babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » international peace movement   » Iraq claiming victory b/c of peace marches

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Iraq claiming victory b/c of peace marches
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 16 February 2003 03:45 PM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is not good. It means Bush and Blair can now respond to Saddam instead of the peace march, which is a much easier ride for them.
I suspect many of the more 'middle class, middle road' protesters for lacck of a better term will be left feeling very uncomfortable with the alliance Saddam is declaring with the marchers.

Bush and Blair can dodge the near 20 million voices, and again focus on addressing Saddam. For their communication peeps this is a blessing for damage control.


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 17 February 2003 05:30 AM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
bump
From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 17 February 2003 12:32 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This letter from the Toronto Star makes a related point, saying apologists for terror can tend to hijack the rallies. I don't let this stop me from going, and i think he's overstating the case, but the basic point seems correct: rally organizers need to clearly make the point that these peace rallies are in no way supporting Saddam. The speakers i heard in Toronto (couldn't hear all the speeches) tended to criticize the UN, but not Saddam. This strikes me as a moral failure and a tactical blunder.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 17 February 2003 12:45 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yup, big mistake.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 17 February 2003 02:57 PM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the link Swallow, good letter.

Yeah there should have been an 'anti-Saddam' statement imbedded in some soundbites.


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 17 February 2003 04:48 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The problem is that the people first in line at these efforts are the ones that have been doing it for the longest. The organizations that have been active fighting the sanctions on Iraq are going to be front and center. While not saying that Saddam can do no wrong, they do tend to adopt a unjustly accused tone. While they have every right to put forward that view, they need to remember that the participants have come for their own reasons. I am not sure that Saddam is in a league of his own as an atrocious head of state, I have him grouped with about 25 other similiar leaders. However, my wife is adamantly against him and participated in the march only because military force is the wrong way to remove him. She was uncomfortable with speeches that linked her presence with more than the issue at hand.
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 17 February 2003 05:31 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apologies for the length of this post, but it's a report from Baghdad that babblers might want to read:

quote:

ELIAS AMIDON
Elias Amidon
BAGHDAD
February 16, 2003

The People Yes!

It is Sunday, the day after international peace demonstrations.

We here in Baghdad are so heartened by this historic event. Thank you world!
It felt like a great prayer, a shout, an uprising sweeping across the land,
a call for sanity against the insane accumulation of weapons and the
war-making heritage of our species.

The great historian Will Durant once calculated that in all of recorded
history there have been only 29 years without war. Now at last the people
are finding their power and linking arms across all that divides them and
calling out to the politicians and the generals and the arms-dealers, "Stop
this madness!"

Even here in Baghdad - you should have seen it -- the first international
peace march! We of the Iraq Peace Team began by hosting a large press
conference. The hall was filled with TV and newspaper reporters.

I began the briefing: "As we gather here this morning President George Bush,
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Colin Powell
are still asleep in their beds in Washington, D.C. We have come here to
trouble their sleep, to trouble their sleep with dreams of people around the
world coming out this day to say no to war and yes to peace.

By the time these men wake up, people all over the Middle East, Russia, and
Europe will be on the streets. In a few hours they will be joined by
millions of people across the United States and Canada, and beyond. We few
hundred internationals here are their representatives in Baghdad. Together
we are millions! May our voices be heard!"

We poured out onto the street and took up our banners. We couldn't believe
how big our procession had become -- it stretched back several blocks and
soon was joined by Iraqi children and mothers, an Iraqi Benedictine monk and
Islamic clerics. The police blocked off the main street and let us march
down the middle.

Iraqis came out of their homes and shops, looking surprised to see all these
smiling foreigners marching with their huge banners in Arabic, English,
Italian, and Japanese calling for peace. By the time we had walked a mile
crowds gathered on the sidewalks to see us. The Okinawans were a great hit,
chanting and singing with their huge red drums, spinning their drumsticks up
into the air and leaping to catch them.

Then suddenly an Iraqi woman on the sidewalk started ululating in a
high-pitched call. Another woman brought out a basket and began throwing
candies up into the air. Another pulled blossoms from a basket of flowers
and tossed them in front of us, and then embraced several of the women
marchers.

Further on, as we turned a corner, a larger crowd of men had gathered.
Suddenly one of them started clapping, and another and another, until the
whole crowd of Iraqis was applauding. It sounded like rain on a dry land,
like something that would outlive all the distrust of the world.

We called out to them, "Asalaam aleikum!" (Peace be with you!) and several
called back, "Wa Aleikum salaam, Iraqi!" (And to you peace, Iraqi!)

We proceeded up onto the Al Rasheed Bridge spanning the Tigris River. The
bridge is a simple arc with low railings about a quarter of a mile in
length. It commands a majestic view up and down the river.

When we were all on the bridge our procession stopped and we spaced
ourselves and our banners along one side. There we stood for a few moments
in silence. The sun was shining and a light breeze billowed through the
banners and peace flags.

Then the TV and newspaper teams caught up with us and the march ended with
individual interviews with them and much good feeling. We joked, "Have you
heard? They called the war off! If there can be a peace march in Baghdad
there will be thousands of them around the world!"

Of course, they haven't called it off, at least not yet. We heard today the
Americans have moved troops closer to the border. The Pentagon claims it
will take Baghdad in a day, though the U.N. people here estimate they won't
be able to come back to Baghdad for three to six months because of unstable
conditions.

If war does come, will this great movement for peace by the people of the
world have been in vain? Will we have lost? No, as the marchers chant in
dozens of languages, "The people, united, will never be defeated."

We are building new neural pathways for the human mind and the entire human
project. It may take a little time, but once these landscapes of imagination
have been opened they will not be closed again. We are using the threat of
yet another war to collectively take a leap in human evolution.

