on involving such heavy issues like WMD, a fight against terrorism and the liberation of a country from genocidal rule, and not have our countries there fighting together makes them feel a little uncomfortable. I repeat....there is no reason for them to feel that way and I can assure you no one treats them that way but it has produced a feeling unlike any I have ever felt here in over 30 years of our annual Canadian tourist invasion (which we are happy to have ) They look uncomfortable, perhaps a little touchy and a little more distant than I've ever seen. I'll be glad when it gets back to normal!!

Tim...as far as people's right to protest, yes, they have that right, regardless of their views, thanks to living in a democratic country. The reason I began this thread many, many different subjects ago was they do not have the right to protest violently against the protestors with different views or against common citizens. At that point it ceases to be a protest and becomes criminal action. Unfortunately the police just sit there and watch them commit their acts without becoming involved. That's the shame of it...the fact that they have to react with violence shows the weakness of their conviction, in my book.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
66 posted 2003-04-01 11:57 PM


Tim, I think you're wrong.

This site, more than most, was founded on the principle that personal attacks have no place in civilized discourse. Attack the position, not the person. But that principle goes out the window when applied to people who ask to be allowed to lead us. Our politicians and policy makers have voluntarily placed their lives under scrutiny, and willingly opened their character to public debate. Should the leaders of our country be selected solely on their experience and skills? Or does character count just as highly? And if character matters, as I believe it must, how is it to be discussed if not openly and without prejudice? That certainly doesn't mean I have to believe every allegation, and the more outrageous ones will be quickly filed with UFO reports and Elvis sightings, but I'd be a damn fool to not listen.

I will also vehemently refuse to define either myself or my country by those elected to lead us. Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein did not define their countrymen, not then and certainly not now. For you or anyone else to express your views on Hitler, an elected official, should not be seen as a denouncement of all Germans. For you or anyone else to express dissatisfaction with George Bush or John Kennedy or Thomas Jefferson won't be seen as a personal indictment against me. I am influenced by my nationality, but I am not defined by it. And I sure as hell am not defined by men I know only through secondary sources.

I find attacking individuals to be abhorrent, especially when it's done in ignorance (and it is always done in ignorance). Unless those individuals have asked for the privilege of leadership. At that point, attacking them is right up there with apple pie and baseball games. God save us from someone so popular (or feared) that no one will step forward to criticize them.

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

67 posted 2003-04-02 12:15 PM


difference in our occupations and upbringings I suspect.  You can criticize a elected official's policies, fair game and not a problem. I don't quite place Sadam, Hitler in the category of the president. I wouldn't make personal attacks on the Queen, the Prime Minister of Canada, or any number of government leaders.  Might be a quirk of mine.  I personally believe in respect for elected officials and leaders.  I have far more knowledge about the president than I do you Ron, but I wouldn't personally attack you. Just a difference of opinion I guess, I believe in respecting our institutions and not badmouthing them.  I agree you have a right to, but doesn't mean I agree with it.  Questioning them and opposing their positions, yes, personal attacks, nope, don't think so.  But as I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
68 posted 2003-04-02 12:32 PM


I suspect we agree more than disagree, Tim, and are only stumbling over examples.

Would I call any world leader a moron? No. Would you think it relevant to discover your Senator cheated at cards, even if had nothing to do with his political position? I suspect you know enough about human nature to think it very relevant. The character of a politician, whether it be the arrogance of Nixon or the vanity of LBJ, will shape history every bit as much as their qualifications and positions. It needs to be discussed. To put limitations on that discussion puts too much power in the hands of those deciding which limitations should be imposed.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
69 posted 2003-04-02 01:05 AM


Ron, I would not call it a discussion of character with pure insults that have no base in facts or even reasonable possibilities...it is simply name-calling in a very vile manner. You may consider it to be an expression of views but, if so, you are giving it much more credit than it deserves. If I call someone's wife a slut I doubt very much that they will respect my rights to express my opinion (even if it's true! )

In the army you learn "even if you don't respect the man, you respect the position"..

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
70 posted 2003-04-02 01:59 AM


In the army, Mike, I doubt you elected very many of your senior officers. That is not a trivial difference. Even then, I would give more credence to your argument had I seen anyone in these forums actually abide by it. How much respect have you shown today for Saddam's position as President of Iraq? If "position" is to be respected, why should there be any exceptions? More importantly, who do you trust enough to decide those exceptions? Because whoever it is, you're giving them one major load of power.

You agree and Tim agrees and I agree that character scrutiny shouldn't creep into character assassination. But we come right back to the same problem of trying to determine who gets the not inconsiderable power of making those decisions. What if I told you that you couldn't call Saddam Hussein sadistic? After all, that's a description of motivation, not of his acts, and unless you've met the man and looked deeply into his heart, you have no justifiable basis for using the insult. Starting to see a problem here? You can't call people names because you believe you're right and not expect others to do exactly the same.

I'm not inventing any new concepts here, guys. This stuff has been around for a little over two hundred years. There is a real good reason why it's almost impossible for a politician to sue for libel or slander. Tim, I'm sure, could even give us the legal language for it. The only alternative to a free-for-all is control. Who do you want to give that control? Because you essentially just gave away the keys to your freedom.

littlewing
Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655
New York
71 posted 2003-04-02 04:48 AM


peace

[This message has been edited by littlewing (04-02-2003 05:54 PM).]

Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622
Ala bam a
72 posted 2003-04-02 07:47 AM


Little Wing....yassee?...that's why I'm not going to "reply" here anymore....because, being the Toerag that I am.....I can't post without being:

1. Attacking
2. Vulgar
3. Profane

and last but most importantly,
4. I rarely "think" before I post anything...(have you ever read any of my poetry?)...So, I just monitor Ron cuz he has nobody to moderate him.....He must have a terrible life don't ya think?...Always feeling left out, nobody ever erases or deletes his posts....probably feels neglected...ya think?

Peace, Love and Blacklights...Toe

garysgirl
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2002-09-29
Posts 19237
Florida, USA
73 posted 2003-04-02 10:20 AM





[This message has been edited by garysgirl (04-03-2003 06:24 PM).]

garysgirl
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2002-09-29
Posts 19237
Florida, USA
74 posted 2003-04-02 10:32 AM




[This message has been edited by garysgirl (04-03-2003 06:04 PM).]

JP
Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343
Loomis, CA
75 posted 2003-04-02 12:03 PM


This whole thing has got me soooo confused, in some cities peace marchers are attacking war supporters and just yesterday, the news here in the Sacramento area is that a family has recieved threats because they put lights on thier roof in the shape of a peace sign.  I cannot understand how those who want peace could be threatened or those who want peace can threaten.... can't we all just get along?

Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn.
Nil Desperandum, Fata viem invenient

morefiah
Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150
Spanish Town, Jamaica
76 posted 2003-04-02 12:46 PM


Unfortunately, I only read all of this discourse today when I guess everyone would probably have moved on. I thought of not bothering to add my 2 cents worth but then again...

It is my view (however limited you may think it) that war with all the consequences that flow from it, should be avoided at all costs. There is no such thing as a "Good War". War brings only death, pain, and suffering to too many (including, too often, the victors). SOmeone once said, and I have always believed that, 'all wars, are ultimately settled, and peace restored, around a table'. Now I took the time to read all that was said, on both sides of the subject, about the American 'intevention' in Iraq. What was immediately obvious (and not surprising), is that the American people have become divided on this issue to the everlasting credit of one G.W. Bush. That, I believe is one fallout of the war which is most regrettable. But, to me , the most horrible thing about the whole matter, is the manner in which the whole world has been divided. Now I don't know, maybe there are those who think that this price is one which is acceptable. I cannot join in that belief. My opnion is that the manner in which the nation of France has been vilified is absolutely disgusting. Too many seem to forget that the most recognisable symbol of American democracy, freedom, and goodwill, the Statue of Liberty, was a gift from France. At one point I started to wonder if you were going to send it back.

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant. In fact I have taken to calling him "Madman Insane". But I am having a problem with seeing how killing thousands of innocent Iraquis in the name of 'Liberating' them, makes sense. I do not agree that the world did/does not care about all the people who have suffered and died at Saddams hands. I just think that given the dynamics of the situation, a war was not absolutely necessary at this time. The relative ease with which the US army has been able to lay seige to Iraq, suggests to me that the sanctions, Inspectors, and diplomatic methods which have been used over the last 12 years have been more effective than we were led to believe. As for the Iraqui people themselves, I hope everyone realise that there can be no way that these people could ever love what has been happening to them since March 19. Let's face it: It's one thing to lose thousands of your countrymen in a war where the people themselves are fighting for liberty or some other cause (The war between the States, and the war with Britain in America come to mind) but it is a totally different thing when an outsider who is already viewed with fear, resentment, and suspicion, causes your countrymen to die in the name of "Liberating You".

This is why I believe that history will judge The USA harshly when the issue of this war is considered. The fact is that the Iraqui people would have more easily accepted a war which had the full backing of the United Nations. In this matter, I think Bush, Rumsfeld, and company erred mightily. I also believe that America, will be regretting this blunder long after the aforementioned gentlemen are gone. It is said that "uneasily lies the head that wears the crown" America is the leader of the free world as we are so often reminded. But there is a thin line between love and hate and I think that this war might have caused a shift of troubling proportions.

Of course, you could (to your detriment) tell yourselves that you are strong enough, rich enough, powerful enough, and armed enough, to say "to hell with the rest of the world". That would be an even bigger mistake. When all is said and done, the world needs America, but America also needs the world. Imagine what this most wonderful country of yours would have been without the manifestation of those powerful words written on the Statue of Liberty. In the end, it can only be true that war is bad, and a war started and fought on an apparently shaky basis can only be worse. I am not a protester in the true sense of the word but I am totally against this war, given the way your country has gone about it. I have two cousins in the US army and they (Jamaican born, like Colin Powell, who we Jamaicans are so proud of) are in Iraq maybe giving thier lives for your country. I am proud of them, but my heart aches when I think of all these young men and women who will be fighting a war which was avoidable.

[This message has been edited by morefiah (04-02-2003 12:56 PM).]

littlewing
Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655
New York
77 posted 2003-04-02 12:46 PM


Peace

[This message has been edited by littlewing (04-03-2003 02:47 AM).]

morefiah
Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150
Spanish Town, Jamaica
78 posted 2003-04-02 01:30 PM


And by the way, It's obvious that most of you have been around this site for far longer than I have been. You (dare I say we?) have an absolutely fabulous thing here. I find myself loving people I will probably never meet. Please do not spoil it with insensitivity, and intolerance. It seems to have started creeping in a little and that troubles me. You guys, and girls are so great at what you do that I learn every time I read your work. Balladeer, I hope you realise now how so-called protesters for peace can find themselves fighting. Thing started to get a little hot around here for a while. And this from people who have argueably the deepest souls: Poets. Hmmmm....
garysgirl
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2002-09-29
Posts 19237
Florida, USA
79 posted 2003-04-02 02:33 PM


I just wish that the peaceful Protestors could be peaceable. And, everyone else, too.



[This message has been edited by garysgirl (04-03-2003 06:00 PM).]

Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622
Ala bam a
80 posted 2003-04-02 02:59 PM


littlewing....Is someone attacking you?...Well, you just tell them you know Toerag...I'll take care of it....in fact, just so you'll be prepared next time, I'll "attack" you in a way you'll love...(at least I'll love it anyhow)....and then you'll be prepared...okay?....I posted a sweet reply to you two or three or four replies ago?.....So, let me attack, um, er, I mean help ya with that problem..okay?
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
81 posted 2003-04-02 04:11 PM


I think there's actually more good coming out of being divided than in being united.
Here's why, it shows a truly democratic nation, able to voice their own opinions and able to disagree with their government showing true Freedom of speech.

And Ethel you said:

The reason I think that is because so many people now are trying to support our men and women who are over there fighting the war on one hand.....on the other hand they are saying everything they can think of against our country and the people who they think are even remotely supporting the war. In the Vietnam war, the anti-war protestors didn't even  claim  to support our troops.

You seem to think it's hypocritical and two faced, you seem upset by it. Well would you agree that there are people who in their everyday lives curse the government when paying taxes,or outright cheating on them, yelling about high gas prices, cursing the redtape in trying to get a permit or something equally mundane. Isn't it equally appalling that someone like this, who constantly gripes about their government and the state of the nation most everyday, can just up and stop and become super-patriotic? It's equally disturbing and hypocritical. I liken it to a man who goes out during the week and whores, drinks, beats his wife etc but goes to church Sunday thinking he's a good little christian for it.

[This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-02-2003 04:13 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
82 posted 2003-04-02 05:05 PM


Ron, I have to say I strongly disagree with the points you were trying to make with your last post but what the heck? If that's the way you choose to feel, so be it..

For some of you people who may be new here or not accustomed to our spirited conversations let me assure you there is nothing "sickening" here enough to get worked up over. Yes, we have different views. Yes, we discuss them, debate them, downright argue over them. Ron, is his wisdom, saw at the beginning of life for this site that it would grow with many different personalities and, because of that, there would be disagreements and some type of escape valve would come in handy...thus the creation of The Alley, a forum where we can come in, get things off our chest, mix it up a bit, let off steam or let out emotions and then go back to poetry and the feelings of friendship, respect and comraderie which actually never left. We don't get hurt feelings here and we don't take comments personally enough to be offended. We discuss...we argue...we battle...we let off steam.

We are in...

T H E  A L L E Y !!!

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
83 posted 2003-04-02 05:26 PM


Okay, gotta make this short & sweet because I have a class in a few minutes....

Balladeer, with American companies profiting from a lack of concern to human rights, I was referring to the globalization of American companies and the sweatshops, child labor, unsafe materials used... and the fact that they are allowed to do this because it is profitable. That may be an oversimplification, but I'm short on time... I have some links at home but it might be a little while befoer I get a chance to post them...

'Since there is always a large difference in percentage between the haves and have-nots, in a true democracy (one person, one vote) the have-nots would always be voting against the haves...and winning. It would be chaotic.'

I find this a terribly disturbing statement... it seems to me that the biggest reason for not having a true participatory democracy is that the haves feel threatened... why shiould they feel threatened if there is truly an equal opportunity for everyone to participate in economic growth? I have a lot more to say (and belief it or not, some of it in accordance with your position) but I am really now totally out of time.

And to answer your question, yes, I am in favor of participatory democracy, at least for local and state issues, and nationally designated issues of importance (like, y'know, electing our president?) but once again...

Sorry I couldn't be more thorough at this time.

littlewing
Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655
New York
84 posted 2003-04-02 05:29 PM


Peace

[This message has been edited by littlewing (04-03-2003 02:46 AM).]

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
85 posted 2003-04-02 05:57 PM


I have only one more thing to add to this discussion, and then I- thinking that it is being the same argument rehashed again and again- will let it go.
Everyone on this site stands firmly one one side or the other of this discussion, and it seems to be very rare that anyone (seemingly myself included) is willing to concede points to the other side. The one question I have for the loyal opposition is this:
Since this war is and a bad thing overall, what suggestions would you offer to have stopped it. Please keep in mind that diplomacy had been tried for 12 years or more. Sanctions against the government had benn tried for 12 years. Discussions have been happening for 12 years or more. ALL of them having failed miserably by two different administrations, and by the UN, and by numerous countries besides the US, what would you have done to change the situation?
Just curious, not attacking.

Imagine all the People living life in peace...
John Lennon

Crazy Eddie
Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178

86 posted 2003-04-02 06:15 PM



Ringo,

I think the French proposal should have been tabled at the UN and put to a vote.

garysgirl
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2002-09-29
Posts 19237
Florida, USA
87 posted 2003-04-02 06:19 PM



I want to explain that I didn't mean to come off like I was "attacking" anyone at all. If I started trying to attack people, I would be doing the same thing I'm so much against.

When I posted my first reply on this thread, I really didn't stop to think what this Alley Forum really is about. Like Michael said, it's a place for exactly what every one here has been doing...blowing off steam so that it won't be carried over to the other forums.

[This message has been edited by garysgirl (04-03-2003 05:58 PM).]

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
88 posted 2003-04-02 07:17 PM


You should continue to post for the exact reason that you said you weren't going to. Just because a few hotheads in here (again, myself included) are going ape-poopy over a few anti-war posts on these threads is no reason for you to voluntarily give up your right to free speech. That is one of the things our young men and women are over there fighting for. To give the Iraqi citizens the right to say what, when and how they want. If you have something to say-even if it completely disagrees with my own opinions- I will fight to the end for your right to post it on here, as will too many others to name.

Oh, and just one more random thought... why is it always the young that are sent to fight?? Don't you agree that sending a batallion of peri-menapausal women, a batallion of bikers and a batallion of old men who have been nagged their entire lives would have had this whole thing done by now??? OK, maybe not... it was just a thought.

Imagine all the People living life in peace...
John Lennon

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
89 posted 2003-04-02 07:32 PM


hush says....

"it seems to me that the biggest reason for not having a true participatory democracy is that the haves feel threatened... why shiould they feel threatened if there is truly an equal opportunity for everyone to participate in economic growth? "

hush, you dear girl, NO ONE can be that naiive....especially not some who has done a thesis on Atlas Shrugged. That's like saying you know that, of course, everyone collecting welfare is actually spending their days looking for work.

Besides, if you want to go down that road, you better open another thread. That, and the sweat shops and other ambiguous items are very far removed from the topic of this thread. I'll look for it....

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
90 posted 2003-04-02 09:03 PM


Bush may be a moron.. but he's my moron..

oh... been there.. done that...

(tiptoes quietly off the thread)

Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622
Ala bam a
91 posted 2003-04-03 07:23 AM


LR...watch who you're tippin' there fella!
hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
92 posted 2003-04-03 08:54 AM


Balladeer-

like I said, that isn't all I had to say on the topic... but I don't think going participatory is the same as going communist. Would it eventualy end up that way? I don't know, that's something to think about. You're right, it's another thread though...

However, I do not think globalization is too far off-topic. You asked for an example of when America ignores human rights when it's in our benefit. There ya go. We could alleviate a lot of human suffering without any need for military action simply by holding our companies accountable for their dealings overseas... I believe I said something about our government having its cake and eating it too? I believe the intervention for the sake of human rights argument falls apart when you look at things like that.

The issues that I believe that line is being used to distract us from (or get us to accept) are:

The fact that we are invading a country pre-emptively.

The fact that we are no longer focusing the search on WMD, but rather on Saddam.

What role does oil play in this? (No, I'm not going to make the it's all abou the oild argument, but I do think it plays a role.)

KristieSue
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-01-31
Posts 1460
PA, US
93 posted 2003-04-03 09:35 AM


Ringo...

you don't value your life very much, huh?

LOL hmmm nagging old men.  We could send my grandfather LOLOL
LOL


Failure isn't failure if a lesson from it is learned ~ KS

[This message has been edited by KristieSue (04-03-2003 09:46 AM).]