As a Carthusian monk once wrote, "The darkness of the future is the
necessary space for the exercise of our liberty and our faith."


[ 17 February 2003: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 17 February 2003 05:53 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Before last weekend, there was a chance that this whole mess might have been resolved peacefully. Pressure was on Saddam to go into exile, along is coterie of villians. Having been encouraged by the worldwide show of support for his regime (as he chooses, rightly or wrongly to perceive it), in his own mind he has no great incentive to go into exile at this time. It may be that the only solution to disarmament and regime change my have to be a military one. The U.S. and Britain are unlikely to want to lose credibility by backing down, so it is quite likely that a huge pissing contest is about to begin.

During the Viet Nam war, peace demonstrations in the U.S. and around the world encouraged the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong to intensify and to prolong their war efforts. Things haven't changed since then.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 17 February 2003 06:33 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quite the spin. Don't rally for peace because it encourages Saddam. And if the rallies had only gotten a few thousand people instead of hundreds of thousands of people what to you think the media war cheerleaders would be saying. See hardly anyone is opposed to war.

I for one will continue to march for peace not because Saddam is blameless but because the Iraqi people are for the most part captive to him and his cronies. It is not Saddam that will be hurt it is the people of Iraqi and with them I will stand.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 17 February 2003 06:37 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It takes quite a few logical contortions to make the case that millions of people demonstrating against war in fact make war more likely.

Watch out, Ari Fleischer: Mandrake is after your job, and seems to have the skills for it.


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 17 February 2003 06:48 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
IF Saddam were to go into exile, it would probably be because of internal pressures e.g. a possible military coup, a popular uprising, etc. If and when a war starts, I think that option will be off the table. The best Saddam could hope for at that point would be a speedy war crimes trial.

However he interpreted the protests (and I think he would be hard pressed to make any credible claim that most if any of the rallies were supporting his regime) it should have very little bearing on his decision to stay or go.

Whatever you think of Saddam, "regime changing" is not a pretense for war under the UN rules. To make the claim that standing up for peace and fair international rules will help provoke a war, is stretching (spinning?) things way out of proportion.

The decision to start a war rests in the hands of those who fire the first bullet.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 17 February 2003 06:50 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How do you know this? Because Bush said it, thats why, therefore it must be true -- yah right.
From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 17 February 2003 06:54 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
During the second world war, Nazi apologists claimed that opposition to Hitler's policies could be equated with support for Stalin.

But people knew better than to think in black and white.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
hibachi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 956

posted 17 February 2003 08:20 PM      Profile for hibachi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If 15,000,000 marched, that is 0.25% of the world's population! That is what impressed me.
From: Toronto, Ont. | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576

posted 17 February 2003 09:13 PM      Profile for Heather   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Bush and Blair can dodge the near 20 million voices, and again focus on addressing Saddam. For their communication peeps this is a blessing for damage control.
I'm sure they'll try- they'll do anything at this point to make this war sound legitimate.

But- if they try, I believe this will make them sound even more desperate and conniving.

Don't forget, people are sharing information through the internet and learning about parts of history that before the internet, could only be done by going to the library or a public office; whereas with the internet, (granted there's a lot more crap than decent information) people are able to look up and read different sources at the press of a button and come to a conclusion .

I really doubt that the decent people who were marching for peace and humanity felt that they were marching for Saddam but for the people of Iraq.


From: Planet Earth | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 17 February 2003 10:02 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tack, Swallow, and Pax.

That was an awful letter, and a complete misjudgement of Palestinian politics. Since when is saying "victory for the Intifada," in and of itself, support for terrorism? It is typical of the manipualtion of the media, that people automatically associate terroism and the Intifada.

The Initifada has a far greater spectrum of tendencies than just suicide bombers, though that is one aspect of it.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 17 February 2003 10:04 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
During the Viet Nam war, peace demonstrations in the U.S. and around the world encouraged the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong to intensify and to prolong their war efforts. Things haven't changed since then.

Is there no idiological crack you will not slither into, in order to justify mass murder of Arabs?


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 17 February 2003 10:25 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Don't forget, people are sharing information through the internet and learning about parts of history that before the internet, could only be done by going to the library or a public office; whereas with the internet, (granted there's a lot more crap than decent information) people are able to look up and read different sources at the press of a button and come to a conclusion .

I think this is very true and what is happening is that the conciousness of the world is raising.

But will Washington act out of character and try some other tact? I doubt it.


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 17 February 2003 10:50 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is there no idiological crack you will not slither into, in order to justify mass murder of Arabs?

Moredreads:

Are you being deliberately obtuse or did you stumble into the wrong thread by mistake? Your comment relates to nothing on this thread!


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 17 February 2003 10:57 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It takes quite a few logical contortions to make the case that millions of people demonstrating against war in fact make war more likely.

Not at all. It's borne out by history, and by recent statements coming out of Iraq. If 20 million people marched in support of me, being the reasonable and rational person that you know me to be, would you not expect my head to suddenly expand to enormous proportions? Could you not imagine that I would take it as a personal vote of confidence, instead of what it might actually be, which would be opposition to my detractors instead?

I'm just saying that Saddam is more than ever encouraged to hang on to power. I admire those who march in support of their convictions. I was merely looking at cause and effect.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 17 February 2003 11:12 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Iraqis came out of their homes and shops, looking surprised to see all these
smiling foreigners marching with their huge banners in Arabic, English,
Italian, and Japanese calling for peace. By the time we had walked a mile
crowds gathered on the sidewalks to see us. The Okinawans were a great hit,
chanting and singing with their huge red drums, spinning their drumsticks up
into the air and leaping to catch them.