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
94 posted 2003-04-03 12:33 PM


What do you mean, Kristie??? I am one of those old men who have been nagged... Send my ever-widening backside over there!!
lol

Imagine all the People living life in peace...
John Lennon

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
95 posted 2003-04-03 02:56 PM


If we aren't allowed to openly protest, then why in the hell are we sending all these young people to their deaths, supposedly in the name of guaranteeing FREEDOM?
What exactly do you think we protestors are doing, but exercising the very freedoms we are constantly fighting for? No, I will NEVER SHUT UP or back away from what I perceive to be my personal responsibility.
Yes, I said responsibility, for freedom of speech is not just a right. It's a moral and civic DUTY for the citizenry to tell the elected and non-elected leaders how they feel when they believe the government is taking a wrong pathway economically, socially, politically, morally on ANY issues that affect this country.
And, as a WORLD citizen, ie a human being living on Planet Earth, it's my moral obligation to speak out against injustices to humanity, ESPECIALLY when I am a citizen of a country that espouses FREEDOM and equality. To remain quiet is to give in to the very thing we supposedly hate...oppression and rule-by-force. Why should people of other countries even listen to our cries for freedom when/if we deny it to our own people?
The one issue I do agree with: it defeats the goal of consciously moving towards peaceful solutions when people start burning flags and fighting in the streets, ostensibly to put an end to fighting and war.
Peaceful wishes to all.
Namaste, and respect for all of Life.

Alwye
Moderator
Member Elite
since 1999-06-16
Posts 3850
In the space between moments
96 posted 2003-04-03 04:43 PM


I second that, midnitesun. I have been a part of a very peaceful, respectful protest of this war since the possibility of it happening arose.  It is our civic duty and our right to protest in a lawful and peaceful way if we do not agree with something.  I definitely agree that violent protestors are contradicting themselves.  How can you be anti-war and then turn around and impose violence on someone?  I do not respect those people in the least.  Nor can I respect the over-zealous, rude, and misinformed 'pro-administration' people who scream and fight and threaten perfectly lawful protestors (which has happened to our group on occasion).  I believe that everyone has the right to either agree with what our administration is doing, to be undecided, or to be against it.  I also believe that people have a right to express their content or discontent.  As Americans, we have this right.  And I intend to keep using that right.  Much love and peace to all of you.  

*Krista Knutson*

"If we have no peace, it is because we've forgotten that we belong to each other." ~Mother Teresa

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
97 posted 2003-04-03 05:19 PM



While it is off topic, in this, I agree with midnitesun and Alwye.  Peaceful protests go much further in the long run.  Tenacity helps.  As pointed out, standing for something and then swinging a fist - gets us nowhere.

I am not even one who enjoys listening to people yell - so CrossFire is not for me.  Now, a good debate...and let people decide for themselves which side of the fence they want to stand on - there is NOTHING wrong with that.

But just because someone tells me the sky is green doesn't mean I have to buy it...but if three people tell me the same thing, I may make an optician's appointment...

garysgirl
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2002-09-29
Posts 19237
Florida, USA
98 posted 2003-04-03 05:54 PM


(Well, here I go again, after I said I wasn't going to.)

I admit that I said a few things that I didn't intend to about the war in general. My intention to begin with was to say that I didn't think the protestors should conduct themselves in a violent way. I also agree with you, Kacy, Alwye, and Karilea that the pro-war people should not try to get their opinions across in a shouting match or violent way.

I also think that  everyone has the right to their opinions, on whatever subject comes up. But that the opposing opinions should be done without name-calling screaming matches and without violence.

By the way, I wish that the war had ended before it ever started and that a peacable solution could have been found. I hate war.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
99 posted 2003-04-03 06:08 PM


Midnightsun says:

"The one issue I do agree with: it defeats the goal of consciously moving towards peaceful solutions when people start burning flags and fighting in the streets, ostensibly to put an end to fighting and war"

Hey, Kacy!! That was the subject of this entire thread! Any outrage against not protesting has nothing to do with this thread at all. We ALL agree that protesting is a right for all...it is only the protesting with violence this thread was created for.

I'm glad you agree

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
100 posted 2003-04-03 06:41 PM


JP said:

quote:
This whole thing has got me soooo confused, in some cities peace marchers are attacking war supporters and just yesterday, the news here in the Sacramento area is that a family has recieved threats because they put lights on thier roof in the shape of a peace sign.  I cannot understand how those who want peace could be threatened or those who want peace can threaten.... can't we all just get along?


Alwye said:

quote:
I second that, midnitesun. I have been a part of a very peaceful, respectful protest of this war since the possibility of it happening arose.  It is our civic duty and our right to protest in a lawful and peaceful way if we do not agree with something.  I definitely agree that violent protestors are contradicting themselves.  How can you be anti-war and then turn around and impose violence on someone?  I do not respect those people in the least.  Nor can I respect the over-zealous, rude, and misinformed 'pro-administration' people who scream and fight and threaten perfectly lawful protestors (which has happened to our group on occasion).  I believe that everyone has the right to either agree with what our administration is doing, to be undecided, or to be against it.  I also believe that people have a right to express their content or discontent.  As Americans, we have this right.  And I intend to keep using that right.  Much love and peace to all of you.


And Michael says? It would seem that you, Michael, should comment on these threads as well in order to make your point legitimate.

And my opinion? Well, Michael already knows what I'm going to say but I'll say it anyway. Regardless of the outcome of this war, I accuse both the Bush administration and the protestors of the same thing:

Incompetence.
  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
101 posted 2003-04-03 06:51 PM


Actually, Brad, I did comment on Kacey's words in the entry right before yours, if you had checked...

...as far as following your suggestions to make my post "legitimate"....bot of those comments make reference to the fact that peaceful protest is good and violent protests are bad...the exact thing I said in my opening statement...their comments legitimize the thread themselves.

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (04-03-2003 07:16 PM).]

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
102 posted 2003-04-03 07:42 PM


"Whatever the anti-war protestors say, they cannot say they are not aware of the torture, murder and genocide the Iraqui tribes live under - and, in not being able to say that, they are saying they are opposing any action which would cause it to change. They are marching against killing at the same time they are condoning it. No wonder thay are so angry."
Michael, I have protested this war since BEFORE it began. That does not mean that I condone anything that regime has done. My anger is with those on both sides of this debate who assume everyone on either side has the same focus, attitude, mindset, and behaviors when it comes to supporting or protesting. To constantly lump everyone together in a huge pile negates the individual and the rights of each of us to make decisions for ourselves. My methodology of protesting/supporting is perhaps frustrating to many on all sides.
PS(I send money to Oxfam America to help feed the hungry, and to support indigenous populations support themselves whenever possible, irregardless of religion or politics.)
I guess my main point here is that as humans we seem to always be more prepared to spit and spat at each other in revenge than we are to use dialogue and international law to solve our problems. And to suggest protestors are unpatriotic denies the very heritage that brought us to this point in history. God forbid the King should have shut up all the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the US  Constitution!  
OK, so maybe I'm rambling a bit, but I steadfastly reject all assertions, from any source, that suggest I am less than American simply because I protest this action. You may have only meant to spit at the violent protesters, but the direction this thread has taken fuels the fire against all protest. And that direction I shall continue to protest 'till I'm vaporized.
Peace to you, I hope we all survive this brief moment in time.

[This message has been edited by Midnitesun (04-03-2003 07:44 PM).]

JP
Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343
Loomis, CA
103 posted 2003-04-03 08:09 PM


Brad,  "incompetence"?

Compared to what? Certainly this administration is doing no worse job than the previous one... in fact, I will go out on a limb and state emphatically that the current administration has more experience, more competence, more credibility, less DNA stained blue dresses, a better understanding of foriegn policy, a stronger conviction for doing what they feel is right, a deeper conviction that their job is to serve Americans and not be served by them than the previous administration.  


Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn.
Nil Desperandum, Fata viem invenient

[This message has been edited by JP (04-03-2003 08:10 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
104 posted 2003-04-03 08:32 PM


hush says..

"We could alleviate a lot of human suffering without any need for military action simply by holding our companies accountable for their dealings overseas... I believe I said something about our government having its cake and eating it too?"

hush, I had asked you for examples and the comment above is still more rhetoric without them. First of all, are you saying that the government not policing the nation's companies overseas excludes them from performing any moral actions? Really? Second, since you had mentioned something in a previous reply about "sweat shops" do you know anything about sweat shops at all, other than a Kathy Lee Gifford clip, or is it just another phrase to use in place of an example? I do happen to know quite a bit about what you call sweat shops and I can tell you the people working there are not the ones complaining. Yes, those jobs may pay them 3 or 4 bucks an hour where the same job done in the US would pay 10-15, but in other countries they are very lucrative jobs, paying more than common laborers get from other jobs, whenever other jobs can be found. They do not feel used at all. I know in South America they happily line up for those jobs and don't refer to them as "sweat shops" at all. The only people you will hear complaining are the US union leaders who have allowed it to happen by being so outrageous in their salary requirements and working conditions demands. You are going to throw that on the government? Because of that the government has no credibility for standing up for human rights?

As far as your three distractions....

"The fact that we are invading a country pre-emptively."

There are those who would say that it is a continuation of the war on terrorism. There is little or no doubt that the wmd are there in the hands of a murderer who does not hesitate to use them. Bush says he will eliminate those weapons BEFORE they are used on us in this new world of mass-murder terrorism. To be honest I also feel that it goes back to Kuwait. Hussein agreed to the demands of weapons inspectors back in '91 and, when the Americans pulled out, did not honor them. With that, combined with the fact that daddy was the president Hussein snubbed his nose at, it wouldn't surprise me that there is a little personal irritation in this also, which still doesn't take away the validity of the action..it simply adds a personal angle. Should you choose not to accept the WMD reasoning then perhaps you can come up with your own. What would it be? Bush is insane? You have seen him on TV before and during this action. Does he appear to be insane to you? Or perhaps you feel that the US simply wants to conquer Iraq because we can, maybe to test all of these wonderful weapon toys we've never been able to use? No, of course you don't. You know as well as everyone else that America does not stand for that. Oil, then? How? Why? Simply because Bush has an oil background and Iraq has oil is enough to make one scream OIL?? Makes no sense. What would we do with it? Take it over and sell it for our own profit as booty of the invasion? No, you know America does not stand for that, either....so what scenarios are left? If you can come up with one that sounds as plausible as eliminating WMD before we lose another 5000 civilians I'd be glad to hear it.

"The fact that we are no longer focusing the search on WMD, but rather on Saddam"

hush, you can't enter a house without opening the door. The WMD are not going to be found with Hussein still in power. His removal is essential to having the freedom and capability to find them. Of course we are focusing on Saddam..that is the opening of the door. It is the natural progression of the action. Surely you can see that....

"What role does oil play in this? (No, I'm not going to make the it's all abou the oild argument, but I do think it plays a role.)"

I have no idea what role oil plays. It will realistically play some part since it is all that Iraq has and there is a lot of it..but whatever part it plays with be in the aftermath. It is not a reason for the initial action.

hush, it seems to me that you simply find it impossible to conceive that the administration can act with moral convictions and in the best interests of the security of the US and the world. It sounds like you find that possibility unacceptable and are willing to list whatever points you can find about the government to prove that moralistic action by the administration is not possible. I don't say that as a slur against you but I just wonder why you feel that way. Is it political? Had these actions been taken by the Democratic Party, would that make a difference to you? I really don't know how you feel but I find it sad that the feeling exists. Yes, we can go back through America's history and find many flaws and improper courses of action taken by then-current administrations but than has nothing more to do with now that chastizing you because an ancestor of yours may have shot an Indian or owned a slave. The current administration had nothing to do with slavery, Indian Wars, sweat shop initiations or any of our foibles of the past so why are you so eager to condemn them because of the actions of other administrations? I would really be curious to know. I have not seen anything by Bush to indicate that he is a man of low moral character and yet you appear to be judging him to be exactly that. You look for shadows behind trees. Is it personal, the political party he belongs to or just the fact that he is a President and, as such, cannot be trusted? I certainly don't know him that well but, from what I have seen, he is a man who chose good, qualified men to advise him, who has taken an action he considers to be in the best interest of the country, who has not been sidetracked by the tactics Hussein used on the UN for 12 years, who had the balls to tell the UN to act or get out of the way, who has stood by those convictions and actions even when major countries and hundreds of thousands of protestors tried to change his mind, who has basically staked his entire reputation and political career on his confidence that he has made the right decisions....this ain't bad for a guy that can't say a full sentence without making at least three grammatical errors!! Maybe what turns you off is that the confidence he has in his actions makes him come off as arrogant to you. Many people with unbending resolve come off that way. I'm willing to believe he may know what he's doing and is doing it for the right reasons. You are not willing....fair enough, that's your right. I'm just curious as to the base of such skepticism....


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
105 posted 2003-04-03 09:14 PM


Aha...I see where you are coming from, Kacey, and it appears I owe Brad an apology as it seems my position DOES need to be legitimized.

First of all, I believe in everyone's right to protest. It's humanity's way. I do not believe in anyone's right to protest violently which physically attacks whoever has a difference of opinion.

Having said that, let me finish digging my grave since I am in this deep. I think it would be useful for protesters to understand the nature of their protest. I have no doubt of your love for humanity and human life in general. It is noble to give charitable donations and one's time to organizations dedicated to easing the suffering of others. Many of us do that. Do you believe that there could have been a better alternative? You very well may. I would argue that 12 years of negotiations produced nothing and my belief is that 12 more years still would have produced nothing but you don't have to agree with my thinking. You may feel that further negotiations would have indeed produced the desired results and I can't argue with your right to feel that way. I can say that, even if the question of WMD were resolved, tens of thousands of children would still die of starvation and thousands of adults would be murdered for as long as Hussein remained in power but you could choose to not consider that a factor if you wanted to...again your choice. I could point out that failure to act would condemn people to death. You could choose not to accept that. You would protest based on your convictions that war was not the answer under any circumstances. I cannot agree with that but you don't need to feel my agreement or lack of is important. You are a protester....and I don't think you are a violent protester. My point if you check my initial thoughts was that there are other protester out there who do not share your convictions. They protest because they do not want war - they don't know of any alternatives - they really don't believe that negotiations will work - they know and don't like to be told that people are dying every day while the world does nothing - they are aggravated - they are frustrated and they are defensive...feeling defensive they strike out at those who make them feel defensive, which happens to be anyone who disagrees with them. They do not have the courage of their convictions. Those are the people I speak out against and which I thought I had explained at the beginning of this thread. Obviously I didn't do a very good job of it.....my apologies.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
106 posted 2003-04-03 10:05 PM


This thread is really making me do some soul-searching, not to mention bringing back memories I would prefer not to see. Let me amend that previous reply of mine, Kacey, and feel free to damn me for it if you wish.

What I said above were my thoughts for the events leading up to the war. After our troops took the field, they changed. The war is going on. Our soldiers are out there, risking their lives and dying. All of the protests in the world are not going to stop what is now in motion. The protests are doing no good to anyone except perhaps the protesters themselves by letting them display their righteous indignantion. The protests are giving ammunition to the enemy and undermining the morale of our boys. Is it worth it to you? I'm speaking now as a soldier, a 19 year old kid who saw the VietNam protesters while I was just hoping to make it through another day. I'm speaking as a 22 year old kid who came home to see people looking the other way or finding a brand new fascination with their shoes whenever it came up that I was  Nam vet. Is it worth it to you? There are many ways to protest. Boycott things...write to Bush or your congressmen. These things won't make any more difference than protesting will but at least the kids out there putting their lives on the line for what they feel is a worthy cause won't have to see pictures and footage of thousands of people who are going home to a warm bed that night screaming against what they are involved in. Doesn't that matter to you at all? The son of one of my close friends is over there. You want to know what his mother said to me? "I hope they don't hate him when he comes home like they did the guys from Viet Nam."
    Stand up and protest if you must but know that you are doing it for yourself....not them. I hope you think its worth it.

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

107 posted 2003-04-03 10:08 PM


Certainly everyone has a right to protest.  Pearl Jam has the right to portray the decapitated head of the President of the United States impaled on a spear and stomp on the same.  A professor at the one of the leading institutions of higher learning in the United States has the right to wish a million Mogadishus upon America and call for the defeat of the Americans at the hands of the Iraquis and equate American patriotism with white supremist facism.  All the while the intellectually superior student body applauds as the president of the University says one cannot interfere with free speech and faculty opinion.  Yep, they have the right.  As I said, exercising a patriotic right does not make you a patriot.
I grew up in a Mennonite community in the 60's and am a member of the Mennonite church.  I have a fair to middling understanding of anti-war views and pacifism.
A high school classmate of mine spent four years in federal prison rather than register for the draft when he had a zero chance serving in the military because of his religion, but it was a matter of principle to him.  The folks I know and respect for anti-war views and pacifism would die before they would end the life of anyone, even if that meant not saving the lives of their children or their own lives.  They do not attack the president or their country, they pray for all involved. Their views in regards to American as well as any life is not predicated on partisan political views.  By the way, those anti-war protesters I do respect.
Is Bush incompetent?  He certainly showed his incompetence in Afghanistan.  The Afghani's are without doubt far worse off today than they were under the Taliban. Saddam is a sadistic mass murderer who relies on torture of children and any, and it is totally undisputed, any means to enforce his absolute and total control.  But...  I have read that word so many times recently immediately after someone who opposes the war agrees to the total horror and evil Saddam has inflicted upon his people.  One person in another thread even said, but you have to admit at least Saddam is determined.
If we come out of the situation we are in with the same attitude certain of the ant-war folk had after Afghanistan, that Bush was incompetent and wrong in what he did, but praise the results that a people was not no longer subject to an inhumane life under a horrific regime, I suspect I will be able to live with the results and the criticism of those who oppose the president.  I really do not read anyone saying in the threads that people do not have a right to protest.  Protest away, but do not expect everyone to feel you are patriots and are acting in the best interests of the country.
Just as a final aside, Ron, the military is different than civilian authority as you are well aware.  In the military, you respect and obey because lives depend on that obedience.  In civilian life, you support or at least show respect for your institutions of government because they are the basis for your freedoms.  And I have to admit some disappointment in the analogy about respecting Saddam because he is a president. A dictator who is unquestionably on a par with Hitler, Stalin and Amin, does not deserve respect because the government he leads is not deserving of respect, but only revulsion by any civilized people.  


[This message has been edited by Tim (04-03-2003 11:52 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
108 posted 2003-04-04 12:01 PM


quote:
Compared to what? Certainly this administration is doing no worse job than the previous one... in fact, I will go out on a limb and state emphatically that the current administration has more experience, more competence, more credibility, less DNA stained blue dresses, a better understanding of foriegn policy, a stronger conviction for doing what they feel is right, a deeper conviction that their job is to serve Americans and not be served by them than the previous administration.