Then suddenly an Iraqi woman on the sidewalk started ululating in a
high-pitched call. Another woman brought out a basket and began throwing
candies up into the air. Another pulled blossoms from a basket of flowers
and tossed them in front of us, and then embraced several of the women
marchers.

Further on, as we turned a corner, a larger crowd of men had gathered.
Suddenly one of them started clapping, and another and another, until the
whole crowd of Iraqis was applauding. It sounded like rain on a dry land,
like something that would outlive all the distrust of the world.

We called out to them, "Asalaam aleikum!" (Peace be with you!) and several
called back, "Wa Aleikum salaam, Iraqi!" (And to you peace, Iraqi!)


From the report I posted earlier. The Russian revolution started with a Women's Day march for peace. There's a bit of history for you.

quote:
If 20 million people marched in support of me, being the reasonable and rational person that you know me to be, would you not expect my head to suddenly expand to enormous proportions?

Gee, everything's speeding up these days. Revisionism used to take a while to get going. Who, exactly, marched in support of Hussein?

[ 17 February 2003: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 17 February 2003 11:54 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No danger of your head swelling to proportions even larger than they are now, it is big enough as it is.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 18 February 2003 12:34 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The problem is that the people first in line at these efforts are the ones that have been doing it for the longest. The organizations that have been active fighting the sanctions on Iraq are going to be front and center. While not saying that Saddam can do no wrong, they do tend to adopt a unjustly accused tone. While they have every right to put forward that view, they need to remember that the participants have come for their own reasons. I am not sure that Saddam is in a league of his own as an atrocious head of state, I have him grouped with about 25 other similiar leaders. However, my wife is adamantly against him and participated in the march only because military force is the wrong way to remove him. She was uncomfortable with speeches that linked her presence with more than the issue at hand.

So does your wife have any concrete proposal about how Iraqis should go about their internal politics. It seems to me that the whole idea that we have the right to determine the internal politics of another country is part and parcel of the problem.

My opposition to the war comes from the understanding that interfering in the internal politics of other nations is an essential aspect of the problem faced by Iraqis to day. At no point in the history of Iraq, have the Iraqi's themselves been allowed to determine what is right for thermsleves, neither the Ottamans, nor the British, nor the USA has ever allowed this to happen.

It is all very nice to sit here and make declamations that both sides are wrong and call for removal of Hussein, but then who is calling for the war? Hussein? No, he is not. Given that an anti-war march, is an anti-war march, not a 'democracy' for Iraq march, it is hardly approriate for people to step on the podium and make a critique of his regieme.

Why should it become a 'democracy' for Iraq march as well, do you or I or your wife has some kind of cure all solution that will patch tings up there and make everything work better? No we don't and we should stop thinking that we have the right to think we do.

Furthermore, supporting the Intifada does not detract from an anti-war position because it is an antiwar position, given that both the planned US invasion of Iraq and the occupation of the WB and Gaza Strip are both colonial invasions.

When Woodrow Wilson extablished his 14 point plan for the future of international relations and presented it at the Versaille conference of 1919, he was quite clear about the right of self-determination of peoples. Both Iraqis and Palestinians have this right.

To make a comparison between militant Palestinians defending their homes (whatever you may think of the methods that some of them apply) from a European settler invasion backed by the US and Israel, and the US plans to conquer and occupy Iraq is very problematic.

Ther is no Iraqi invasion flotila, lingering in the Gulf of Mexico nor are Palestinians setting up their tents in New York state.

It should be noted that one of the biggest supporters of the war is Areil Sharon and Israeli settler movement, as they see untold benefit to their own, less dramatic invasion plans:

quote:
According to Ezra Rosenfeld, a spokesman for the Yesha Council, the low profile is by design. ''There is a time for everything,'' he told me and then sketched out a potential series of events for the next few months. ''Let's say there's a war in Iraq. Well, then the government can build 10,000 new housing units in Judea and Samaria'' -- the biblical names for the area that settlers prefer to use -- ''and it won't be on the front pages or all over the talk shows. So in the meantime, we can do this with the outposts. The government's hands are clean; they have no involvement. It's small potatoes, so it doesn't get covered outside of Israel.''

From here, and posted for commentary on this thread.

On the contrary, to not make a link between European colonialism, of the kind that is the cause of many of Iraq's problems and the ongoing Israeli invasion of Palestinian land would be to miss the lessons that have been taught to us over and over again.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 18 February 2003 12:50 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This:
quote:
The Russian revolution started with a Women's Day march for peace. There's a bit of history for you.

Counters this:

quote:
It's borne out by history, and by recent statements coming out of Iraq.

Swelled head? Who? I certainly didn't march in Iraq on Sunday.

All I'm saying is that history has many lessons, and I don't think you (or anyone else) have got the corner on all of them. Personally, I wouldn't try to guess what last weekend's protests might lead to.

... and speaking of links ...

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 18 February 2003 12:55 AM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
why was I associated with the letter about the infitida?

Anyway, I marched. Just like I did during the G-8 in Calgary and Quebec City. It was a good thing.

Don't get me wrong, what I was saying was that the US and England will spin it and address Saddam instead of the marches.
I'm talking strategy here.
And I think it will take more than info available on the internet. Its too passive.


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 18 February 2003 01:01 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You weren't, entirely. I was responding to a series of responses of people outlining agreement in a line of psosts, and the letter appeared in one of them and some people showed agreement with that, as well. I was sumarize the line of thinking, and responding in general to the direction it went.