Why is it that everytime someone criticizes Bush, either Clinton or Gore are brought up with "at least he's better than that."

Why is that important?

After 911, the people of the world were united in support for America. Today, they are against America.

How did that happen?

I do not think the administration is wrong in fighting this war, I think it has been handled ineptly. It's ridiculous to assume a moral equivalence between Hussein and Bush but, at the same time, America is scarier than Iraq. I see nothing being done to alleviate that fear. Fear leads to anger leads to hate and, while, America can probably still do what it wants, I think Bush is making it harder to do those things.

To give a quick example, it doesn't help calling the forces a coalition when Rumsfeldt says that we don't really need Britain. We can call it a multi-lateral force but nobody really believes it, least of all the administration itself.

It's not that they, the people of the world, are against American values, they are no longer sure if we stand for those values (democracy, human rights, the rule of law, a voice in one's own destiny etc.).

Why is this? Next year, America will spend more money on the military than all other countries combined (all 193). If we're going to do anything like the things the administration indicates that it wants to do, we're going to need help from the very people who we want to help. We shouldn't ignore them.

And we are.

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

On a side note, LR often describes the UN as a deliberatory body, not a governing body. He is right of course, but intriguingly the UN is seen as the vehicle for international action (a perception American had a part in making). It is seen as a kind of authority (amazing if you think about it. Amazing if you compare it to the League of Nations.). This is something we can use, and I think it is something we can believe in. Instead, we're blowing it.

We should be perceived as a leader among nations, not a leader over nations.

  

[This message has been edited by Brad (04-04-2003 12:10 AM).]

garysgirl
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2002-09-29
Posts 19237
Florida, USA
109 posted 2003-04-04 12:12 PM


Michael, what you said about the comparison of the treament of the military now with the happenings in the VietNam war is exactly what I was trying to say when I mentioned it above. I went in and deleted it out, though, because apparently I wasn't getting across what I meant to some. (And I didn't want to sound like I was attacking anyone at all.) But, what you said happened then is exactly what I'm afraid is going to happen and is happening now. I wonder how the young woman who was a Prisoner Of War felt, when she was released and taken to the hospital, if she saw any of the violent scenes on t.v. about what's been going on in the country she's been fighting for, her own United States.
Ethel

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

110 posted 2003-04-04 12:43 PM


Don't get out in the world much, but even during Afghanistan, it seemed a few folks were against America.  I vaguely recall the French not going out of their way to help us.  And somehow I suspect there are at least a few people around the world who support the toppling of the Iraqui regime.  A great many non-Americans will not approve of any action taken by the United States.  We have a few such folk here in the U.S.; even here in Passions, who would not agree with any action taken by the president.  Not attacking or being critical in that statement, just seems to be an obvious fact.
They have that right, and in no attempting to disparage Clinton, but the former president pretty well established that leadership based upon polls and following majority will does not always secure the support of all.  

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
111 posted 2003-04-04 02:25 AM


Tim,

Sure. But is that a defense of this administration's competence?  Do you have any idea of the scope of opposition in the world? Even the governments who support the US are setting themselves up to be voted out of office.

What has the administration done to assuage this except execute one diplomatic failure after another?

It does not bode well, I think, when the best defense is, "Well, at least he's better than (fill in the blank)."

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
112 posted 2003-04-04 07:50 AM


Tim, I agree with many of your views, especially your thoughts about giving respect to a well-documented butcher who decided to call himself president and hold mock elections where voters knew that a negative vote by them would be fatal.

Brad, I must say I'm a little surprised by some of the things you say. As a man who appears not to lose much sleep over what others think of him (which you had written in a response to a post of mine) it appears that world opinion keeps popping up in your comments as if that is a validation of the administration's incompetence. As far as the comment "..now the world hates us" I think that is a little unrealistic and I don't agree with anyone's ability to speak for the entire world. As with most things, the con makes the noise and gets the publicity while the pro remains quiet. I'm sure if Gore had been made president the world would love us because we would have done whatever the latest poll at any time would have dictated. Going against public opinion doesn't necessarily make you wrong, it only makes you look arrogant. As far as incompetence goes, here's an interesting little fact....

Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in
Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part
of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree
to release so-called "political prisoners". However, the Israelis would
not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the
time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher,
"insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammed Atta was freed
and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the
World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks
at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in
the US from all later reports.

Why does Clinton's name pop up all of the time? Just thanks from a grateful nation for everything he did, I suppose...


Ethel, I'm happy I was able to speak up for you..

Tim, Afghanistan is CERTAINLY much worse off now than they were before. NOW they have women drivers!!!

Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622
Ala bam a
113 posted 2003-04-04 07:59 AM


I protest!...Why is my cable bill so high when Iraq watches TV documentaries for free?....It's not right! (I understand they lose their transmissions almost as much as I do but it's free?)...They get free water...my bill is outrageous, they get free food and free medical?...On my tax dollars! Balladeer gets recognition for those little so called poems, free termite inspections etc., it's just not fair..it's tough being a Toerag yanno?
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
114 posted 2003-04-04 03:32 PM


"The protests are giving ammunition to the enemy and undermining the morale of our boys. Is it worth it to you?"

Could it be that same line was used in merry old England many years ago? It's almost funny, since part of my ancestry comes from England. Some fought for, some fought against the King's rules. There was an ocean of difference between them of course.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
115 posted 2003-04-04 04:40 PM


Toerag, you should revolt! I can think of no one more revolting!!
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622
Ala bam a
116 posted 2003-04-04 04:50 PM


Ball a deer....and after I've been so kind to you in the past...you should be ashamed.....you disgust me...(usually behind my back though)
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
117 posted 2003-04-04 05:42 PM


Tim, Afghanistan is CERTAINLY much worse off now than they were before. NOW they have women drivers!!!
***as quoted, Balladeer's comment****
You are really in trouble now!


[This message has been edited by Midnitesun (04-04-2003 05:45 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
118 posted 2003-04-04 06:58 PM


quote:

On a side note, LR often describes the UN as a deliberatory body, not a governing body. He is right of course, but intriguingly the UN is seen as the vehicle for international action (a perception American had a part in making). It is seen as a kind of authority (amazing if you think about it. Amazing if you compare it to the League of Nations.). This is something we can use, and I think it is something we can believe in. Instead, we're blowing it.

We should be perceived as a leader among nations, not a leader over nations.




Gee... and all this time I thought you just didn't care      heh...

If we're going to lead there has to be something left of us though --- which is all that I'd add... and which is why I think we had to take the security council with a grain of salt just as we did all through the cold war years...

That's also why I agree with your analysis of why the admin is incompetent - but - you knew that already --

Words are very important -- especially on the international scene -- this admin thinks it's only playing to America -- which will be to all our detriment eventually --

There are more eggregious examples than the one you cited though...

My biggest concern are these words -- which are not exclusive to this admin...

"World's only remaining superpower."

We have to get off that pholks -- the world hates it.  Ever watch old western movies???

Toerag -- yassay ya want a revolution -- well ya know -- we're all doin what we can -- who better than a local rebel to start one -- I'm just as revoltin as you.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
119 posted 2003-04-04 07:01 PM


Tim said;

quote:

.  A professor at the one of the leading institutions of higher learning in the United States has the right to wish a million Mogadishus upon America and call for the defeat of the Americans at the hands of the Iraquis and equate American patriotism with white supremist facism.  All the while the intellectually superior student body applauds as the president of the University says one cannot interfere with free speech and faculty opinion.  Yep, they have the right.  As I said, exercising a patriotic right does not make you a patriot.



He was from Columbia University wasn't he?

My personal opinion is that he doesn't have the right to go that far... in fact ... to say that he hopes we lose is seditious -- and as much as I'd hate to see the precedent set -- he should be charged and detained.

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-04-2003 07:02 PM).]

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
120 posted 2003-04-04 07:46 PM


Toe, I would have to agree with you on the Cable argument, and would like to add one small complaint...
I feel the military needs to get whomever it was that designed the cable television systems to deal with Iraqui TV...
The military can't shut it down, yet my cable goes off when it rains more than an inch... what's with that??
lol

Imagine all the People living life in peace...
John Lennon

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
121 posted 2003-04-04 07:59 PM


Not only that, Ringo, the government should use Blockbuster to find Hussein...just tell them he has an overdue video!!
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
122 posted 2003-04-04 08:14 PM


Damn!!!
Why aren't we generals???
>

Imagine all the People living life in peace...
John Lennon

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
123 posted 2003-04-05 12:27 PM


quote:
I'm sure if Gore had been made president the world would love us because we would have done whatever the latest poll at any time would have dictated. Going against public opinion doesn't necessarily make you wrong, it only makes you look arrogant. As far as incompetence goes, here's an interesting little fact....

Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in
Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part
of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree
to release so-called "political prisoners". However, the Israelis would
not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the
time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher,
"insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammed Atta was freed
and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the
World Trade Center.


Is this a defense of Bush's foreign policy?

And all this talk of Afghanistan? Doesn't anybody remember this administration's approach before 911?

C'mon guys, give me some relevant facts here.

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

124 posted 2003-04-05 01:19 AM


avoiding facts, or avoiding issues? Afghanistan shouldn't be considered in relation to U.S. foreign policy during the Bush presidency?  If the man is incompetent or as some say a moron, then Afghanistan is a major component of his policy we can look at to support those allegations. The war in Iraq is an extension of that policy. The fat lady ain't done singing in relation to Iraq, and when she is, we can look at another significant world event shaped by George Bush and determine whether his foreign policy was incompetent or moronic. If you want to make a point about the foreign policy during the first few months of the Bush presidency, I would be interested to hear them, but I fail to see how you can brush aside Afghanistan and the war on terror since it is a cornerstone of American foreign policy.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
125 posted 2003-04-05 06:50 AM


I have no problems with 'the war on terror'. I did at first because I couldn't figure it out, but I see the strategy, and agree with it in principle. I have this crazy idea that people actually want stable, liberal democracies as much as we do.

Now, I I'll give some examples of the problems I see in a moment, but really, what I want to do is get away from this seeming endless stream of comparisons between Clinton and Bush. How long has Bush been president? And still, the only thing positive his supporters can really say is that at least he's better than Clinton.

There's wrong about that.

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

Afghanistan was a military success, but it's far from clear if it will be a diplomatic success (but we can hope). We're still there as I'm sure you well know.

But two foreign policy disasters:

In Korea, Kim Dae Jung's 'Sunshine Policy' was making some very good advances (including a visit between Kim Jong Il and Kim Dae Jung). The Bush administration immediately decided to 'rethink' its policy toward North Korea. This effectively stopped all possibility of better relations between the North and the South.

The Bush administration instituted a 'hands off' policy to the Isreal/Palestine conflict, effectively telling them to fight it out themselves. And that's exactly what they started to do.

And the Bush administration's policy pre-911 was a policy of appeasement (I think Powell's words were something like we'll use the carrot as well as the stick).

Iraq will be a military success, but, so far, a foreign relations disaster.

If war is seen as the diplomacy of last result, when all else fails, then these two military actions, Iraq and Afghanistan, are diplomatic failures.

By definition.

It's not the goals that I disagree with, it is the way in which they are implemented, and let's face it, his 'no-nonsense', inelegant and often callous, talk may go over well in America (I've often and will probably again criticize Americans for their striking indifference to the rest of the world), but the rest of the world hears a person only concerned with people who will vote for him (even if that's not true).

And finally, I guess everyone agrees with me that the peace demonstrators have been incompetent. Apparently, they have too for they've tried to rein in their tactics and go more mainstream.

Good for them.


Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

126 posted 2003-04-05 11:29 AM


Opinions are just that, opinions. Just an observation on the worth of mine.  I have some difficulty in accepting the opinion Afghanistan is generally recognized, even in the world community, as a diplomatic failure, or will be so. That is just an opinion. All wars are not diplomatic failures. They may be the result of diplomatic failures, there is a difference.  A logical argument can be made a foreign policy failure leading to Afghanistan was Clinton's failure to adequately deal with the terror issue while president.  Osama had some idea the U.S. did not have the courage to stand up to its convictions. The first gulf war, which I suspect some view as supported by significant portions of the world community, is generally conceded as the primary justification given by bin Laden for the creation of a  world-wide terrorism network. He was ticked infidels were on Saudi soil. This Bush did not create that situation.  Bush was president a period of months before 9-11.  He played the hand he was dealt with. The Palestinian issue will always be a diplomatic failure to the United States in the Arab world because there is not an acceptable  solution to the parties involved. History has pretty well proven that point. The United States is evil because it involves itself in international affairs.
The United States is evil because it does not solve the Isreal/Palestinian issue. As far as Korea, President Clinton with President Carter's assistance, both attempted a concilitory foreign policy towards N. Korea.  Some have the opinion that policy failed.  I do not know, but do not on the limited knowledge I have, see it as a resounding success.  In any event, I once read the S. Koreans burn more U.S. flags in protest than any country in the world.  They did so before Bush was president.  Bottom line, it is hard to isolate world events and policies without taking into consideration the historical perspective.  Do significant portions of the world have negative views of the United States. Yes.  Do significant portions of the world have positive views of the United States.  Yes.  Those views existed before President Bush.  If you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, I would prefer the people making the decisions do so on a basis of conviction rather than political expediency.  Just a side note, the French, Germans and Russians appear to be more concilliatory towards U.S. foreign policy in the last few days.  I wonder why?

[This message has been edited by Tim (04-05-2003 11:53 AM).]

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

127 posted 2003-04-05 01:05 PM


Part of the world's conflicts may well be that all peoples (and I state peoples, not governments) do not want stable, liberal democracies. Those who prefer such a liberal form of government may well desire that all peoples would support such ideals, but such is not the case. Is that not one of the inherent inconsistencies with multi-culturalism? Is not that a logical explanation of how someone can oppose interference in another nation's affairs but praise the results of such interference?  Sheesh, he is now totally afield of the thread. Ack as he retreats in the Kansas wheatfields.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
128 posted 2003-04-05 01:18 PM


I think war is less of a diplomatic failure than it is a diplomatic tool. Technically, of course, it's the threat of war that is a tool, but the threat can't exist without the reality.

I once heard the following definition for a Great Truth. "A Great Truth only exists when its opposite it also a Great Truth." It seemed like a bit of Zen flippancy to me, at first, but it turns out to be surprisingly valid sometimes.

Case in point, I firmly believe there is always an alternative to war. But that's only true if you accept that sometimes there is no alternative.



Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

129 posted 2003-04-05 02:27 PM


And Ron has succinctly shown the difference between a lawyer and a person of intellect.
Make your point and don't ramble.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
130 posted 2003-04-05 03:58 PM


I always THOUGHT there was a difference between a lawyer and a person of intellect!! Thank you, Tim, for verifying that!

Brad, Bush doesn't need my defense of his policies and it seems most relevant facts, of which there are many in this thread, when presented are ignored when irrefutable so why bother? This is just a very long gab session that isn't going to change anyone's mind at all...and that's ok, too.

P.S. ..if I don't agree with you and you haven't convinced me, does that make you incompetent?

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

131 posted 2003-04-05 04:25 PM


Balladeer, somehow I suspected you would pick up on that point... *smile* (I am not even smart enough to add those smilie thingees)  I would never claim to be an intellectual, if I was, I would not have been a prosecutor throughout my career instead of going for the big bucks, or if I was really smart, living the life of leisure in Florida playing golf every day and picking on poor defenseless bugs.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
132 posted 2003-04-05 05:41 PM


Defenseless!?!?! I put my life on the line every day!


...and for the record I have the highest respect for the prosecutors - the bloodsuckers are the ones that give me hives

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
133 posted 2003-04-05 05:55 PM


quote:
P.S. ..if I don't agree with you and you haven't convinced me, does that make you incompetent?


Not always, but if I never convince you of anything, even when it's in your own best interests to agree with me, sure (This is why arrogance matters). When I ignore your points even if say I have more money than you and it's in my best interests to listen to you, then I am also incompetent.  

As far as war as another means of diplomacy? Sure. I can also say diplomacy is another means of war. The point is to win.

Is war sometimes inevitable? Sure. Was it inevitable in Iraq?

France, and Chirac to be more exact, has said some really stupid things, the move for leadership in Europe with America as the foil was silly. "War under no conditions," for example, was just a dumb thing to say, but I have no problems in calling Chirac incompetent as well.

Russia was one of the first to say that the very pressure that America is placing on Iraq is allowing peaceful disarmament to progress. France has said that if chemical weapons are used, they will support the war (Sure, because it means they were wrong), and Germany has said that it wants America to win. But these are tricky points to make as their peoples still seem resolutely against American intervention.

But if Tim is correct, if it is true that

quote:
[p]art of the world's conflicts may well be that all peoples (and I state peoples, not governments) do not want stable, liberal democracies. Those who prefer such a liberal form of government may well desire that all peoples would support such ideals, but such is not the case.


Then the entire stategy is wrong. Unfortunately, retreating to Kansas wheat fields is no longer an option, is it?

But, Tim, the point of my earlier examples was that he didn't play the card he was dealt, it was almost as if he reacted to the dealt card. If the previous administration was negotiating, they would stop (North Korea, Israel/Palestine), if they weren't, they would start (Afghanistan). Obviously, I have no idea what would have happened had he done the right thing, what I think is the right thing, we may very well be in the exact situation we're in now, but at least it would have made more sense and in the case of Israel/Palestine dispute fewer people would have died.

As far as people always being against America, sure some people are, but the scope of these protests are different. Um, I'm confused, are you not seeing what I'm seeing? Do you really think it's business as usual in other parts of the world?

Or have you always seen the world like this whereas I think it a self-fulfilling prophecy?

As far as America being evil, don't confuse an Ayatollah's fatwa with an Australian demonstration.  

As far as bin Laden is concerned, I'll assume you didn't mean that. You can't mean that you support, or feel even the slightest sympathy for, bin Laden's justification of 911.

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

Michael,

But I thought you were the one screaming for facts. Now, you say they don't matter? I'm so very confused right now. Did I convince you that facts are tricky things? You don't seem to mind stating a lot of things as facts (even when they aren't true) when attacking people you dislike, but won't offer one, not even one, in support of your view. I don't get this. It may very well be true that it won't convince me (So what?), but if you don't feel it necessary, can I conclude that it is Bush's rhetoric (malaprops and neoligisms aside) that you prefer and that what the Bush administration actually does, what actually works is less important?

That is, you'd much rather hear Bush say, "You're either for us or against us" and then enjoy watching the administration do backflips trying to explain that that doesn't mean what it means.

I don't know, I do know that I probably wouldn't be a very good diplomat.