No iffense intended.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 18 February 2003 01:58 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
According to Moredreads (below), we are never supposed to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. OK, well then I guess all protests against Israeli policies should immediately cease since everything that Israel does is within its own territory. After all nothing that Israel does to the Arabs could be any worse than what Iraq does to Kurds and Shiites and we have been told that we are not supposed to criticize internal Iraqi policies. For that matter, why did any of us bother fighting to end the apartheid regime in South Africa? After all it was all INTERNAL South African politics, it was none of our business how the Whites treated the Blacks. Why did any of us care about the genocide that Serbia was launching in Kosovo? I guess it was a good thing that we did nothing to prevent the death of a million Rwandans since to have done otherwise would have implied interference in internal Rwandan matters. Its just too bad that those darned Vietnamese communists had to interfere in the internal affairs of Cambodia in 1979. Were it not for them, the Khmer Rouge would still be the rightful rulers of Cambodia under the benevolent leadership of Pol Pot!! and had it not been for those criminal Tanzanians in 1980 attacking poor little Idi Amin ruled Uganda, Idi Amin would still be clogging the Nile with dead bodies.

If anyone really thinks that the world should turn a totally blind eye to what goes on internally in any country, let's just be prepared to accept the consequences of that attitude.

I totally oppose attacking Iraq because I think the risks are greater than the potential benefits. But let us not forget that if Saddam Hussein had not interfered with the internal affairs of Kuwait 12 years ago (ie: by launching a full scale invasion of a sovereign state), none of this would be happening in the first place.

"My opposition to the war comes from the understanding that interfering in the internal politics of other nations is an essential aspect of the problem faced by Iraqis to day. At no point in the history of Iraq, have the Iraqi's themselves been allowed to determine what is right for thermsleves, neither the Ottamans, nor the British, nor the USA has ever allowed this to happen.

It is all very nice to sit here and make declamations that both sides are wrong and call for removal of Hussein, but then who is calling for the war? Hussein? No, he is not. Given that an anti-war march, is an anti-war march, not a 'democracy' for Iraq march, it is hardly approriate for people to step on the podium and make a critique of his regime."


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
marcy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3562

posted 18 February 2003 02:22 AM      Profile for marcy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
comrades,

in 1969 (yes, the not-so-good old daze) and for a couple of years after, i enthusiastically marched in anti-war demos carrying a placard with an image of a National Liberation Front guerilla on it. our slogan was (sounds kinda corny, but i still like it) "ho, ho ho chi minh, the nlf is gonna win!" and they did. 34 years and three pieces of university paper later, 14 years teaching c20th history and i stand by that. all of it. but saddam and the people's struggle in 'nam are not in the same ballgame. not at all. the vietnamese, after over 40 years of anti-colonial struggle (thank you france, thanks america) finally became masters in their own home - and they were left with a great, big stinking mess that they're still trying to clean up. things have not been perfect - not at all - but you, me hundreds of former gi's - we can go there and be warmly welcomed. and gee, let's not forget that donnie rumsfeld used to like saddam - a lot. let's not forget that the us and other western democracies let saddam gas the kurds while doing fuck all - oh, wait a minute they supported him because they were against iran. that was because they liked the shah - another model of democracy. Yikes. and who cares what tony and george think? well, i didn't like saddam then and i don't like him now - just like i don't like the two dozen or so other tyrants in town. if BLUSH wants to equate peace marches with support for saddam - fine. i'm quite pleased that cbc is reporting this pm that the us government has to view the giant demos as a setback. guess what?? they're a setback for saddam and his ilk, too. i really agree with judy rebick. this is not a flash in the pan. this movement has been inchoate and building for awhile and it means far more and is far deeper and important than a shot at BLUSH. dictators, red-baiters, race-haters, playboys, playgirls - you ain't gonna rule my world, you ain't gonna ruin my world. not now or no other time. your time is up. thanks, bob.


From: vancouver | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 18 February 2003 06:50 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
According to Moredreads (below), we are never supposed to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. OK, well then I guess all protests against Israeli policies should immediately cease since everything that Israel does is within its own territory.

I stopped reading right here. What part of the phrase "occupied territory" do you not understand. Even Israel freely admits that it took the land in the 1967 war. UN Resolution 242 is quite explicit about the fact that the areas in question are not part of Israel, as defined in the UN partition of Palestine.

Iraq at this time does not occupy Kuwait, the original justification for sanctions, and military activity. Israel still occupies what it took 36 years ago.

Ok, so I read more...

quote:
Its just too bad that those darned Vietnamese communists had to interfere in the internal affairs of Cambodia in 1979.

The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was a direct result of various direct attacks on Vietnam and Vietnamese border villages. It was not some kind of humanitatrian mission. These attacks were a persitent campaign by the Khmer Rouge to claim disputed territory within Vietnam. Such attacks warrant self defence.

Other than that they didn't give a flying fuck.

There is a big difference between meddling in thh affairs of another country, and putting preassure on countries that are internally repressive or being supportive indiginous struggles for self-determination.

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 18 February 2003 09:47 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the Arabs hadn't waged war with Israel every step of the way starting in 1947, there wouldn't be any occupied territories. If the only problem in the Middle East is that Israel occupied territory that was previously illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt, then why was there no peace BEFORE 1967?? I'm sure that in 1966 Israel would have gladly signed a peace treaty based on the pre-1967 borders that then existed, but no no no, the Arabs can never accept half a loaf, they either want everything or nothing at all. Its their loss, 1000 years from now they will still be "occupied" because they refused to make peace when they had one opprtunity after another. As Abba Eban said: "the Arabs never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity". Of course the leaders of the Arab world don't care as they sit in their royal palaces, buying Harrod's etc... only the common people of the Arab world and most of all the Palestinians suffer because their own leaders hold them in such contempt.

"What part of the phrase "occupied territory" do you not understand. Even Israel freely admits that it took the land in the 1967 war. UN Resolution 242 is quite explicit about the fact that the areas in question are not part of Israel, as defined in the UN partition of Palestine."


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 18 February 2003 09:51 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Palestinians suffer because their own leaders hold them in such contempt.

Yes, that is it. The ethnic cleansing, the bulldozing of homes, the beatings, the shootings, the prison camps have nothing to do with it.

I remember when I was much younger, a young South African who had seen military service telling me most black South Africans wanted to live the way they do.

Why do statements such as the above smack of similar sentiments.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 18 February 2003 10:31 AM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who, exactly, marched in support of Hussein?

Not revisionism, but lack of reading comprehension on your part. I posted that, In Saddam's deluded mind, 20 million people marched in support of him. Did you miss the title of this thread??


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 18 February 2003 10:36 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't buy it, mandrake. Hussein might be using the marches in a calculated way, but it's a leap to think he's buying what he's selling. It's also a leap to believe that the people of Iraq are buying the propaganda, either. They've had to deal with his line for long enough to know what it's worth.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 18 February 2003 10:36 AM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I stopped reading right here.

I'm amazed that you got that far. It speaks to the level of debate on this thread that many of the lefties refuse to even consider the other side. They read and believe only what they want to believe, then continue on yammering out their previously prepared position, as errant and arrogant as ever.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 18 February 2003 10:41 AM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes, that is it. The ethnic cleansing, the bulldozing of homes, the beatings, the shootings, the prison camps have nothing to do with it.

So it's O.K. for Saddam to commit atrocities in Iraq, unimpeded by the national community; it's O.K. for Arafat and his cronies to oppress Palestinians; it's O.K. for terrorists to massacre Israelis in Israel, but it's not O.K. for Israelis to defend themselves? Your ludicrous spin on self-defense, and your characterization of deterrents as oppression ('ethnic cleansing' - get real!) is an offense to anyone with a functioning cerebrum.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 18 February 2003 10:44 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then, thankfully, I am not concerned about having offended you.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576

posted 18 February 2003 11:01 AM      Profile for Heather   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I posted that, In Saddam's deluded mind, 20 million people marched in support of him.

Of course he's going to say this. It makes sense for him to say it, should propoganda work for him and Bush with Blair will play along with it to push their agenda forward.

But I believe that protestors have become immune to this kind of play and the internet has played a larger role than we might be aware of. It certainly has for me (someone who as a youth used to to be so ignorant to the point where I called people 'diaper heads'. I say this with embarrassment and I've matured since then).

quote:
And I think it will take more than info available on the internet. Its too passive.

While I agree that it will take more than the internet, we have to keep in mind that organizers have utilized it to mobilize people and help make us and our communities aware of the issues at hand.

Yes there is a lot of work to be done. I have friends who will only look at the sports section of a paper and don't want to know anything about the outside world- they are satisfied with their little crowd of friends and their activities. They are so out-of-the-loop that they are not concerned that our neighbours are about to kill thousands of women and children, not to mention soldiers and expose chemical and biological weapons into our global environment. This kind of attitude just awes me and I find it very difficult to get across to these people even though they are part of 'my crowd'.

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: Anuri ]


From: Planet Earth | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ksnecktieman
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3736

posted 18 February 2003 11:44 AM      Profile for ksnecktieman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I consider myself a war hawk, but I think the US can win this war with economics and not need to bomb saddam. How many of his people will starve and be tortured before they rise up and depose him. If we in the us stop trying to feed the world out of good will (purchase friends and allies?) we will need a lot less oil, for running tractors, and trucks to give away our goods. Let them eat their oil, when they decide we are not their enemy anymore we can trade them food for oil if they like.

I do approve of peace marches, but the most effective peace march you can make is to arm yourself and go march for Saddam. (Maybe you should take along a few bushels of wheat?)


From: Kansas | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 18 February 2003 12:02 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey Einstein. Ever heard of the Tigris and Euphrates? What your high school history teacher called "the fertile crescent', the extremely arable land between those two fabled rivers, often referred to as the cradle of civilization? Guess what? The most famous farmland in the world is actually smack dab in the middle of Iraq. Who knew the whole place isn't just sand? So, dig this: the Iraqis don't need that US agribusiness corporate welfare you call "aid". They can grow their own food AND trade their own oil, and this is precisely what Bush wants to prevent by force.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 18 February 2003 12:26 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please let's not let the content of a thread on antiwar movement strategy degenerate to another slugfest about Palestine and Israel. And to echo -- i don't think any of "Tack, swallow & pax" (sounds like a breakfast cereal ad, eh?) were offering whole-hearted agreement to the letter in the Star. I just posted it to try to get the ball moving a bit, as it seemed to fit with what Tackaberry was wanting to discuss.

quote:
My opposition to the war comes from the understanding that interfering in the internal politics of other nations is an essential aspect of the problem faced by Iraqis to day.

OK Moredreads, glad you've offered the other side of the question. And just to clarify, i think including the Palestinian self-determination issue in peace rallies is perfectly valid, in fact it is desirable: connections need to be made.

In some ways it takes me back to antiwar organizing debates in 1990-91. There were two separate coalitions in Toronto at that time. The issue on which they divided was whether or not to include in the basis of unity a commitment to "self-determination for all peoples in the Middle East, and especially for Kuwaitis, Palestinians and Kurds." As you'll no doubt be able to guess, i was in the group that wanted this self-determination (ie an explicit opposition to the invasion of Kuwait among other things) included.

When it comes right down to it, i don't believe there is anything wrong with "interfering in the internal politics of other nations." Invading them, yes. Bullying them, yes. But the ultimate spirit of this board, i believe, is that there are not really other countries living in airtight compartments that we may not interfere with. There is one planet and there are universal human rights. It is my duty to support people in other countries fighting for human rights. That to me is the meaning of "solidarity." At a minimum, it is my duty when protesting against a war on human rights violators, to make it very clear indeed that i am not speaking out on behalf of that human rights violator. Otherwise he is able to make claims like Saddam has made, that 20 million people have marched in support of him. And some credulous people will buy that line. You know, and i know, that we were not marching in support of Saddam, but some people who heard some of the speakers might not have been able to tell.