        

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
134 posted 2003-04-05 06:00 PM


Then we actually do have something in common, Brad, because I KNOW I wouldn't make one, either!!
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
135 posted 2003-04-05 09:29 PM


Since I've now forgotten what I was going to say and since nobody pays any attention anyway -- I'll just let those who have gone before say it all...

"All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means." - Chou En-Lai, quoted in Saturday Evening Post

"Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war." - Ernest Miller Hemmingway

The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
- Plato

The quickest way to end a war is to lose it.
- George Orwell

Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war.
- Winston Churchill

We make war that we may live in peace.
- Aristotle

When the rich make war it's the poor that die.
- Jean-Paul Sartre

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
- Albert Einstein

Only the winners decide what were war crimes.
- Gary Wills

No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country.
- General George Patton

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.
- Ernest Hemingway

Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.
- John F. Kennedy

It is better to be a coward for a minute than dead for the rest of your life.
- Irish Proverb

In time of war the first casualty is truth.
- Boake Carter

I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.
- George McGovern

Either man is obsolete or war is.
- R. Buckminster Fuller

Beware of the man of one book.
- Thomas Aquinas

"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses." - Thomas Jefferson

"Wars are caused by undefended wealth." - General Douglas MacArthur
"You can't say civilisation don't advance, however, for in every war they kill you in a new way." - Will Rogers, The Autobiography of Will Rogers

"My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth." - George Washington

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your father who is in heaven." - Jesus of Nazareth

"I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita: 'I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that, one way or another." - Oppenheimer, J. Robert

"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes." - Reagan, Ronald in a radio broadcast test

"Cry Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war." - Shakespeare, William


Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
136 posted 2003-04-05 09:54 PM


Brad,
You asked for relevant facts before,and I believe the point was about Gore not doing anything in Iraq (If I am wrong, then it will be as per usual).
How about a speech that Uncle Al gave just last week where he said that he wasn't going to talk poorly about the sitting president, and then made the statement that He would NOT have gone into Iraq.
The words are his, and not those of a conservative thinker trying to bad mouth anyone.
That is how it can be said that he would not have been effective in the Iraqi instance.

Imagine all the People living life in peace...
John Lennon

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
137 posted 2003-04-05 10:19 PM


LR,

So what are you trying to say? I read what you say, I just generally don't see much point in responding with, "Nicely put," "Great job" and "I wish I had said that."



Ringo,

But that wasn't my question. I charged Bush with incompetence. To charge Clinton, Gore, Carter -- Chomsky, Sheer, or, I don't know, Alec Baldwin with the same thing doesn't make mine go away. Bush is the president (and the legitimate president by the way), what positive thing as he done internationally except gone to war two years in a row?

My point is simple: just give me something that shows an understanding of the complexities of international politics.

I may not be convinced but I'll shut up.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
138 posted 2003-04-06 01:41 PM


Nah Brad -- I'm just trying to figure out why any of us bother -- the world has plenty of paid pundits...it's not as if this makes any difference -- we do this for fun?  nah.. the sun is shining -- think I'll put my brain back in the jar.

Where are the donuts?

When I was young the old geezers used to sit on the courthouse lawn playing checkers and talking about this stuff while they smoked cigars -- instead -- we do it across the planet with a keyboard... probably all sitting in our underwear and scratching our --

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-06-2003 01:44 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
139 posted 2003-04-06 04:49 PM


LR, one might actually hope that discussion promotes learning. Of course, that suggests a willingness to listen and learn, which might be expecting too much. Still, one hopes.

Why, after all, do you think a poetry board would even bother with discussion forums?

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
140 posted 2003-04-06 06:07 PM


I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.
- George McGovern

Either man is obsolete or war is.
- R. Buckminster Fuller

Beware of the man of one book.
- Thomas Aquinas

"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses." - Thomas Jefferson
*******************************************
Oh, if only we would really listen, and act, with some of these thoughts held forever in our mindset.

garysgirl
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2002-09-29
Posts 19237
Florida, USA
141 posted 2003-04-06 07:10 PM


Hi Everybody. I'm still reading, and it seems everything calmed down a whole lot from a couple of days ago.

Now, doesn't  everybody  agree  that is a good thing? I thought so. And even though everyone's opinion may be basically the same, I believe that everyone has learned at least something that they didn't know before.

Hugs to you all,
Ethel

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
142 posted 2003-04-06 08:29 PM


One can hope Ron... I just wonder if there is any real yeild from it though.  It is fun sometimes and while I'm convinced the participants basically like each other -- with a few exceptions -- it just becomes tedious sometimes covering the same ground over and over again.

It's not about you or your world you've created here on the web -- it's about me and being too burned out to be glib.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
143 posted 2003-04-06 09:26 PM


Understood, LR. And I agree, it does become tedious at times. For me, it usually depends on who is participating and whether they actually listen to what is being said.

As to the yield, I don't think discussion and learning have to change the world to be productive. Or, even, necessarily change anyone's mind. Stretching the neurons is a good thing. Learning how others think (or don't think in some cases) is invaluable. Writing, I think, is about a lot more than just stringing words together.

garysgirl
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2002-09-29
Posts 19237
Florida, USA
144 posted 2003-04-06 10:48 PM


Thanks Ron, for saying exactly what I meant to say. You just said it a whole lot better.
Ethel

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
145 posted 2003-04-07 12:10 PM


quote:
Nah Brad -- I'm just trying to figure out why any of us bother


That's easy for me. I live in Korea.




Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
146 posted 2005-03-06 01:20 AM




Hey, I was just digging back into the archives and was glad I found this lying around down there.

Now, with it being nearly two years since this discussion started, I thought now would be a great time to "Protest The Protesters Who Protest The Protesters" (giggles)



A lot certainly has happened since this discussion came to a rest on April 7th, 2003.

Most of the 1,507 American troops who have died in this war have died since then, a majority after Bush declared "Mission accomplished!". Most of the approximately 35,800 wounded and the 107,000 Iraqi civilians killed have died since then, also a majority after May 2, 2003.

Fallujah, the city lying in the middle of the single greatest battle in this war, was destroyed to save it.

Abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib continue to happen and often go unsolved or unjustified.

Over $155 billion has been spent already and another $80 billion is expected to be asked for soon, bringing the total cost of this war to over the cost of Vietnam. While this is happening, the administration says it can't afford $300 million in more money for Pell Grants, less than 0.5 percent of what it is spending on this war, among many other domestic and governmental programs that have been cut that didn't have to be if not for this behemoth militaristic Yahtzee.

There have been tentpoles throughout the developing timeline of this ongoing war which brought us temporarily solace and thought to be turning points, with the comfort proving all too stoppable.

The death of Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, was supposed to be a turning point. The capture of Saddam himself was supposed to be a turning point. The transfer of power at the end of June was supposed to be a turning point. The taking back of Fallujah was supposed to be a turning point. And, most recently, the elections in Iraq, where eight million courageous Iraqis who came out and risked their lives to vote and wanted their voice to be heard loud and clear for freedom to the fullest extent, freedom from tyranny, freedom from oppression and freedom from foreign occupation.

The fact is, the only turning point will be when the United States turns around and leaves. Opinion polls continue to show that a clear majority of Iraqi citizens, both Shi'ites and Sunnis, want our occupation to end and for us to withdraw either immediately or once the government is set in place, which they want instilled as soon as possible.

Foreign policy should never be shaken or gambled like a game of Yahtzee. Whether the promising recent events of Lebanon protesters encouraging the Pro-Syrian government to withdraw, Egypt announcing multi-party elections or Saudi Arabia demanding Syria to remove all forces from Lebanon are coincidential to the Middle East agenda or a catalyst inspired by the war in Iraq, the thesis in going to war was otherwise, and simply when the thesis is incorrect or proven false, there limits the credit any such government earns from launching an invasion such as this, and rather appears as luck or fortune. The main point in going to war was that many were believed Saddam had WMD's and was capable of striking his neighbors with them. That thesis has been proven false, and the claim of "spreading freedom and democracy to the region" was seldom ever mentioned and only now has become the recurring theme as the war goes on.

But most significantly, here on our own soil, Americans are uneasy and are disapproving of the war more than ever, with one example being the Associated press poll done on February 23, 2005, where people in nine countries were asked about their attitudes to Bush's plan to promote democracy, and not ONE nation expressed a majority of people believing America should be doing so. Even here in America, 53% didn't believe that.

The world has spoken, and indeed I believe myself no individual country should make the decision for all the world. We ought to let the world come together again and hug our international community.

We have also learned since April 7th, 2003 of some truths of our media and the war.

The fact is, the anti-war voice was virtually completely suppressed leading up to the beginning of the war, despite 61% saying two weeks before the war began on March 19, 2003 that more time should be given for inspections and/or diplomacy. According to Fairness in Accuracy and Reporting, out of 393 interviews conducted in the few weeks leading up to the war in Iraq after Powell's visit to the U.N across the four major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS), only three (less than 1%) were anti-war, and two of them came from Ted Kennedy.

And the few instances you do see protesters in the media, it always so happen to be the ugly, unruly instances that come up every once in a while, when in general the protests are actually rather peaceful and mean well.

You saw history being made during the Republican National Convention in New York City last August, where over 500,000 marched from Union Square to Madison Square Garden in the rally hosed by United For Peace & Justice, more than any other single convention rally in history, with dozens of other protests happening all throughout the city and the nation without trouble. You saw the incredible peace and non-violence among the whole crowd, with nothing but a paper dragon float burning too hot and giving an officer some burns and one other exception, Jamal, hitting detective William Sample off his scooter. Otherwise, it couldn't have been any more peaceful.

Even with Bush re-elected, even with Bush making his most striking speech yet in his inaugural address, calling for a wide-scale campaign in fighting terror worldwide, more and more are seeing through the rhetoric, and more and more are speaking out.

The anti-war movement has grown, and it continues to grow, even when it is not being televised, even when no end is in sight and all may appear hopeless, even when our media continues to distort the mission statement.

Two years ago, you saw the fog of uncertainty enshroud you. Now we are walking through it like a bead curtain. Now the voice of democracy and the dove is on the march.

We pacifists, war skeptics, of all parties and spectrums alike support our troops and are as American and anti-terror as our neighbors who support the war. The only difference is how we believe in resolving these conflicts that are critical in our world today, and I, among all other pacifists, believe war only incites more war and terror, and only love and understanding truly dissolves the emotions that incite this type of behavior.

Pacifists, progressives, etc. like myself hold dear and worship the philosophy of our beloved Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, who became one of the most loved and legendary social figures of the 20th Century in expressing his philosophy of non-violence, civil equality, and the love of all mankind.

We hold these words he spoke true to our hearts each day as we continue to work for peace:

"Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."

Moreover, we may not all believe in God under the same name, but we all believe in the Holy Spirit just as much as the next American, and I believe deep in my heart Jesus characterized non-violence and the sword he said he brought with him was a healing sword, a sword that heals of peace.

The fact is, this cold civil war must stop should we move on and come back together as a society. I for one, as a pacifist, have many conservative and Republican friends who I love and am blessed to have in my life. We may not always agree, but it is our differences and varieties that add spice to life and make us appreciate one another even more, like in any relationship. I learn from them each day and believe I become a better and more accepting person with their help. And I believe throughout all our nation's history, conservatives and liberals alike have designed the tapestry of our great nation which we cherish and hold dear.

In final word, let it be recognized as I continue to protest this war in Iraq among many others, including on the forthcoming second anniversary of it in two weeks, I'm not protesting it out of "self-proclaimed self-righteousness", I'm not protesting it out of any vengeful behavior.

I'm protesting it because of the deep passion in all my heart in preserving and defending the "dream". I'm protesting it not out of who's right, but what is sound, and in my heart war is cynical and any loss that results in it could always have been spared. I'm protesting it out of my heartful philosophy that war only builds tension and is unhealthy to mankind.

Like that honorable soldier who Balladeer saw on TV, who passed out the food and water to Iraqi children and was asked what he was thinking, I have matured and continue to learn exactly why I bother taking time out of my schedule each week to take to the streets and volunteer with the community.

And I have to say, frankly, I was most inspired on October 3rd, 2004, when I co-organized a major historic rally in Portland, Oregon where almost 10,000 turned out and participated in. That day, dozens of children were out there who took part in the march, many wearing peace capes and these little angels were giggling and cheerfully skipping around flying kites and waving peace flags.

And one little girl showed me a painting she made, depicting her sleeping in bed, dreaming, and in a big bubble of what she was dreaming of everyone holding hands of all nationalities, with a rainbow arching above them with a peace sign and a dove. The sight of seeing that made me cry in tears of warmth.

That, to me, is my moment when I thought, "Now I know why I am here!" The world is full of dreamers who dream beautiful dreams, and I want to see a world for our children in the future where they could all live together in peace and not fear of turning on the TV or overhearing talk from their parents of this ugliness in our world.

The fact is, we pacifists DO share that same feeling. In fact, we live and breathe with this feeling each and every day from the bottom of our heart. And that is why we have the faith and courage to organize with our communities, that is why, even when we doubt our rally could change the world at large, we do what we do just for the good of it. That feeling is the primary resource that invigorates our faith each day.

Now, I wish each day everyone else could imagine and believe in this vision, someway, somehow, but moreover, that the instinct comes not forced or imposed, but comes as a soft note, an epiphany, that comes naturally like the thawing of a rolling spring.

In closing, I have one wish, one desire I have to offer, that is all too familiar, yet all too relevant and revered:

"You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope someday you will join us,
and the world will live as one"

John Lennon
Imagine


Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
147 posted 2005-03-06 09:47 AM


Noah... I just sat here and read every single post with a bit of amusement, and a small sense of nostalgia remembering what was going on in the world, and in my life at the time this discussion was going on.

Now.. back to "battle stations" (JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!):

Most of the 1,507 American troops who have died in this war have died since then, a majority after Bush declared "Mission accomplished!". Most of the approximately 35,800 wounded...also a majority after May 2, 2003.

There is one thing that most people who are citing these facts are forgetting... there are non-combat deaths and injuries being added to this every day. I give you as examples:
1)Army Sgt Andrew Baddick of Jim Thorpe, Pa who died while attempting to save some of his friends whose HumVee had just swerved into an irrigation ditch. All four soliers died, yet there was not one agressor in the area.. and not one shot was fired in this instance. This is being called up as 4 Americans killed in combat.(source, a letter written to his mother- whom I met at Sgt. Baddicks service)
2)Air Force Sgt. Robert Lerch of Pottsville, Pa who-while on routine patrol- had his hand crushed as the result of his humvee hitting a bump at a decent rate of speed, and his hand getting caught in the "sunroof". There were no anyones around except for American servicemen, yet this is also being touted as an American Wounded in Action. (source- Sgt. Lerch, whose mother I was dating at the time)
It has been a while since I have done the research, however when the media was screaming to anyone who would listen that there had been 1000 Americans killed in the war, there had, in fact, only been around 670 combat deaths. The rest were as the result of vehicle mishaps, falling deaths, and the like. In another thread you accused Fox Neews of being extremely biased, yet not one of the mainstream media (or CNN, MSNBC, or the others) seemed interested in revealing these facts. (this was not part of my part of this debate... just a random thought)

Fallujah, the city lying in the middle of the single greatest battle in this war, was destroyed to save it.

Hiroshima was completely destroyed, along with Nagasaki in order to end the war. Wahsington, DC was fairly well demolished in the effort to end the war of 1812. The ancient city of Hue was reduced almost to rubble as the result of Americans battling the enemy. (fictional proof- if there is such a thing- can be seen in the movie Full Metal Jacket. The war scenes are "being filmed" in the battle of Hue). The city of Vicksburg, Ms was sieged in order to stop the "insurgents" of the time from using it as a port of supply. The Battle of Britain left London a pile of rubble... end of sentance. The war in Kosovo reduced Serejevo to cinders in the effort to "save i:
My point is this, Noah- in a war, buldings get messed up, and people die. Although I do not revel in that fact, it is simply that... a fact. The main fact is that every major battle scene in history, whether in the city or in the country has left some pretty big divits to fill.

Over $155 billion has been spent already and another $80 billion is expected to be asked for soon, bringing the total cost of this war to over the cost of Vietnam
Use Vietnam era dollars to justify this. The movie Titanic was one of the most expensive movies ever made... however The Ten Commandments, if matched evenly on 1950/1960's dolars would DUST the pricetag. No, I am not comparing a couple of movies to war costs, just making the point that perceptions can alter the facts when a cold even comparison is made.

The main point in going to war was that many were believed Saddam had WMD's and was capable of striking his neighbors with them. That thesis has been proven false
There was an article in Time magazine not too long ago where an Iraqi militant leader admitted to having stores of weapons stashed all over the country where the Americans would never find them, and that it is these weapons that the Americans are being killed with. Perhaps I am too old, too set in my ways to understand, however I don't se how it can be admitted by an Iraqi that there are weapons stores hidden all over the country, yet people still don't believe it is possible that there are weapons being hidden/buried/whatever around the country. WMD's do not need to be large missiles or the like. The chemical attacks in Madrid, and Tokyo (to name a few) were done by a few containers that would fit into a knapsack.

...most significantly, here on our own soil, Americans are uneasy and are disapproving of the war more than ever...
The number you gave was 53%. Perhaps it is significant that the number of people who felt that America's involvement in WWII was at just about the same percentage. I am not comparing this war to WWII, except in the most basic of manners. The Great Society that saved the world only agreed with the war and the President's handling of it with percentages in the 40's. I do not have any misconceptions that this will be held to the same historical measure as the other war... only that history has proven it to have been the right thing to do. Pehaps, in time, that shall be the case here.

I believe myself no individual country should make the decision for all the world. We ought to let the world come together again and hug our international community.
The world (many of the countries, anyhow) ARE hugging the international community. To date, there have been 11 countries who have lost their native sons to this action. There are also five or six that are involved, yet have not had in-country deaths... including Spain, who opposed the war in the first place. How can you define this as an individual country making the decision for all the world.

In China (the Boxer Rebellion),WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and in the Persian Gulf, and Afghanistan the Americans have taken most of the "credit" (or blame, take your choice) yet there have been many, many more countries involved. It is just that no one seems to want to remember those countries and their sacrifices.

The fact is, the anti-war voice was virtually completely suppressed leading up to the beginning of the war, despite 61% saying two weeks before the war began on March 19, 2003 that more time should be given for inspections and/or diplomacy. According to Fairness in Accuracy and Reporting, out of 393 interviews conducted in the few weeks leading up to the war in Iraq after Powell's visit to the U.N across the four major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS), only three (less than 1%) were anti-war, and two of them came from Ted Kennedy.
And now, it seems the Pro-war voice is being suppressed by the same media that did the reporting then. It is amazing how the government can be accused of supressing one side of an issue, when that side is blatantly suppressing anything that doesn't agree with it's view. (Remember: CNN is owned by Ted Turnere, one of the biggest liberal supporters, and anti-Bush people in America.)