Grass grows through cracks in the paving stones of a dictatorship, despite those dictators' attempts to stamp it out. It cracks the paving stones and breaks free. I think the account writer has posted is an example of that. People will free themselves of dictators. I think it's better on moral grounds and tactical grounds if we make it clear that we are walking in solidarity with the people of Iraq, not with their dictator. I believe that is clear to most marchers, but the speeches that are made tend to blur this line and even shade into implicit suggestions that Saddam is just fine and dandy. And that is a mistake.

And as to national sovereignty in general: will we stop criticizing human rights abuses in Israel if they take place after Israel is out of the occupied territories? Does no one outside Canada have the right to criticize the treatment of aboriginal people in this country? Must Turkey be allowed to do anything it wants to its Kurdish population? Isn't the very existence of Iraq a violation of the demand for a united Arab nation as well as the demand for an independent Kurdistan, imposed by the British? Was South Africa perfectly within its rights to impose apartheid? Seems to me our actions have to cross borders.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
ksnecktieman
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3736

posted 18 February 2003 12:51 PM      Profile for ksnecktieman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ronb. This war is not about taking oil by force, if the us wanted to take oil by force we would have held Kuwait after spending our billions to drive Saddam out and put out the burning oilfield fires, and taken it as payment. Or as you assume, just taken it. In my opinion this war is to depose Saddam and improve the life of the Iraqi people. The united states does not "conquer and occupy" to increase its territory.

Do you think we will harm Iraq if we leave soldiers there as we did in Germany and Korea?
I hope that we can leave there within two years, without leaving a "peacekeeping force" behind.


From: Kansas | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 18 February 2003 01:38 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This war is not about taking oil by force, if the us wanted to take oil by force we would have held Kuwait after spending our billions to drive Saddam out and put out the burning oilfield fires, and taken it as payment.

The US has control of Kuwaiti oil, and has insured that it will be sold to the West at a relatively inexpensive price.

In a very real way, the US does "hold" Kuwait. Its troops are there now, preparing for the invasion of Iraq. Of course they have the approval of the Royal family who they returned to power when Saddam was driven out.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576

posted 18 February 2003 02:05 PM      Profile for Heather   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Swallow, I think this is worth bolding because not only is it a fact but it is how many people are feeling and many more are realizing:
quote:
There is one planet and there are universal human rights. It is my duty to support people in other countries fighting for human rights. That to me is the meaning of "solidarity".

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: Anuri ]


From: Planet Earth | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 18 February 2003 02:17 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And as for "repayment" - well that would defeat the entire logic of these little military adventures... the money is supposed to flow AWAY from the US taxpayer and TOWARD the corporate bottom line. If the Emir of Kuwait were asked to pay reparations, he'd have to charge higher fees to US Oil corporations to do so, and that would be bad for their bottom line, so somehow it just never gets mentioned. It's corporate welfare, petrowar style. Not to mention, if Kuwait actually did help pay for the upkeep of its occupational army, that money might end up putting the US government in the black, and that would be a disaster because it could fund social programs that decrease the desperation of American workers and therefore increase the cost of labour.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 18 February 2003 02:19 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If the Arabs hadn't waged war with Israel every step of the way starting in 1947, there wouldn't be any occupied territories.

Yes, that has got to be it: Bad Arab, down, bad.

BTW: Begin said that Israel started the 1967 war.

quote:
I just posted it to try to get the ball moving a bit, as it seemed to fit with what Tackaberry was wanting to discuss.

Then don't be suprised when I kick the ball back your way. As for Israel/Palestine... one of the siginifcant factors leading to the support of people like Hussein in the Arab world, is the continued almost unconditional support for Israel.

This is what they will say:

1) Does Israel continue to occupy Arab land, against the will of the people who live there, what is so bad about Hussien trying to take Kuwait?

2) Israel has weapons of Mass Destruction. What is so bad abour Arabs haveing them?

Sorry, the two issues are so closely interlinked that it is impossible to talk Iraq without discussing our support for Israel. I am saying that it is right for organizers to bring such issues up because they are linked, both in the Arab perception of the problem and on the ground -- read again the excerpt I posted about what the settlers are saying about war with Iraq.

We just can not go on ignoring Arab dissafection because the issues are controversial. But I think we agree on this.

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 18 February 2003 02:34 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And as to national sovereignty in general: will we stop criticizing human rights abuses in Israel if they take place after Israel is out of the occupied territories? Does no one outside Canada have the right to criticize the treatment of aboriginal people in this country? Must Turkey be allowed to do anything it wants to its Kurdish population? Isn't the very existence of Iraq a violation of the demand for a united Arab nation as well as the demand for an independent Kurdistan, imposed by the British? Was South Africa perfectly within its rights to impose apartheid? Seems to me our actions have to cross borders.

Certainly we must critique and also do what we can to influence the situation positively.

Take the 'Internationals' who are presently in Palestine. Yes, they might agree with the cause, but it is not their right to take up arms against Israel, as it is the right of Palestinians. In fact they should not, it is the fight of those who are closely connected and those who will bare the brunt of reprisals etc. It is their struggle, in that sense, of which we can be supportive but not invasive.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Felonious Sloth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3761

posted 18 February 2003 03:06 PM      Profile for Dr. Felonious Sloth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The marchers should have been carrying placards demanding that Saddam Hussein give up his weapons of mass destructions and cooperate fully with the UN Weapons Inspectors. The organizers of the peace marches went about this wrong; they should have taken the time to consider how a psychopath like Hussein thinks. They have put the US and Britain in a position where they must attack Iraq because Hussein will never cooperate, he believes world opinion is on his side. You screwed this one up big time.
From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 18 February 2003 03:07 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are no words strong enough to properly elucidate how incredibly stupid what you just said is.

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
kenngc
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1918

posted 18 February 2003 03:46 PM      Profile for kenngc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As distasteful a character as Saddam Hussein is, I'd rather risk being seen as siding for peace - at all cost - than war - at all cost.

Risking being seen as an Iraqi pawn: engaging people in discussion.

Going along with Dubya: priceless (money is no object, nor loss of innocent lives apparently).


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Felonious Sloth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3761

posted 18 February 2003 05:35 PM      Profile for Dr. Felonious Sloth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And what exactly is wrong with protestors demanding Saddam give up is weapons of mass destruction and cooperate with the UN? The psychopath now thinks world opion is on his side.
From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 18 February 2003 05:51 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look, I'm sorry that you guys might not get to have your war and all the fun parades and glorious stories of the victor over the vanquished, but those are the breaks.

No need to get all peevish and start to misspell things like opinion just because you’re mad that we pooped all over your little shindig in the gulf.

Lordy lordy your a sore loser, loser.

We win! Ha ha!


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 18 February 2003 05:55 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then we can all demonstrate to demand that the US disarm and give up all their weapons - works for me! I just think its a helluva lot of nerve to demand that you be the only country with weapons and the right to decide when and where to use them and on who, where is pretty much anyone who doesnt subscribe to the fairy tale that the US is all supreme, all knowing, all wonderful (gagging).

BTW off topic but isnt it funny how any country that doesnt co-operate with the US is hit by alleged terrorist action to bring them into line? It didnt take a genius to forsee the bombing in Korea.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Felonious Sloth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3761

posted 18 February 2003 06:01 PM      Profile for Dr. Felonious Sloth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That was a typo; I should have proof read it before posting. I did not state that I was pro war, I firmly believe that we screwed up on this one, we should have remained neutral and demanded that both sides stopped their saber rattling.
From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 18 February 2003 06:04 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What Iraqi sabre rattling are you talking about? Was there some communiqué out of Baghdad that I missed, talking about a regime change in Washington, huh?
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Felonious Sloth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3761

posted 18 February 2003 06:10 PM      Profile for Dr. Felonious Sloth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you honestly believe he does not have weapons of mass destruction? It would have made more sense had we demanded that both Britain and the US not invade Iraq and Saddam fully cooperate with the weapons inspectors.

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: Dr. Felonious Sloth ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 18 February 2003 06:31 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Millions of people from around the world came togethr in one cause, in one voice, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation to say "We want peace" "No more war" and you think we screwed up?

For one thing it gives each and every single person who raised their voice the courage, the support, the knowledge that they do not stand alone and the determination to keep up the good fight. SOLIDARITY on a world level - and you say we screwed up?

As for what Suddam thinks, have you heard it directly from him or just filtered through western news channels? He didnt look triumphant to me, he looked tired - and the message was also for him - "NO MORE WAR" and I believe he got that message loud and clear, as much as everyone else did.

It was one of the most gratifying days in the history of the world.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 18 February 2003 07:19 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes Moredreads, we agree on the Palestine connection. All i ask is that peace rally speakers spend as much time speaking up for human rights and disarmament in Iraq as they do for human rights in Palestine and disarmament of Israel.

And yes the US should disarm too. Because it is all i can do, my sign at the next rally will say "Disarm Iraq, Disarm the World." If anyone else in Toronto feels the same way, maybe we can make it a banner.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Felonious Sloth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3761

posted 18 February 2003 07:20 PM      Profile for Dr. Felonious Sloth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You still haven't answered my question, do you think he has weapons of mass destruction?
From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 18 February 2003 07:22 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. Next question.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 18 February 2003 07:33 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. If they did, they would not use them. They had them in '91 and they did not use them, why would they now?

Swallow, the difference is that we are talking about military agression. In my view that is what an antiwar march is about. In these cases, Iraq and Palestine, western powers (of which I include Israel as an agent) are imposing themesleves upon Arabs using military force. Of course we can talk about what a bad ass Saddam is, but that is another can of worms.

Contrarily, is anyone asking for reform of the US internal political system at these rallies? Calling for a new electoral system for instance, since the present one clearly has some problems, there is also indemic racism in the US, and the US leads the world in the execution of Juvenile offenders. But no, these are not the issues. The issue is military agression, something that more or less everyone can agree is bad.

To be fair, you would then have to open up commentary about these issues in the states, if you were to do so about Iraq, no?

Is anyone asking for the US to disarm?

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Felonious Sloth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3761

posted 18 February 2003 08:02 PM      Profile for Dr. Felonious Sloth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did they not launch Scud missiles into Saudi Arabia and Israel?
From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
BLAKE 3:16
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2978

posted 18 February 2003 08:08 PM      Profile for BLAKE 3:16     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
During the Viet Nam war, peace demonstrations in the U.S. and around the world encouraged the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong to intensify and to prolong their war efforts. Things haven't changed since then.

And the revolutionaries of Vietnam were quite right in kicking the asses of the imperialist forces when and where they could. A defeat for imperialism is a victory for humanity. The Tet Offensive was crucial to 1968's international libertarian socialist uprising, and a mainspring for many of the civil liberties and democratic rights that we enjoy today.

When emissaries from the Italian Communist Party asked the Vietnamese NLF what help the Vietnamese would like rom them, the NLF replied that the Italians should start their own revolution.


From: Babylon, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 18 February 2003 09:13 PM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A scud is not a WMD.

Sigh. I started this thread to discuss protest strategy. It has careened, well, everywhere.