...the few instances you do see protesters in the media, it always so happen to be the ugly, unruly instances that come up every once in a while, when in general the protests are actually rather peaceful and mean well.
This I will agree with you 100%. I have discussed this issue with numerous people over the past couple of years, and the very, very great majority of them are peaceful, law-abidiing citizens who feel that it is their patriotic duty to excercise their rights and oppose what they feel is wrong. I had a discussion with one who (like yourself) who is simply attempting to change his part of the world into a better place by quietly geting people to think about their vision of the country and if their views are being represented. I disagreed with him, or course; however, I was willing to sit there and discuss it for over an hour, when I gave the guy who yelled at me less than 5 minutes.

The anti-war movement has grown, and it continues to grow, even when it is not being televised, even when no end is in sight and all may appear hopeless, even when our media continues to distort the mission statement.
The media is distorting EVERYTHING involved with this issue... and with most. There is a very excellent book entitled "Generation Kill" by Even Wright that tells about the many noble things the Americans are doing for the Iraqi people, and the gratitude that they (Americans) are receiving because of it. I don't believe I have heard anything about it in the "unbiased" national media... only on the biased Fox News, and on Dennis Miller (himself a Bush supporter)

That day, dozens of children were out there who took part in the march, many wearing peace capes and these little angels were giggling and cheerfully skipping around flying kites and waving peace flags.
Noah, I sincerely congradulate you on the success of your event. Regardless of the reson for the even, pulling off something that big is an accomplishment. What I will say, however, is that not one of those kids truly understood wat they were wearing angel wings and flying peace signs for. The understood that their parents told them that is what they were supposed to do, and they know what their parents told them about the evil things this government is doing. They have no minds of their ow, yewt, in this issue, and will not for a while. I grew up in a military family surrounded by Vietnam combat vets, and still didn't have my own thoughts about ANYTHING war or government related until I was almost out of high school. In talking to a few friends from then, and talking to the young pwoplw I work with today, I was (for once) in the majority on this. Even as adults, many people just blindly go along with what they are told, and do not do their own research to decide for themselves. Their friends think a certain way, and the candidate/party/isue leaders that they listen to because of their friends, the leader's looks, whatever, says this is it... and therefore... that is  it.

One last thing: Everyone is yelling about the continued attacks and the continuing deaths of Americans who are dying, yet no one seems to be admittiing the fact that it is mostly NON Iraqi's who are doing the fighting. The Iraqis might want us to get the job done and leave as quickly as possible (as do I, believe it or not), yet it is not the Iraqis that are causing us to stay there so long... it is the other arab citizens (notice I didn't say countries) who are coninuing the hate.

In the wooden chair
Beside my window
I wear a face born in the falling rain

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
148 posted 2005-03-06 07:41 PM


Whether the promising recent events of Lebanon protesters encouraging the Pro-Syrian government to withdraw, Egypt announcing multi-party elections or Saudi Arabia demanding Syria to remove all forces from Lebanon are coincidential to the Middle East agenda or a catalyst inspired by the war in Iraq, the thesis in going to war was otherwise, and simply when the thesis is incorrect or proven false, there limits the credit any such government earns from launching an invasion such as this, and rather appears as luck or fortune.

That says it all, Noah. You are presenting your ideas as rational and logical when actually they are the same "I hate Bush and will give him no credit for anything" rhetoric you have continually espoused. Whatever good is happening over there, according to you, is coincidence luck or just good fortune. It is the same tactic you employed not to give Bush any credit for saving tens of thousands of Iraqi children from starvation and tens of thousands of Iraqis from future mass graves....you acknowledged it as a fact but then double-spoke a way out of giving the administration any credit for doing exactly what your organization was marching for - saving lives.

The events of the Middle East right now are mind-boggling, from elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya's discontinuation of nuclear weaponry, the more-positive-than-ever Jewish-Palestinian peace talks to the Egyptian election changes to Syria pulling out of Lebanon to major democratic consessions in Saudi Arabia.....the l ist goes on and on. If you feel that this is all coincidence or luck and nothing to actually do with the administration's efforts, then please continue deluding yourself. The funny part is that I KNOW (and I suspect you do, too) that, if all of this were happening with A Democratic president in power, the same anti-Bush protestors would be calling the Democratic president one of the greatest presidents in history, pointing at all of these same things as a tribute to his abilities as president and visionary. I believe history will judge Bush exactly that way.

You say the anti-war movemant is growing. Hell, we are ALL anti-war. What do they want? Do they want us to pull up stakes tomorrow and leave? Leave the Iraqis in the hands of the terrorist groups who do not want democracy or freedoms to interfere with their objectives, which is to rule by force and rob the country blind as Hussein did? Is that what they want? Are there signs reading "Get out of Iraq Now?". If so....are they nuts? If not, what purpose does their protesting serve? Sounds like people who just want to get together to scream about conditions they do not want changed and have no idea how to better...anybody can do that.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
149 posted 2005-03-06 10:07 PM




Hey Ringo, thanks again for this chat with me here. Again, we disagree more often than we agree, but I thank you ever so much for your patence in being able to look beyond the disagreements and just speak your mind openly to me like a next-door neighbor I find myself very accustomed and open to!



I'll respond to a few of your points here:

*

1) Yes, you're absolutely correct that not all the 1,507 casualties were from hostile fire. I think the number for those killed in hostile fire is between 1,100 and 1,150. You understand where I'm getting at though, right, that this didn't have to happen if we didn't go over there.

And for the record I think all cable media is either currently leaning to the right or simply isn't serving the general public with the news they want (Take the Michael Jackson trial, for instance, where in both CNN and Fox News polls, over four in five Americans said they will NOT be following the coverage, yet it is flooding the headlines now. Why do we deserve this?). I don't think CNN leans right, I don't think it leans left. It just leans on its back.

*

2) I believe most of the guests still remain in support of the war. I kind of scatter my schedule to each of the networks, with a little CBS, a little Fox News, a little MSNBC, a little CNN, and some Democracy Now!, plus "Now!" and "BBC News" on Fridays, and I still find most of the programs either have guests who are more indifferent or still lean in support. I'd have to say on cable news, "Hardball" with Chris Matthews is the most fair program right now, where he'll invite those like David Horowitz on the right and also invite some wives of husbands serving in Iraq against the war on the other side. But I still find most programs ("The O'Reilly Factor", "Hannity & Colmes", "Scarborough Country", "Special Report with Brit Hume") are slanted to the right or ("Larry King Live", "Newsnight with Aaron Brown") focus a bulk of their time on celebrity stories and interviews and such. I'm convinced if Ted Turner was truly passionate about making CNN the liberal progressive hotbed, he would have hired Phil Donahue by now, who unfortunately was pushed out by MSNBC despite his strong early ratings.

*

3) I absolutely agree not all protesters are civilized. And of course I can say the same for any politician in any party.

You may have heard what Republican Congressman Jim Gibbons of Nevada, who said on Monday (well, not exactly, he actually plagiarixed 15 of 21 passages in his speech from Alabama State Auditor Beth Chapman) the following:

"I say we tell those liberal, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, hippie, tie-dyed liberals to go make their movies and their music and whine somewhere else."

Actually, I actually kind of took that as a compliment in some way, because I wish so much the liberals in our government could truly be like that. Actually what offended me was that he then added later it was "too damn bad we didn’t buy them a ticket" to become human shields in Iraq.

Meanwhile, in the Democratic Party this week, you had Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia come out and insinuated Republicans were Nazis in their effort to cancel out the filibuster here:

"We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men. But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends."

And THAT is exactly an example of why, though I may have voted Kerry in the last election, I consider myself an independent rather than a Democrat.

The point here I'm making is that there are extreme, uncivil people in every party, every area, of life. There are crazy protesters out there like those who rioted in Seattle a few years ago and in Chicago over thirty years ago. But in general, all you have to do is go out there on the streets and see with your own very eyes that these protests are not the ones the mainstream media depict each time something gets out of control.

*

4)



Awwwwww, thank you soooooo much for your kind and encouraging words on that rally I co-organized! (angel friendship hugs) I know you probably wouldn't have marched alongside me in that rally had you been there, but it still is a hug to my heart to see you wish me well!

I agree that in some cases the children were there just because their parents went. But I truly believe some kids really know what's happening, they truly are smart and know what's going on, like that girl who showed me the painting she made. Her painting was drupping with pure emotion, pure sentiment, pure thoughts. And there were other kids there the age of 10-12 who were even able to have fluent opinionated conversations with me, and I just felt like crying in a mixture of joy and sorrow, thinking "My God, these kids are bright!"

And for the record, I just want to say that I pretty much found my passion in protesting the war myself. My parents are no fans of the war either, but they are not really that type that goes out on the streets often and joins huge crowds. I'm really the only one that keeps going out there to the rallies, though my parents are supportive of what I do. And I believe many other young adults do the same.

*

5) YES, YES, thank you for bringing up that last point of non-Iraqi's fighting. Indeed other countries are facing losses of their own and incuring wrath upon these innocent civilians from the outside among the decentralized al-Qaeda network and such. I recognize that, make no mistake about it.

*

It's great to talk with you, my friend. And by the way, no hurt feelings about the election either. I accept Bush won this time, and now will just simply keep up the movement against the war and for schools, living wages, environment, etc.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
150 posted 2005-03-06 10:36 PM


That says it all, Noah. You are presenting your ideas as rational and logical when actually they are the same "I hate Bush and will give him no credit for anything" rhetoric you have continually espoused. Whatever good is happening over there, according to you, is coincidence luck or just good fortune. It is the same tactic you employed not to give Bush any credit for saving tens of thousands of Iraqi children from starvation and tens of thousands of Iraqis from future mass graves....you acknowledged it as a fact but then double-spoke a way out of giving the administration any credit for doing exactly what your organization was marching for - saving lives.

Not true. I'm not convinced he deserves credit yet because his thesis in going to war doesn't match the rhetoric he's using now.

Hey, if he simply was frank and made his case along the lines of, "Hey, I want to go to war in Iraq, because it is central to the Middle East region and I want this invasion to serve as a catalyst in spreading peace and freedom across the region." and as a footnote said, "Besides, Saddam may have WMD's and intends to streike his neighbord with them!", then there would never be this huge of a debacle. He could have simply said he wanted to spread freedom and democracy across the world and let everyone have elections (Sistani proposed that first), and instead he goes on insisting that we should go because of the WMD's.

And besides that, I absolutely believe everyone deserves to be free across the world, everyone deserves not to live in fear. But in this process of working to liberate tens of thousands from mass graves and famine, we could have spared over 107,000 other Iraqis from falling to this fate because of this invasion, not to mention an untold number of others with injuries that'll affect them and their families their whole lives.

I'm just telling it as it is.

The events of the Middle East right now are mind-boggling, from elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya's discontinuation of nuclear weaponry, the more-positive-than-ever Jewish-Palestinian peace talks to the Egyptian election changes to Syria pulling out of Lebanon to major democratic consessions in Saudi Arabia.....the l ist goes on and on. If you feel that this is all coincidence or luck and nothing to actually do with the administration's efforts, then please continue deluding yourself. The funny part is that I KNOW (and I suspect you do, too) that, if all of this were happening with A Democratic president in power, the same anti-Bush protestors would be calling the Democratic president one of the greatest presidents in history, pointing at all of these same things as a tribute to his abilities as president and visionary. I believe history will judge Bush exactly that way.

Again...not true.

If Kerry were elected, and he was just carrying on the whole operation without any sign of backing out or withdrawing, I would be protesting him with the same volume of passion I have for twenty-four months against Bush. Heck, I was never thrilled about voting for him from the beginning, because I recognized he wasn't anti-war either, maybe just simply a little less pro-war than Bush. I found voting for Nader or Cobb insufficient, so, I just went with the infamous "lesser of two burdens" instinct, because Kerry had also announced, unlike Bush, that his goal was to move out all troops from Iraq by te end of his first term, and that is better than nothing, so I went with my gut.

His public approval of the war is decaying. Most Americans don't trust him on domestic policies. The world unanimously thinks unfavorably of him, with the exception of Poland, the Philippines, and Israel.

I believe the main thing that is keeping Bush popular enough here is simply that Bush strikes many as just that kind of guy you'd love to have a beer with. All those who remain in favor of the war obviously are the same ones who make up a bulk of his likeability rating, while others truly dislike him, yet it's like a "My Fair Lady" feeling, where they're just so "accustomed to his face" and his language and such, and can't help but like him because he's almost like a celebrity, an entertainer, to them. The comedy and satire business right now is like that. They truly think down on his policies, but still can't help but enjoy him around because he's good business or such.

And I think his street smart, next-door neighbor persona is what will make him remembered most of all in America. Just my opinion.

You say the anti-war movemant is growing. Hell, we are ALL anti-war. What do they want? Do they want us to pull up stakes tomorrow and leave? Leave the Iraqis in the hands of the terrorist groups who do not want democracy or freedoms to interfere with their objectives, which is to rule by force and rob the country blind as Hussein did? Is that what they want? Are there signs reading "Get out of Iraq Now?". If so....are they nuts? If not, what purpose does their protesting serve? Sounds like people who just want to get together to scream about conditions they do not want changed and have no idea how to better...anybody can do that.

How are we all anti-war? If you truly were anti-war, you would be protesting this current war with me.

Maybe if this streetcorner revolution begins to get televised a little more, we can all indeed benefit and learn something from it.

Max Depree said, "Leadership is much more an art, a belief, a condition of the heart, than a set of things to do. The visible signs of artful leadership are expressed, ultimately, in its practice."

It takes both leaders and followers to make this art paint the world. The greatest challenge here is to find the leaders in these crowds. There are many impressionable young people in the world who do nurture this alternative voice in their hearts, all they need is to be revealed and recognized.

Maybe if these great voices find this sort of exposure, Tom Peter's words can ring more true: "Leaders don't create followers, they create more leaders."

And there, is democracy at its finest.

That's what I wish for, and still believe is coming.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
151 posted 2005-03-06 11:25 PM


Ok, Noah, in case you've forgotten, Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' was for one major reason:  Major conflicts against the Iraqi ARMY were over.  Not the insurgents, but the Iraqi Army.  Though I can respect your opinion on most things, the coverage on that incident were so grossly misinterpreted by the major networks, except for Fox, as to leave the arena of what could loosely be called Truth.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
152 posted 2005-03-06 11:35 PM


I'm not convinced he deserves credit yet because his thesis in going to war doesn't match the rhetoric he's using now.

That's the same tired argument we've had going around here forever. You say he lied about wmd's, we show where the democratic leaders said the same things before Bush arrived in town, you disregard that and change the subject. It won't wash. You are using that reason as some kind of excuse, Noah, that's all. You say that if Bush had come out and said we were going into Iraq to spread freedom instead then that would have been different. I doubt that highly. I feel sure you would have protested that just as loudly. To state that, well, maybe good things are being done but, since he lied to me, I condemn it sounds to me like a cop-out excuse, something used for the sole purpose of having some kind of excuse to use.

If you truly were anti-war, you would be protesting this current war with me.

Noah, one does not have to be pro-war to recognize the necessity of it. It would be wonderful if it were NEVER necessary but that is not realistic. When you get Hitler, Hussein, Milosovic, Bin Laden, and the members of the terrorist organizations now bombing women and children all together to sing a rendition of Lenon's Imagine, then maybe I'll agree with you.

I'd appreciate it if you would answer the question I asked before. WHen you organize to protest, what are you protesting for? Getting out of Iraq right now? Or, if not that, then what? Obviously there must be some purpose to the protesting. What is it? I'm not sure I understand. With the Viet Nam protesters they WERE protesting being there and demanding we pull out immediately. Is that your message also? Protests normally involve some kind of demand for action by the protestors...what's yours?



Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
153 posted 2005-03-07 12:43 PM


"That's the same tired argument we've had going around here forever. You say he lied about wmd's, we show where the democratic leaders said the same things before Bush arrived in town, you disregard that and change the subject. It won't wash. You are using that reason as some kind of excuse, Noah, that's all. You say that if Bush had come out and said we were going into Iraq to spread freedom instead then that would have been different. I doubt that highly. I feel sure you would have protested that just as loudly. To state that, well, maybe good things are being done but, since he lied to me, I condemn it sounds to me like a cop-out excuse, something used for the sole purpose of having some kind of excuse to use."

I think one thing you're just not recognizing is that I do not consider myself a Democrat, I consider myself an independent, because the Democratic Party, at least in my opinion, is about as corporately-influenced as the Republican Party, is caught too much in the "Clinton's Party" decorative and hasn't adopted the true liberal progressive ideals as a centerpiece to their campaign. I believe that's the main problem here in our failure to communicate; because I voted for the Democratic ticket last November, you strike it as, therefore, I am a Democrat.

Look, I believe there are some great Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Boxer who are influencing the party, and if the party leans in more of a progressive mainstream direction, I may find the heart to call myself a liberal Democrat. At this time, though, I'm not, and I was just as frustrated with the many "Democrats" who followed the lead to letting the war happen, and I still don't trust many senators and congressmen in the party.

And, thank you, yes. You're absolutely correct I would still be protesting just as loudly if Bush went to war and made the claim he just wanted to spread "peace" and "freedom", because I'm a pacifist. But the fact is, this debacle wouldn't be of this magnitude it is now. You'd simply either agree with what Bush was doing or you wouldn't. And many who've had a change of heart or opinion now didn't sway because they disagreed with Bush's vision necessarily, just out of irresponsibility and not being open and frank with the American people and such and losing trust in him because of that.

Who knows, maybe that was on Bush's or his colleagues mind's all along; to spread "freedom" across the world. But they also knew to just say that would be a hard sell to the American public, and since faulty intelligence came in and convinced most that Saddam had WMD's, look, there you go, it's alarming. No one wants to be attacked, no one deserves to be attacked, so it may just convince the public to sell the case.

That's just my personal take there, and I believe precisely why so many that aren't even pacifists or anti-war remain distraught.

"Noah, one does not have to be pro-war to recognize the necessity of it. It would be wonderful if it were NEVER necessary but that is not realistic. When you get Hitler, Hussein, Milosovic, Bin Laden, and the members of the terrorist organizations now bombing women and children all together to sing a rendition of Lenon's Imagine, then maybe I'll agree with you"

You can call me another sort of idealist if you may, that I admit I am. But I do have more than just this hope for humanity, simply in the sight of seeing those who live by the notion, "Never again...". All it needs is some reinforcement and a message in which can be more contagious.

I consider you a true friend that I do enjoy talking to even when it is difficult to talk to you on occasion, and our firm disagreement on stances doesn't take away that I believe you mean well and have a good heart. I truly believe you are one who believes war is ugly and really doesn't desire to have it happen. I believe that. But I also believe that doesn't make someone under that description anti-war. Being anti-war I believe is recognizing that war has no beneficiary value and letting that go as an option.

I believe the option should be building communities and just attempting to reach out and find a level of understanding with our rivals and enemies in the world. I think the main problem here is that so many are just afraid to imagine that, it just sounds proposterous to sit at a table and talk or find a mutual understanding with someone you know is an enemy.

I'm not defending these terrorists by any means. I just believe that throughout history, injustice and malice has just always evolved among peoples, and once one form of it is defeated, without this "unfinished business" of understanding I speak of being done, the malice just skips away, takes on a makeover, and has a new name, a new identity. This should be recognized.

I believe if we can do that somehow, together, in a bi-partisan fashion worldwide in the future, this "unfinished business" can finally be carried out and this form of hatred and malice can dissolve.

I'd appreciate it if you would answer the question I asked before. WHen you organize to protest, what are you protesting for? Getting out of Iraq right now? Or, if not that, then what? Obviously there must be some purpose to the protesting. What is it? I'm not sure I understand. With the Viet Nam protesters they WERE protesting being there and demanding we pull out immediately. Is that your message also? Protests normally involve some kind of demand for action by the protestors...what's yours?

Yes, I'm protesting exactly in the form of what the Vietnam protestors did. I'm protesting against the war, and believe the occupation is what's encouraging the unrest, so therefore we should pull out. I believe from the beginning there could have been a non-violent alternative in encouraging the democratic desire among Iraqi citizens and secret operations to capture Saddam and his men and/or throw a coup like our government has unfortunately done in many Latin American nations that didn't deserve it, something along that line. And by this stage, had we abruptly left today while the Iraqi government is beginning to be put in place, just because we're out doesn't mean we can help monitor the building of their democracy and see to its stabilization. That's just generally speaking, and I'm sure others have much more to add, but that's just my take.

I figured you understood that from the beginning. Sorry if somehow I didn't clarify that. And indeed I protest the likes of Bush and Rumsfeld in the violence and the encouraging of the war practices and such, and indeed there are protesters who seem to have Bush on their minds and seeing him get his comeuppance (I call them "red curry protesters"). But though I do believe Bush should be impeached for war crimes and for violation of treaties, what I want most of all is what I wish every protester could be desiring; simply for us to leave for the good of the Iraqis, ourselves and the world.

We not only protest though. We also are simply just trying to educate the community and also just talk about the need to lean attention back to the real important necessities; of education, living wages, and democracy at its fullest. I don't believe it's anti-military to believe that simply too much money is being spent towards defense. I just believe that in balancing where everything is spent, we have a more balanced agenda.

I don't know, I guess "protest" just strikes some as a dirty word somewhat nowadays. But the educational component is there beyond the likes of those "red curry protesters" I speak of, and most protesters I believe really do care in doing good not just out of releasing all their anger for themselves, but for the good of the community as well, and rather protesting as a form of art, painting the town with its spontaneous poetry.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

JoshG
Member
since 2004-11-16
Posts 127
TX, USA
154 posted 2005-03-07 01:56 PM


Noah,

The democracy you so profess to love was not started on the backs of pacifist.  It was not upheld by peace.  It stands today because true Americans had a dream that they were willing to fight and die for.

It was pacifist behavor that got us Pearl Harbor, 911.  Democracy is a beautiful thing that will always have to be defended and fought for.  Iraq for however long it can be will experience the taste of Democracy and that in my mind is more than enough reason for the war.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
155 posted 2005-03-07 02:18 PM


Noah,

The democracy you so profess to love was not started on the backs of pacifist.  It was not upheld by peace.  It stands today because true Americans had a dream that they were willing to fight and die for.

It was pacifist behavor that got us Pearl Harbor, 911.  Democracy is a beautiful thing that will always have to be defended and fought for.  Iraq for however long it can be will experience the taste of Democracy and that in my mind is more than enough reason for the war.


*

I disagree with your views on pacifism leading us to these historic tragedies, but I do understand what you are saying in terms of that democracy must be defended. We both can absolutely agree there.

I just find it a serious problem, a problem beyond serious, in that if giving Iraq a taste of democracy was more than enough to justify this war, how far can this go, when will it ever stop?

Nepal is in a crisis right now as we speak, yet barely anyone seems to either know or care (I started a topic on Nepal here that has gotten no responses). Their king has cut off all their phone lines, closed off all their airports, and has harrassed their democratically-elected government with his officers and military supporters. If nothing improves soon and no diplomatic talks or international pressure is put in place, there could be a nasty genocide there possibly.

Where's all the talks about the struggles in Eastern Congo, or the slanted elections in Kyrgystan, or the crisis in Kenya? Don't they deserve democracy just like Iraq and much of the modern world?

And if we're going to solve every one of these problems with war, I just can't possibly ever believe in that when so many other conflicts in the world were resolved with diplomacy.

I believe Iraq could have been no exception to that rule.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
156 posted 2005-03-07 03:37 PM


Josh- There is one small correction that I have to make to your last post...
It was not pacifism that led to Pearl Harbor... What led us into WWII (Europe) was ignoring the situation. Once we got involved in the war on Germany, Japan thought it would be a good idea to wipe out the American Pacific Fleet to prevent them from stopping the spread of Japanese imperialism throughout the South Pacific and throughout the Orient. With that idea in mind, Gen. Yamamoto sailed over 30 war ships into the Northern Pacific waters, and the rest...

Also, it was not pacifism that led to 9/11. 9/11 was done by terrorists who had a political point to make. It was not because we didn't want to fight. If we had actively been at war with Iraq in September of 2001, the attacks on America would have still happened.

One last thing, and I sincerely apologize if I misread your post... I have been known to do that more than once... however it seems that you were insinuating that Noah wasn't a true American because of his pacifistic views (The democracy you so profess to love was not started on the backs of pacifist...It stands today because true Americans had a dream that they were willing to fight and die for).
If that was your point, then I feel it to be slightly narrow minded. I would find Noah, and have over the past 2 years, to be as great an American and as loyal an American as my father who spent 4 tours in a far-away land killing people he didn't even know for a country he didn't want to know, simply because he is willing to do whatever it take, even at the cost of complete ridicule from those around him, to improve this country and make it- in his eyes- a better, stronger, more respected nation. I feel his thoughts are slightly misguided, and- as we have both said repeatedly- do not ever truly agree with most of his views... that does not make him an un-true- American.
Again, if I misred it, then I heartily apologize. I just could not let that statement go as I red it.

Now... Noah. Back to you... AGAIN  (lol)...
Nepal is in a crisis right now as we speak, yet barely anyone seems to either know or care...Where's all the talks about the struggles in Eastern Congo, or the slanted elections in Kyrgystan, or the crisis in Kenya? Don't they deserve democracy just like Iraq and much of the modern world?

Yes, Sir, they do - in fact- deserve democracy just like Iraq and much of the modern world. There is one thing, however, that prevents us from doing anything about it... and it's the same thing that prevented us from doing anything about Rwanda: They have nothing for us... there is simply nothing to protect. The only reason that we sent troops into Somalia was to protect the food sources that America was spending billions of dollars to send... thereby protecting America's investments. Through all of the rhetoric and the hype THAT is what the job of the military truly is. When Nepal (which is surrounded by Communists, and another reason we wouldn't send military) or Kyrgystan, or Kenya become allies, and have trade agreements in place, then American firepower might more reasily be available. Until then, no president is going to shed American lives for a pile if sand.

(btw... I haven't had a decent debate about anything except ONE person with the election since... a while... thanks for the opportunity.)

In the wooden chair
Beside my window
I wear a face born in the falling rain

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
157 posted 2005-03-07 09:46 PM


Who knows, maybe that was on Bush's or his colleagues mind's all along; to spread "freedom" across the world. But they also knew to just say that would be a hard sell to the American public, and since faulty intelligence came in and convinced most that Saddam had WMD's, look, there you go, it's alarming. No one wants to be attacked, no one deserves to be attacked, so it may just convince the public to sell the case.

I'll agree with part of that, Noah, not necessarily Bush's drive to spread freedom across the world but rather to eliminate governments which could conceiveably support or harbor terrorism after 9/11. As far as using the idea of wmd's to sell it to the public, well, he chose a subject that basically the entire world agreed with - that it was more than just a possibility that they existed based on Hussein's actions. Anyway, that's been hashed over many times here..

Yes, Noah, I do consider you an idealist...and that's no criticism. I admire you for it. I wish things could be they way you envision that they can. Unfortunately, history has shown that they can't. I agree that it is a vicious cycle but that is the nature of humanity. There have been, and will always be, Attillas, Caligulas, Neros, Lenins, Stalins, Hitlers, Mussolinis, Milosovitches, Duvaliers, Husseins....the list goes on and on. These are people bent on one thing - power by conquest. They are not interested in human rights or peace and there is nothing you can say that will change them. It is their nature to conquer. There will always be terrorists and their enemy will always be countries that believe in freedom and individual rights. You have the right to refuse to pick up arms and fight them but you should give thanks every day of your life to those who have done just that - the millions who have died so that you can live in a free society where you can sermonize that all war is wrong. They deserve at least that much from you.

I'm protesting against the war, and believe the occupation is what's encouraging the unrest, so therefore we should pull out.

Occupation is encouraging the unrest....yes, definitely. But why? Well, since you ask so politely, I'll tell you . The terrorists are the people who do NOT want freedom and a democratic form of government for the people of Iraq. They want things to be the way they were, with the spoils going to the most powerful....and now, with Hussein and his sons out of the way, that throne is wide open. Even the average Iraqui has realized that by now. The insurgents gave great speeches for a while about ousting the Americans for the good of Iraq but THEY are the ones killing Iraquis, sabotaging public works, killing the policement and politicians. They are the ones who threatened to kill all Iraquis who voted in the elections. They are thugs, murderers, killing the same people they say they are trying to protect. They are not believeable to the Iraquis any longer.
How easy for you to sit there in a comfy chair and say we should pull out now. I'd like to see you in Baghdad saying that to a crowd of Iraquis. Somehow I don't think you would get the reception you hoped for. Are you able to envision life there right now? Do you think the insurgents would simply stop and disband if we were to leave? Not even you can be that naiive, my friend. Elections have been held. A government has been chosen. The army and policemen are being trained and equipped. You and your group who believe in human rights and non-violence actually believe we should pull out right now, right in the middle of this reconstruction and tell the average Iraqui good luck, you're on your own??? You would want that being done to them? And you call yourselves believers of human rights and spokesmen for victims of the world? Thank God your protests will be ignored by those with a little better view of reality than yours.

Yes, Noah, despite any differences of philosophy we have, I'm proud to have you for a friend and I will defend your right to be a dreamer even though I have the need to take a more realistic one. I hope some day you will have the opportunity to visit these countries whose futures you are trying to influence by your marches....it could give you a better, and probably different, perspective....who knows?

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
158 posted 2005-03-08 06:53 PM




Awwwww, thanks for your kind words, Balladeer.



I believe, in my heart, that my vision is no less realistic than yours. I go back to my own lingo again I call "unfinished business", the lack of clemency. I believe in my heart that that's precisely why we continue to see in history infamous characters of Caligulas, Neros, Lenins, Stalins, Hitlers, Mussolinis, Milosovitches, Duvaliers, Husseins and Zarqawis.

I believe our great nation must be disciplined and sensitive when working to spread the vision of democracy worldwide. And, honestly, I can't blame much of the world and those like myself for the huge concerns that arise when some are allowing torture or even changing the definition of torture by law of prisoners (Most Americans oppose harsh interrogation tactics the U.S. government has used to try to extract information about possible terrorist attacks from detainees, including chaining up prisoners in cold rooms, female interrogators touching male Muslim captives during religious observances, and electrical shock.) because those types of discipline truly do hurt the reputation of our great nation being a protector of civil liberties. And that, by the way, is why I disapprove of Alberto Gonzalez, NOT because he's the first Hispanic Attorney General, which many cable news outlets were spinning that's why most Democrats opposed his nomination.

The way Bush's second inaugural speech was written could send off so many different misinterpretations, and strike so many like myself as a frightening, intimidating, intensely militaristic call to spread democracy worldwide with war or operations like Iraq.

That's the point I've been trying to make all this time. While a brutal dictator and regime has been toppled and an election has been served, tens of thousands still were lost in the process, all undeserving losses. You may have see on O'Reilly yesterday those two Arabic student guests both say they love freedom and democracy but they oppose the operation in promoting it where many everyday Iraqi citizens who were at the wrong place at the wrong time were killed. You see, that's just how I feel. War in itself can strike many as terrorism.

Hugo Chavez is the President of Venezuela and was democratically elected twice in their elections and survived six referendums, like him or not. Yet in 2002 some of our government officials attempted to coup him like it has been done in other Latin American countries like Panama, where after two days from office he's returned and remains in power ever since.

Hugo is a very militaristic leader and all. I just still believe that if Hugo or Aristide or whatever could be removed like that without a major military operation, why couldn't Hussein be removed like that? Bush still believes that Iran and North Korea can both be resolved diplomatically, which have the real weapons of mass destruction in the world, so why couldn't Iraq be believed to be solved the same way?

Those are the types of questions that concern me often, and lead me to believe Iraq wasn't an inevitable war.

Look, I don't believe any of us can fully envision life in Iraq right now. I can't, you can't, Bush can't, Kerry can't. Even those like McCain and Lieberman who went over to Iraq recently and visited Baghdad and other places in the region can't fully understand the whole of what it's like right now.

I will tell you, though, that, yes, Iraqis want democracy. Just about everywhere in the world people want democracy. The Iraqis want freedom as well, they want it in the fullest sense. They want freedom both from the terrorists and from foreign occupation. They just want to take their nation into their own hands now without pressure from the outside. They just want to get on with their lives without a global sort of media circus stamped in their heart of the world. And when no single sign of an exit strategy has been made to the public, that is troubling. You can say it's only because we don't want to send out information to the terrorists, but look, you're going to have to make it public sooner or later, and those bad seeds in the world will still be waiting and being vigilant regardless.

The point I'm making is that I'm blessed to be an American and truly believe, despite having troubles like every other nation in the world, this is the greatest nation in the world and we have more rights than most other countries would only dream to adopt someday. And I believe we should continue to inspire our examples to the world and influence the updating and building of democracies worldwide.

But we also need to be sensitive, careful, disciplined and acknowledging of the international community when we go about promoting campaigns in spreading this democracy and freedom in the world. And it comes to no suprise to me when about half our own nation like myself and the world seemingly unanimously believes the war in Iraq was wrong. Because war truly is hell, and many see war as terror. Bush said himself "war is a dangerous place", and boy is he right there. People die in war, not just enemies but friends and those who never wanted any part in it. And it comes to no suprise either why most who do see the events in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as a positive change still haven't been moved on their opinion of the war in Iraq. Because, to many, this was never about who was right; it was about what was sound. And war just isn't sound to me. And believe me, there are millions who oppose this war now who are not pacifists who would believe in war if we absolutely had to, like if someone like Hitler declared war on all mankind. I would refuse to carry a gun in that sort of event, but I would certainly volunteer for civilian care, etc.

THAT'S what I want those who would accuse me of being anti-American, unpatriotic, etc. to understand. We've got to be patient and understanding as we continue to promote democratic ideals to the world. If we continue to allow war being a must in establishing democracy in other countries and we don't do something about the torture issue, corporate abuse, international isolation, etc, it would strike many in the world the unfortunate message that we Americans are terrorists. I don't want that to happen, I don't believe any of us want that to happen.

There's that unfortunate incident going on right now between us and Italy if our troops intentionally shot at the freed Italian hostage and a journalist. I absolutely believe with all my heart our troops DID NOT intentionally or deliberately shot her. There was obviously some bad miscommunication but I believe our troops would never resort to lows like that. But the Italian believes otherwise, as does a communist newspaper in Italy there, and this whole thing has incited growing resentment and damaged relations of Italy toward the United States.

War truly is a mess that also can makea mess of things. And that's exactly why war should ALWAYS be a last resort, whether you're a pacifist or a secretary of defense.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

JoshG
Member
since 2004-11-16
Posts 127
TX, USA
159 posted 2005-03-09 11:30 AM


Ringo - yes you are right in correcting my misuse of terminology.  Let me rectify the situation,

Pacifism - The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

The error I made was categorizing pacifism the same as ignoring reality.  I do believe that as a pacifist you do ignore a bit of reality, but should not of made the assumption without clarification.

Now that it is clarified, let me better explain my pearl harbor / 911 statement.  Pacifism of course by definition can not be the cause of terrorism, war or non-peaceful acts.  It can exude a lack of constitution in terms of protecting your country from attack.  Understanding my correlation between pacifism and ignoring, I propose that ignoring the warnings from a terrorist Al Quida, Iraq and other countries is directly related to the success of the attacks.  Is it the cause no, did it help to foster an environment becoming of a successful attack I believe so.

Second, let me apologize if it was convied that I think Noah is not a true American.  To be able to consider myself a true American I believe I must understand that all types of perspectives lie in our country.  Yes, I agree that my stance is much different than his, but would never consider him un-American.  I believe he is as much an American as any other that is willing to speak and push his/her ideals.  I will admit that many times I get upset by his views and it could have come through in my response, which I will try and better craft in the future.

Balladeer - "Yes, Noah, I do consider you an idealist...and that's no criticism. I admire you for it. I wish things could be they way you envision that they can. Unfortunately, history has shown that they can't. I agree that it is a vicious cycle but that is the nature of humanity." - to better explain myself I have to quote Balladeer.  The explanation is quite 100% to how I feel about Noah's views.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
160 posted 2005-03-17 10:02 PM


Bear with me as this is lengthy. State of the Reunion speeches are lengthy after all, LOL!

This is what I have prepared for the Teach-In this Saturday in Portland to mark the 2nd Anniversary of the War in Iraq.

*******************************************

STATE OF THE REUNION ADDRESS II

*

My fellow Americans, and to all our friends across the world, God Bless You all during these shaky, sensitive times.

As you may be aware, the second anniversary of the war in Iraq is Saturday, March 19th, an unfortunate date that'll leave a lasting scar on the hearts of many across the world.

This nation remains deeply and dangerously polarized. Across this chasm of conflicting ideologies, we live amidst conflicting ideals of what peace and democracy is all about, what constitutes a word that has been repeated incessantly; freedom.

I for one disagree with our president's views on what peace and freedom are all about. In my heart, I have always recognized that peace and war don't go hand in hand, with peace being the absence of war and war being the absence of peace. To go to war to push an agreement or treaty to end hostilities, or establish a form of democratic government, leaves others at distress, with loved ones within families and innocent bystanders who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time killed or left with a life-afflicting injury or tragic memory.