Anyway, Bush said nothing except I 'respectfully disagree', I was surprised.

Is it just me or is Rabble being flooded with agitators lately?

Close thread plz


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 18 February 2003 09:24 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can't close a thread any more than a can of worms. All you can do is try to stay on whatever you think the track is.

quote:
Is anyone asking for the US to disarm?

Of course. Many many many people. It's been all over rabble.

All i can say, once again, is that the best tactic for the antiwar movement is to be consistently for disarmament everywhere, including the US, including Iraq, and to clearly make the point from the platform that the movement is not in favour of Saddam Hussein. Peace and human rights are two sides of the same coin. .


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 18 February 2003 09:29 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There are no words strong enough to properly elucidate how incredibly stupid what you just said is.

Yes there are, Moredreads. You use them all the time in your posts to make points that are increasingly irrational.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 18 February 2003 09:34 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A scud is not a WMD.

Of course not. Warheads are delivered by the Easter Bunny, and they're filled with Nerf bombs.

quote:
Close thread plz

When all else fails, and you're on the run and can't out-debate the opposition, shut them down!


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 18 February 2003 09:37 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No need to get all peevish and start to misspell things like opinion ...

So you want to get into a pissing contest over spelling, do you, Moredreads? Bring it on. You make more errors than most, so watch your back!


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 18 February 2003 09:41 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It didnt take a genius to forsee the bombing in Korea.

Kindred must be a seer. How else can one forsee the actions of the mentally ill? (Or does Kindred not pay any attention at all to the news?)


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 18 February 2003 10:03 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If so, he will be in tune with your next action.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 18 February 2003 10:27 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Tet Offensive was crucial to 1968's international libertarian socialist uprising, and a mainspring for many of the civil liberties and democratic rights that we enjoy today.

It's a real shame those Vietnamese revolutionaries didn't think to grant any of those civil liberties they delivered us to their own people.

As far as Saddam claiming victory because of the peace marches, it doesn't really matter. He'd be claiming victory over the American imperialists if his control of Iraq was reduced to a few kilometers of Bagdahd. The peace marches weren't really meant to send a message to him anyways. It was Bush/Blair they were meant for.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
hibachi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 956

posted 18 February 2003 10:37 PM      Profile for hibachi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's a shame how threads can get spoiled by people flaming each other. Surely if something incredibly stupid or offensive is said (within Rabble limits of course), isn't it just better to leave it to sit on its own, uncommented on.

As far as the topic goes, I don't think anyone here considers Saddam Hussein to be another Dalai Lama. The Iraqi people are better off alive under Saddam Hussein than dead after a war. I am afraid that many people will be killed in a war. This is my major concern. Personally, news about war and death is stressful. The people in Korea. Even Chicago although it was not war-related. And that was just today.


From: Toronto, Ont. | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
djwhathaveidone
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3757

posted 18 February 2003 11:53 PM      Profile for djwhathaveidone     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pardon my saying, but there seems to be a lot of fighting happening in a discussion about peace efforts. Isn't it funny how conflict invariably creeps into the equation?
From: far and wide... | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 19 February 2003 03:02 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Of course. Many many many people. It's been all over rabble.

As are critiques of the Hussein regime, but the question was protest policy and strategy. I don't believe anyone organizing demonstrations are calling for such things.

Generally, in the more nuanced world of political critique there are condemnations of the Hussein regime. The question is are demonstrations, on stage on front of thousands of people, the place to get into such complex issues?

Everyone comes to a rally with their own political viewpoint and I am sure tha world-wide there were many people espousing the 'neither Hussein nor Bush' view, as you have done here.

If you are looking for balance. Critiquing the internal structure of Iraq would require a similar critique of the US. Since none is being presented 'offiically' concerning the US, then none should be presented in terms of Iraq. Again, the issue is military agression.

If Hussein was currently pursuing an agressive external military strategy, then I think it would be required to call for an 'equal' condemnation of Iraq, but that is not the case. It is the US, not Hussien that is beating the war drum (gee I hate that cliche!)


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 19 February 2003 03:20 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's a real shame those Vietnamese revolutionaries didn't think to grant any of those civil liberties they delivered us to their own people.

Gee, isn't it of odd how Vietnam, a country steeped in the Cunfusian tradition, didn't suddenly up and start applying our universally true world view to their own society.

When Ho Chi Minh, as Nguyen Ai Quoc, first presented the petition for the 'democratic' reform of Vietnam during the Versaille conference of 1919, to Woodrow Wilson and other western delegates, the silence was deafening. When he penned the first constitution of Vietnam he began it with the "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Yet when he sent a letter to the US during the war against the French asking for necessary food aid to prevent starvation, the president did not even deign to reply.

You bother to ask why the Vietnamese didn't instantly accept the social principals of French and American ethics, when those countries had spent the better part fo this century doing everything in their power to destroy any democratic voice for the people of Vietnam.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 19 February 2003 05:17 AM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mandrake, I suggested the thread be closed because we have gone off topic, and should be moved to the middle east section, and since there are already threads discussing exactly what this thread has devolved to, this thread is unecessarily and should be closed.

Pre-emptive military strikes are morally repugnant.
Pre-emptive military strikes run contrary to the rule of law.
If pre-emptive strikes had been the accepted norm in the last forty years, we would have destroyed humanity during any number of episodes, not all involving the US (India and Pakistan for example).

Below is a summary of an idea that was published in the O Citizen, hardly a leftie paper.

The purpose of the modern military is to shield citizens from accountability in their foreign policy. the very existence of a military undermines the most important democratic tenant, accountability. In a global world this unacceptable, and until it is rectified, the world will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis.

The US in particluar uses their military to shield citizens from the accountability and responsibility of their foreign policy.
And yes, the military in Iraq also serves to protect its dictator