In recent weeks, we have seen what may appear to be democracy on the march in the region, from Lebanon, where Syria is beginning to withdraw their forces from the region, to Egypt, where there is talk of multi-party elections on the horizon, to Saudi Arabia, who participated in the call for Syria to withdraw from Lebanon.

Any reasonable person or lover of freedom would be happy to see a citizen-sponsered democracy come to any part of the world like this. With that said, some may argue, "So, are you going to admit he was right, when are you going to kneel to your knees and admit he deserves credit for all that?"

My answer to them would be what I've said a few times already: "This was never about who was right, this was about what was just and sound."

I phrased my thoughts on war before in a way that has resonated to me; it's not only a mess, but it makes a mess of things. Metaphorically speaking, I believe Bush and his colleagues took foreign policy in and shook it like dice in a Yahtzee cup, hoping to score a Yahtzee or at least a four of a kind.

Right or wrong in how Bush may have come out in this gamble, what remains wrong from the beginning of this senseless war and invasion can be explained in the form of this Chinese proverb that reads,

"If you must play, decide upon three things at the start: the rules of the game, the stakes, and the quitting time."

First and foremost, we must never lose sight of why this president invaded Iraq in the first place. The faulty intelligence provided to him and his colleagues suggested Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that became the thesis argument. Secondly, though the reports suggest otherwise, Bush believed there was a solid connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Where was all that rhetoric you hear now about invading to spread freedom and peace throughout the Middle East? It simply wasn't the language you heard Bush speak prior to March 19, 2003, or in the months following that day to that manner, with "spreading freedom" listed as #5 or lower on the list of reasons to go to war, if listed at all.

61% of Americans believed within the days leading up to the invasion after Colin Powell made his testimony to the United Nations that more time should be made for inspections and diplomacy.

The Constitution itself reads the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress, and regardless of whether Bush believes that war against a certain nation is just and morally right, he is nevertheless prohibited by our supreme law of the land from waging it unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress, and just one reason why this war in Iraq is illegal.

Article VI of the Constitution also clearly reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

One of the most important rules in leading a nation to war under any circumstance is to respect and comply with these "laws of the land". Bush refused to, and has violated the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter, the Posse Comitatus Act, the U.S. War Crimes Act, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights among other violations, all of which could make a solid case for his impeachment.

Now, I ask you.

"Is that democratic?"

Because of his refusal to play by the rules and choose irresponsibility and recklessness over responsibility, we've wrongfully invaded another nation that never even attacked us to begin with, we've wrongfully sacrificed the lives of over 1,500 soldiers, we've killed over 107,000 innocent Iraqis, and have incited an uncertain fate in the region that continues to encourage widespread violence.

There's an incredible sense of irony to the fact that while our president stresses the word "freedom" so many times, he has actually subverted our own democratic principles at home. He swore in his constitutional oath to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

How is repeatingly allowing the providing of misinformation to the American people and Congress halthy for our nation? How is completely wrongly linking Iraq to 9/11 when the evidence shows otherwise healthy for our nation? How is repeatedly claiming that satellite photos in Iraq depicting factories as WMD storehouses in contradiction to the findings of the United Nations inspectors healthy for our nation?

And, in addition, though he may believe in the greatest funding of our military, he has actually threatened the security of our nation by encouraging other nations to violate International Law by Bush defying the United Nations himself. What type of message does that send terrorists and other people of ill will across the world?

It is because of these reasons why we are NOT safer since the war in Iraq has began.

I, myself, am a pacifist, and will not fight any war because of it. But the more and more who have declared they've had enough and have continued building the opposition to this war are not even pacifists. They are those who believe under more extreme circumstances it's sensible to go to war if we HAVE to but not under senseless reasons like in Iraq. They have learned of the truth behind the window dressing our government and the mainstream media tell us.

The anti-war movement here has grown, and it is continuing to grow stronger! I repeat; the anti-war movement here has grown, and it is growing stronger!

You may not necessarily believe it when you watch the mainstream media and see little or no images of protests or rallies, and when you do, it's always expressed as negative, ugly or unruly. But there's tens of thousands out there who sacrifice many hours just to set up these demonstrations, just to volunteer in their communities, and this Saturday, you are going to see them flood the streets in many major cities, and hear the bass drum beat from dozens of blocks away. And this Saturday we will prove to the world once and for all we are not sleeping, and when we say we're determined to end this senseless war, we MEAN we'll be working until it's over.

*

*

In these last two years, Bush has not only failed to recognize the rules of the game, he also hasn't thought over or recognized the stakes of this senseless invasion.

While Iraq and much of the Middle East remains facing a cloudy, uncertain future, here at home we have actually gone backwards in terms of our treasured democratic cornerstones and achievements.

On October 26, 2001, the USA Patriot Act was signed, a document which so many Americans have not even read or are even aware how it was passed to begin with. Originally a bi-lateral version was offered to Congress, until an overnight revision was snook in, with barely any time to read and no time to discuss or debate. Under this unfortunate piece of legislation, U.S. intelligence agents could conduct a secret search in your home, use evidence found there to declare you as an "enemy combatant," and imprison you without trial, while the courts may have no chance to review the decisions or may not even ever know about them.

But the single most troubling part of the act is its effect on what you read.

Libraries and bookstores have always been and are meant to be a source of knowledge and information in this country. The right to read without the fear of government surveillance is a cornerstone of our democracy. Freedom of the press means nothing without a corresponding freedom to read. Open and democratic debate is impossible without free and open access to diverse views and a broad array of information. And, under this act, investigators are authorized to seek a search warrant for "any tangible things" in a library or bookstore, a category that easily includes book circulation or purchase records, library papers, floppy disks and computer hard drives. It's literally fueling Big Brother's rise.

Bush and his colleagues continue to say they believe in freedom and democracy. But what you see or hear is not always what you get or what is meant, everyone.

If Bush truly cared about democracy at its fullest, then why would he either allow or fail to condemn the military coup performed on Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's twice-democratically elected president (not to mention elected in six referendums) in 2002?

Why would he either allow or fail to condemn the coup of Haiti's democratically-elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who won 67% of the vote in 1990 and remained the favorite to Haiti ever since?

If Bush believed he could coup those like Chavez and Aristide, why couldn't he do the same for Saddam Hussein, and free the people of Iraq while sparing the losses of tens of thousands?

Bush himself was not the one who originally called for or desired democratic elections in Iraq. We must not forget that until Ayatollah Sistani insisted on early nationwide elections, the US was opposed to such an election and was determined to form a government based on local community representatives handpicked by the US. It was only after the US agreed to these elections to install the transitional government that the Shiite community cooperated with the occupation forces and the Shiite insurgency led primarily by Moqtada Sadr in Najaf and other places fizzled out at the intervention of Ayatollah Sistani who expedited his return from Britain, on August 25, 2004, to placate the growing anger in Iraqi Shiites.

Meanwhile, while our administration continues to claim they represent the fullest of our morals and values and represent Middle America, the people beg to differ in so many areas.

7 in 10 Americans said in a poll revealed over the weekend that they are concerned about government secrecy, that good government depends on openness with the public and nearly just as many felt access to public records was "crucial" to good government. Yet we have the most secretive administration in our nation's history.

A strong majority of Americans strongly disapprove of harsh interrogation tactics the U.S. government has used to try to extract information about possible terrorist attacks from detainees held in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba, as well as damage the USA's reputation as a protector of civil liberties. Yet, Bush, Gonzales and others in our administration are either doing nothing to condemn these acts or even endorse it.

Health care, environmental protection, on so many fronts the general public's position differs from that of Bush's.

But most significantly, despite the losses of Uday and Qusay, despite the capture of Saddam Hussein himself, despite the transfer of power to the Iraqis last June, despite the taking back of Fallujah, despite the elections in Iraq, and despite what may be the sign of freedom on the march across the Middle East, the American public and the world have not been moved of their opinion on the war.

And why should they be? Because they believe just what I believe: "It was never about who was right, it was about what is just and sound."

*

*

Finally, in taking part of this huge foreign policy gamble, he has failed to note a quitting time, or under this case, an exit strategy.

People continue to die in Iraq as we speak to this day, and with this administration stubbornly refusing to share any sign of light at the end of this long tunnel of an exit strategy or timetable for withdrawal, it continues to bring discomfort to America, Iraq and the world.

What kind of message does that send us Americans, to our troops who long to return to their loved ones and breathe easy, and to the Iraqis, which a majority want our occupation to end so they can take their country into their own hands?

*

*

THAT is why we believe Bush does not deserve credit for what has happened and what is happening now in Iraq and across the Middle East, and why we continue to protest this war which we still consider senseless and immoral.

A Chinese proverb reads, "At the gambling table, there are no fathers and sons." And that's precisely how this whole operation has been conducted; behind closed doors, away from the public, away from democracy.

As an American, when we think about gambling, I prefer to think of gambling in a different way. Dan Bennett once said, "One of the healthiest ways to gamble is with a spade and a package of garden seeds."

I believe myself that non-violence and peace are meant to be together, and must be cultivated together within the same soil. I absolutely am blessed to be an American and truly believe, despite having troubles like every other nation in the world, this is the greatest nation in the world and we have more rights than most other countries would only dream to adopt someday. And I believe we should continue to inspire our examples to the world and influence the updating and building of democracies worldwide, and do so without imposing.

But we also need to be sensitive, careful, disciplined and acknowledging of the international community when we go about promoting campaigns in spreading this democracy and freedom in the world. And it comes to no suprise to me when about half our own nation like myself and the world seemingly unanimously believes the war in Iraq was wrong. Because war truly is hell, and many like myself see war as terror or terrorism itself.

I was told here that my views of universal peace were utopian or just wishful thinking because history has shown that they can't and because of the nature of humanity that has generated Attillas, Caligulas, Neros, Lenins, Stalins, Hitlers, Mussolinis, Milosovitches, Duvaliers, Husseins and Zarqawis.

I believe in my heart that the reason we continue to see this endless cycle of Attillas, Caligulas, Neros, Lenins, Stalins, Hitlers, Mussolinis, Milosovitches, Duvaliers, Husseins and Zarqawis is because we have failed to resolve what I define "unfinished business", or the failure to understand or get to the psyche or inner-truth of our enemies. I myself believe that terrorism is unacceptable, it is a problem and must be stopped, but I also believe when we fail to play the role of cultural anthroplogist and understand the origin of these terrorist instincts or what encouraged or incited the terrorist mind, we may never fully dissolve the toothache and misunderstanding will continue to haunt the world. I believe that some form of clemency must be given while we also see to it these terrorists don't hurt another innocent soul.

I may be quite the optimist, but I believe it's not too late to resolve and amend. For I believe there's nothing more cynical than war in the whole world.

My hero Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The good neighbor looks beyond the external accidents and discerns those inner qualities that make all men human and, therefore, brothers."

I believe this is exactly what's lacking in our policies and our governmental frame of thinking right now. I, myself, believe Bush is wronged and delusional as our president, perhaps more than any other president to me in recent memory, but I also recognize we are all God's children, and that no man is perfect. Though I'll always find him guilty for war crimes and such in Iraq, and no penitence can ever fully resolve the losses this war has generated, forgiveness, I believe, is the Christian thing to do. I believe Jesus wants us to be this way, regardless of how wrong someone is, IF the guilty conscience will open up first. All he must recognize is that the forgiveness process begins with admitting your own faults and follies, and I pray with all my heart he will do just that as soon as possible.

From the beginning, I, like many others, was absolutely nervous in getting out there and expressing my dissent on this war. Some may ask why I bother going about much of my time doing all of this.

Martin Luther King Jr. said in "Strength to Love": "The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood."

Honestly, I can't blame many here for shaking their heads before and saying they are upset by my views. But I've recognized also that history has shown dissent during controversial times like in Vietnam at first were seen as unpopular and radical, and even Martin Luther King Jr. was seen as heretical or tasteless in his views. But later on, and now, history has come to recognize those faithful spirits who rose up for what they believe in with all their hearts as heroes, and I believe young people like myself will be understood more in time.

*

*

So as I take to the streets this coming Saturday, let it be known that we are not merely going out to express our distress and frustration with Bush, his administration and the wrongs of this war. We're also coming out with a positive purpose; in educating the community with our message and encouraging positive ways in which you can embrace the community and build grassroots support in changing the world for the better. Providing an animated forum for communities north, south, east and west across many major communities.

I mentioned the other day I was most inspired on October 3rd, 2004, when I co-organized a major historic rally in Portland, Oregon where almost 10,000 turned out and participated in. That day, dozens of children were out there who took part in the march, many wearing peace capes and these little angels were giggling and cheerfully skipping around flying kites and waving peace flags.

And one little girl showed me a painting she made, depicting her sleeping in bed, dreaming, and in a big bubble of what she was dreaming of everyone holding hands of all nationalities, with a rainbow arching above them with a peace sign and a dove. The sight of seeing that made me cry in tears of warmth.

The world is full of dreamers who dream beautiful dreams, and I want to see a world for our children in the future where they could all live together in peace and not fear of turning on the TV or overhearing talk from their parents of this ugliness in our world.

Everyone is affected by these such tragedies, and I do it because I want my children when I become a father in the future and all the children of the world to see a world, glazed with a renaissance of innocence and youthful beauty, as free of the ugliness of war as possible.

And THAT is exactly why I'm going to be out with tens of thousands this Saturday to protest. For I believe what one of the buttons I wear reads: "War is not healthy for children and other living things".

*

*

So, if you feel like I do, I ask of you to get out there with your local community this Saturday and let your voice of dissent be heard. For democracy will always be "of the people, by the people and for the people" and you, my friend, will always have a place.

This message is a gentle, peaceful call to arms, a call on the renaissance of accountability. We truly are volunteers of America, and we must prove that to those in office with all our hearts by volunteering. What's lacking right now in our nation is accountability.

For those of you who stand with me, I ask of you to take to the streets Saturday and let the streets echo with the voice of democracy.

For those of you who disagree, I wish no ill will or hurt feelings to any of you, as I believe we are all God's children, and, perhaps in time, you will understand where I come from more and we can seek a common ground peacefully together. I offer heart hugs to all of you as well.

I leave you today with the lyrics of a Jefferson Airplane hit, "Volunteers". It energized a generation during the Vietnam anti-war movement, and though we may be far from the golden age of rock and roll, it's message is just as relevant now:

"Look what's happening out in the streets
Got a revolution Got to revolution
Hey I'm dancing down the streets
Got a revolution Got to revolution
Ain't it amazing all the people I meet
Got a revolution Got to revolution
One generation got old
One generation got soul
This generation got no destination to hold
Pick up the cry
Hey now it's time for you and me
Got a revolution Got to revolution
Come on now we're marching to the sea
Got a revolution Got to revolution
Who will take it from you
We will and who are we
We are volunteers of America."


*

God Bless You all, and God Bless America! Have fun Saturday, and good luck!

Peace, love and harmony,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
161 posted 2005-03-17 10:56 PM


Why diplomacy for Iran and North Korea and not Iraq?  That's easy.  It's called 12 YEARS of failed diplomacy from the US and the UN, many of whose members were too busy selling military supplies to Iraq to really bother themselves with those nastly little sanctions.  As for Iran and North Korea, we're just starting diplomacy.  The US thought they had a treaty or some piece of paper actually worth more than the ink it was written on with North Korea, but they were wrong, so we're trying again after the disabused treaty President Clinton made with them.  If things haven't changed in 11 or so years of diplomatic efforts, then a good comparison with Iraq can be made.

One thing about North Korea.  I think they will go the same way as North Vietnam.  Treaties with Communists are worthless.  The ink wasn't even dry on the ceasefire treaty between North and South Vietnam when the North started the Tet Offensive, just one day after signing.

[This message has been edited by Alicat (03-18-2005 09:50 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
162 posted 2005-03-17 11:06 PM


snook?
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
163 posted 2005-03-18 03:23 PM




Snook indeed! (giggles)



Turnout for Saturday is looking to be huge. More than 725 anti-war protests and events are scheduled across the country to mark the anniversary, which United For Peace and Justice says is more than double the number of actions that took place a year ago to mark the first anniversary of the war.

I suggest you can keep an eye most of all on the rally scheduled in Fayetteville, North Carolina outside the military base Fort Bragg. Main sponsors of that protest include Veterans For Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and Military Families Speak Out.

That may be the best bet in reaching the public eye.

Just hear what just a handful of protest organizers have told Pacifica Radio:

LOU PLUMMER: My name is Lou Plummer, and I'm a member of Military Families Speak Out. I live in Fayetteville, North Carolina, right outside of Ft. Bragg. On Saturday, March 19, we are having a rally that’s sponsored by Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and the Gold Star Families for Peace. This will be a rally, of course, marking the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and there are approximately 20,000 to 25,000 people from our community who have been in Iraq. A great many of them were -- didn't come away with that, with a big warm, fuzzy feeling inside, so we organized this event as veterans and members of military families to give people an opportunity to speak their opposition with the added ingredient that there are people who have been to Iraq and who have seen what's going on there firsthand.

BOB KRZEWINSKI: My name is Bob Krzewinski with Veterans for Peace for Southeast Michigan. We're going to have our Arlington Midwest display of one cross for every dead soldier killed in Iraq. It'll be on Saturday at Grand Circus Park in downtown Detroit. This is Bob Krzewinski of Veterans for Peace of Southeast Michigan. We're going to be having our Arlington Midwest display of one cross for every soldier killed in Iraq. This will be in downtown Detroit at Grand Circus Park on Saturday and in Ann Arbor at the university central campus on Sunday.

BILL HACKWELL: My name is Bill Hackwell. I’m with the ANSWER Coalition in San Francisco. On the 19th, this Saturday, which is the second anniversary of the illegal war against Iraq, tens of thousands of people are expected in San Francisco. We're having an opening rally at the Dolores Park, the traditional spot of anti-war rallies in San Francisco in the Mission. After that, we'll be marching down to the Civic Center where there will be a following rally. Significant in this year is that we're starting to see sort of a groundswell of grassroots organizations who haven't always come out for the anti-war marches, maybe have supported it, but haven't come out in numbers.

FRIDA BERRIGAN: I'm Frida Berrigan. I’m with the War Resisters League, a local organization in Manhattan and Brooklyn. And we're organizing funeral processions to recruiting stations around the city. In Manhattan, we'll be meeting in the morning at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza and carrying coffins representing Iraqi and American victims of the war. We'll be carrying those coffins along 42nd Street to the Times Square recruiting station where some of our participants will commit civil disobedience and block the doors of the recruiting station. Simultaneously, actions will happen in Brooklyn on Flatbush Avenue and in the Bronx on Fordham Road. In both locations there are military recruiting stations, and activists will be carrying coffins and photographs of Iraqi and American victims of the war.

PHUNG VO: This is Phung Vo. I'm calling from Toledo, Ohio. On the anniversary of – the second anniversary of the Iraq war, the organization Northwest Ohio Peace Coalition is going to set up an event called Arlington Midwest at the University of Toledo, where we put over 1,500 tombstones with the names of the American fallen in Afghanistan and Iraq at the campus of University of Toledo.

BRIAN STEWART: Hi, this is Brian Stewart. I’m with Work for Peace in Downeast Maine, and on Saturday, we're doing a teach-in at the university. And Sunday, we're putting up 100-mile memorial along the highways of Downeast Maine, remembering the names of people who have been killed in Iraq.

EDWINA VOGAN: This is Edwina Vogan from Phoenix, Arizona. And there are two events, two of several, actually, but one is Saturday morning by the Department of Peace in downtown Phoenix; and then, the other one is Saturday afternoon between 5:00 and 7:00, and it's by the Arizona Alliance of Peaceful Justice, and it's a candlelight vigil and memorial service. And it's to remember the war dead in Iraq, and that's because it was an illegal war based on lies and deception.

LEE HUGHES: Hi. This is Lee Hughes. I'm from Act Now, which is in Australia in Cambra, and this Saturday, on March 19, we'll be protesting against, you know, the war in Iraq and reminding people that two years on from the invasion, Australians still oppose the war. We think that with 100,000 Iraqis dead, and the U.S. just moving further and further away from actually bringing democracy to Iraq, we should bring the troops home and, you know, we should let Iraqis rebuild their own country.


*

Dissent completes democracy, and looks like democracy will take full form tomorrow!



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
164 posted 2005-03-19 12:59 PM


Noah- I read your speech, and found it to be a pretty good one. Although I agree with basically nothing you have said, it does what oration is supposed to do: raises the blood pressure, and inspires those who are of like minds.
A few points, though.

61% of Americans believed within the days leading up to the invasion after Colin Powell made his testimony to the United Nations that more time should be made for inspections and diplomacy.

61% of Americans were wrong. As Alicat stated, we began the process diplomacy in August of 1990, and inspections in 1991. For the next 12 years, the Iraqi government refused the inspectors that they agreed to in the surrender treaty. The inspectors were also detained, interfered with, limited in their access, and evicted from the country. The Iraqi government also walked away from the "diplomacy" tanle whenever things didn't go their way, and they were asked to obey the UN sanctions, and to allow the inspectors as were ordered by the UN and that they agreed to. How much longer do we try?
Let me ask you this, my friend:
If a violent offender is court ordered to subject himself to frequent inspections of his house to ensure he has nothing with which to cause harm to those around him, or those in his family, and is ordered to certain sanctions against his freedom (urine tests, house arrest, whatever) ,and that violent offender is constantly blocking the court-appointed inspectors, and is consistantly refusing to submit to the court's orders, and the court's conditions for him to remain free, and he continues to harm those within his household, and he refuses to talk to his PO, how long is the court supposed to wait before taking action?
We got tired of waiting.
As for the Diplomacy? What reason did Iraq have for obeying the sancitons? The UN was screwing around with the Oil for Food program, and there were permenant members of the UN Security Council who were violating teh very sanctions that they imposed. ANd it seems that they were the ones screaming the loudest about the conflict. What would 2 more years of not talking and not inspecting done?

The Constitution itself reads the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress, and regardless of whether Bush believes that war against a certain nation is just and morally right, he is nevertheless prohibited by our supreme law of the land from waging it unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress, and just one reason why this war in Iraq is illegal.

Hmmm.... According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Consititution, you would would be right except for one very minor point that you missed... WAR WAS NEVER DECLARED!!!!!!!!!!!
Therefore, this is NOT an illegal action on your grounds.
The proper document to look at would be the War Powers Act of 1973.
According to Section 2(c). War Powers Resolution states it's purpose is to uphold the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Let's look at this a second. Section 2(c)(2) mentions a "specific statutory authorization". Well, President Bush got it. Section 2(c)(3) mentions an attack on the United States. Check, again. Nothing illegal there.

Let's move on to Section 3:
SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
Yep. IF he got Congressional approval, then I would guess he consulted with them.
Section 4 mentions that in the absence of war, the President shall report to Congress in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces

He must have done that to have gotten their approval.
(Now we get to the good one)
Section 5(b):
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period...
We have already covered this. The War Powers Resolution goes on, however it all boils down to the fact that President Bush engaged American troops by the books. Nothing illegal there. There is no illegal war, because there is no war, and President Bush obeyed the laws of the United States involving the use of American Forces.

As for the Geneva Conventions. The Fourth Geneva Convention involves the misuse of civilians. There has been no credible evidence given as to American troops mistreating non-combatants. Your argument holds no water there.
As for the mistreatment of Iraqi Prisoners... once again, i politely invite you to look at this in the reality and not the knee-jerk of those who see the situation as they would wish it to be. At no time has anyone stated that President Bush authorized, or ordered the mistreatment of any Iraqi prisoners. IF ANYONE is to be charged with violations of the Geneva Accords, then it is to be the guards at Abu Grabe prison, and the officers appointed over them. Accusing President Bush of crimes against the Geneva Convention is in-line with throwing the CEO of Sara Lee in prison because I shoot someone on my crew in the warehouse. ANY order would have to go through 8 different steps before it got to Sgt Granor to carry out. And it is beyond belief that an order to abuse prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949 made it from Presdient Bush to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to the Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff to the Commander of the Army, to the commander of Forces in Iraq to the commander of the Army personnel in Iraq to the commander of the  prison system to the officer-in-charge of Abu Grabe prison to the commander of te watch to Sgt Granor without SOMEONE blowing the whistle.

The UN Charter Chapter I, Section 2 states the purpose of the UN is: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
Did we have friendly relations with Ira before? Do we now? Did they have equal rights before? Do they now? 'Nuff Sed.

On to Nuremburg: Principal IV states that  the fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Again... the prison guards, NOT the President are guilty of this.

The Posse Comitatus Act... Now, you're reaching. In a nutshell, this act bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. There are several things wrong with this. Marines perform searches all the time in their duties guarding American embassies... which, according to national law, are US soil. Military policemen perform, oddly enough, every one of these functions on military bases, which are- again- US soil.The Abu Grabe prison is IRAQI soil. If the fact that it was being run by Americans made it US soil, then the fact that Iraq's government was being run by American advisors while the new Iraqi constitution and leadership was being out into place means that Iraq was US soil... and I do not feel that anyone sees that as the truth. And, once again, if the prison is to be considered US soil, then it is the COMMANDER of the prison, not the president that is in violation.

I'm not going to continue with the rest of the "crimes", because I think the point has been made that I feel you have mis-used the facts to make a case that would not stand on its own merits.


He swore in his constitutional oath to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
And as I have shown repeatedly, has done just that.


And, in addition, though he may believe in the greatest funding of our military, he has actually threatened the security of our nation by encouraging other nations to violate International Law by Bush defying the United Nations himself.
Yet, Spain, Russia, France, Germany, Iraq, Kofi Annan, etc. did NOTHING to "threaten international security by defying the UN???
Noah, please. Prior to his defying the UN by acting in what he thought was the best interests of the people he serves, we had an attack by islamic terrorists at the World Trade Center TWICE. Col. Qadaffi (sp) was a major threat to the Middle East. The Middle East was in MAJOR disruption. Now, Lybia has opened its borders to UN inspectors, invading troops are moving out of foreign countries, Islamic women are beginning to enjoy freedoms, Saudi Arabia is allowing elections at the local level. It seems to me that the message President Bush sent was one of strength, and unity because the good changes are coming, and the world is uniting. Especially the 38 countries that were involved in the Iraq campaign to one degree or another in defiance of the UN.
The greater threat comes from those countries that were selling arms to the Iraqi government in defiance of the UN.

They have learned of the truth behind the window dressing our government and the mainstream media tell us.
The mainstream media isn't telling the American people the entire truth, I will agree. Somehow, they seem to miss the 35% of Iraqi hospitals being open raising to 100% because of American efforts. They also seem to miss out on Gary Senise collecting funds to send school supplies to the Iraqi children, and then risking his life to take them himself. Perhaps you missed the stories about the American soldiers who lost their lives trying to save Iraqi citizens from insurgents froom countries OUTSIDE of Iraq... That's OK, because so did the mainstream media. The mainstream media is only concerned with reporting death and carnage. I don't think I've heard any of the newscasts mention that it WASN'T Iraqi nationals fighting the Americans... well, not any real number.

While Iraq and much of the Middle East remains facing a cloudy, uncertain future...
The WORLD faces a cloudy and uncertain future. The Middle East does not hold the patent on that. If there was no conflict, the future of the Middle East would be certain... women not having any freedoms, people being tortured for the way they think, Cultures facing annhialation because of the fact that they do not belong to the majority, etc. I would rather see what happens next, thank you.

7 in 10 Americans said in a poll revealed over the weekend that they are concerned about government secrecy What in the name of THor's Holy Hammer did you expect anyone to say when asked that one particular question? I support the President and his administration, although I do not agree with many of his thoughts... yet anyone who remembers Nixon, and LBJ, and Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton should be concerned about governmentalk secrecy.

Yet we have the most secretive administration in our nation's history.
Pure Conjecture. This is an unproven statement, and one that is not able to be proven, therefore hasa no meaning in a discusion of the "facts".

A strong majority of Americans strongly disapprove of harsh interrogation tactics the U.S. government has used to try to extract information about possible terrorist attacks from detainees held in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba
A strong majority of Americans feel that there won't be another attack on American soil again, and have grown complacent. They complain that the American government (both this and the previous administration) haven't done enough to prevent the attacks... now they are complaining when the military is attempting to get the information. whatever.

People continue to die in Iraq as we speak to this day, and with this administration stubbornly refusing to share any sign of light at the end of this long tunnel of an exit strategy or timetable for withdrawal
Except for the one that begins in September.

THAT is why we believe Bush does not deserve credit for what has happened and what is happening now in Iraq and across the Middle East
Then who?

I myself believe that terrorism is unacceptable, it is a problem and must be stopped, but I also believe when we fail to play the role of cultural anthroplogist and understand the origin of these terrorist instincts or what encouraged or incited the terrorist mind, we may never fully dissolve the toothache and misunderstanding will continue to haunt the world. I believe that some form of clemency must be given while we also see to it these terrorists don't hurt another innocent soul.
This is so full of misguided thoughts it truly isn't funny. Terrorists do NOT carea bout clemency or misunderstanding. You cannot give a terorist a cookie, glass of milk and a hug to get them to stop any more than you can stop cockroaches by using the same methods. While I truly believe that diplomacy and understanding has it's plae, the ONLY way to fight a terrorist is to fight a terrorist.

I've recognized also that history has shown dissent during controversial times like in Vietnam at first were seen as unpopular and radical...and now, history has come to recognize those faithful spirits who rose up for what they believe in with all their hearts as heroes
Dig deeper into your history, young man. Don't see the "peace, love, dope" as the entire truth.

So as I take to the streets this coming Saturday, let it be known that we are...
educating the community with our message and encouraging positive ways in which you can embrace the community and build grassroots support in changing the world for the better.

THAT is a message I can get behind.

We'll be carrying those coffins along 42nd Street to the Times Square recruiting station where some of our participants will commit civil disobedience and block the doors of the recruiting station.
Doesn't this smack of allowing democracy as long as it is the democracy that YOU agree with? IF democracy is the right of one to choose one's destiny, and you are disallowing a young man/woman from exercising their right to join the military, isn't that depriving someone of THEIR civil rights? While this person feels it is perfectly permissible to trample on the rights of others, I am quite sure that she would be in court if she were denied a permit to march because she forgot to sign the form. Noah, my friend, this> is why the majority of Americans do not join in the protest. And what will happen to your protest movement when the national news shows a story about a young man that was hospitalized because he tried to do what he comsidered to be his patriotic chore and he was set upon by a horde of idiots (and I do not count you among them) who are for peace and love, as long as they reserve the right to hate their fellow man?
(BTW... most recruiting stations are closed on Sat.)

This is Phung Vo.
Perhaps this young Vietnamese gentleman forgot (or didn't listen to) his parent's stories about the Americans who went to fight and die for his people so he could be here screaming about Americans fighting and dying for some other culture.

BRIAN STEWART: Hi, this is Brian Stewart. I’m with Work for Peace in Downeast Maine, and on Saturday, we're doing a teach-in at the university. And Sunday, we're putting up 100-mile memorial along the highways of Downeast Maine, remembering the names of people who have been killed in Iraq.
FINALLY... someone who has a bit of common sense... you don't change people's minds by screaming at them. If you have contact with him... please ask him to invite (and have his students be respectful of) the opposition and allow then to teach as well.

Noah- You know I consider you a friend, and respect your thoguhts, even though I feel them to be misguided and naive at times. I wish you well in your march tomorrow (today).




In the wooden chair
Beside my window
I wear a face born in the falling rain

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
165 posted 2005-03-24 05:00 PM




Yay! Just got back from some busy Spring Break involvement with KBOO Community Radio and The Portland Alliance newspaper, where I have been expanding my volunteering ability.



Fellow protesters, give yourselves a nice hug, you deserved it! The war continues, and so will our movement, but you should be more than proud of yourselves.



I'm pleased to announce that as many as 765 towns and cities in all 50 states had their own seperate rallies nationwide last weekend, a HUGE increase from 319 last year.

Besides the great Portland protest that drew a few thousand people, the Oregon communities of Albany, Bend, Corvallis, Cottage Grove, Enterprise, Eugene, Grants Pass, Klamath Falls, Lincoln City, Manzanita, Medford, Pendleton, Salem and The Dalles all hosted their own rallies!

Despite the big business mass media (Once again) suppressing or downplaying coverage of the March 19 antiwar protests that took place in more than 800 cities and towns throughout the United States and merely representing the political establishment and not the people, it is clear the people are speaking, and the volume of their message is getting louder and louder for peace and not war. All you have to do is turn off the TV and have the heart to step outside and see the motions yourself.

Fayetteville, North Carolina drew thousands of protesters, where Fort Bragg was located. UFP&J expected 1,200, they got more than triple what they expected in turnout.

Many protested there with two rather simple messages, the first being that military recruiters can do what they want and host a lecture in a high school auditorium if they want, but it is wrong to ask for student records without consent of the student or the parent, etc. and illegally collect contact information. And THAT'S why these protests have been happening about military recruitment, by the way.

Secondly, on Saturday, many know in supporting our troops to the fullest, their contracts should be honored and they should be brought home to their loved ones and families, unless the soldier serving insists to keep serving.

Our nation's first General, General George Washington said, "When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen." That's the kind of thinking we have for our men and women serving as we take to the streets and to our communities each day, for we're not only supporting the troop, we are supporting the citizen underneath the uniform as well.

Many of the most decorated and honored generals in history share our sentiments, generals who have served this great nation, and have always been honored as "patriotic". Perhaps you could assemble their quotes in a Q/A page and be surprised by the results.

"The next great advance in the evolution of civilization cannot take place until war is abolished."

General Douglas MacArthur, 1955

"It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood...War is hell."

General William Tecumseh Sherman

"War is a racket. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."

General Smedley Butler

"War: A wretched debasement of all the pretenses of civilization."

General Omar N. Bradley

"The military doesn't start wars. The politicians start wars."

General William Westmoreland

*

Other significant military personnel share our sentiments:

"The dangerous patriot...is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory."

Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps

"War has become a spectator sport for Americans."

Rear Admiral Gene R. LaRocque

*

There are those who have served that understand the dark truth of all war in general; that if we keep living with this mentality, it will mean doomsday for the entire world, and will cripple all future generations.

Some say my views are "misguided", "naive", "utopian" or "unrealistic". I can tell you one thing, I've been called a vast number of things, from "anti-American" to "unpatriotic" to "terrorist sympathizer". In this experience I've been living since September 12th, 2001, this is one of the main reasons why I'm a liberal independent continuing to do what I do; I'm not convinced at all those who criticize me for these many names know what they're talking about or really know what I am and what I stand for.

I say in response that I find Bush's vision to be far more utopian than my vision ever will be. War isn't peace, peace isn't war, which is what he thinks.

I say that Bush's vision is far more unrealistic than my own, considering especially the history of wars throughout our history and how often we say this will be the last war and of course that isn't the case. When more and more now say they don't approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, that tells me that as well.

I say Bush's actions are far more naive than those I do. You should never take full diplomatic actions without understanding the people or the culture you're addressing them to. I myself can't speak for the Iraqi citizens but at least I do my part to keep reading and learning of their society and culture each day, while Bush has said repeatedly before he is not one who reads much in what's handed his way.

I say, as humans, we are all misguided at one time or another, and I don't expect everything I say to be the universal truth of humanity and we all are prone to error, but I believe Bush is far more misguided about everything in Iraq. And I believe there's proof to that pudding when more and more keep claiming the mainstream media declared war on the anti-war movement from the beginning of the invasion, and are rising up to volunteer with their community radio and broadcast programs, why Pacifica Radio has enjoyed massive expansion and both financial and ratings growth in these last two years, believing this whole invasion was based on irresponsibility and wanting to guide the public with a voice when the news network voice fails them.

I believe I am doing what's right, and there's great backbone and common sense behind my activist repertoire. And even if some may beg to differ, at least I'm out there hearing with the people, not tucked away in a little office behind closed doors with the likes of lobbyists who make metonymy of our great, diverse nation.

Viva la Revolucion!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
166 posted 2005-03-24 05:31 PM


Here's some final tallies of rallies across the nation. Most of them drew the biggest numbers of any demonstration in the city in years. These are approximations, of course:

********************************************

San Francisco, CA: 25,000
Los Angeles, CA: 20,000
New York, NY: 15,000
Chicago, IL: 5,000 (Over 2,000 police were out in keeping others from joining the march)
Seattle, WA: 5,000
Boston, MA: 5,000
Fayetteville, NC: 4,000
Denver, CO: 3,000
Pittsburgh, PA: 3,000
Portland, OR: 3,000
Eureka, CA: 2,000
San Jose, CA: 2,000
New Paltz, NY: 1,700
Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: 1,500
Atlanta, GA: 1,000
Hartford, CT: 1,000
Sarasota, FL: 750
Milwaukee, WI: 600
Memphis, TN: 450
Fort Worth, TX: 400
Tucson, AZ: 350

********************************************

But even more impressively was that, while one may argue the numbers could have been higher, that often individuals who protest head to all the major cities to join in the protests, and all the numbers that came out in smaller communities are the largest in years and show in each and every state, people breathe with the same message.

Along with that, take how much of the world joined the anti-war voice last weekend.

Up to 100,000 in London joined the call for the end to the war. About 50,000 protested in Rome, Italy. Over 10,000 protested in Tokyo, Japan. 5,000 in Athens, Greece, etc.

Hats off to another great gathering Saturday!



Love,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Protesting the protestors....

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary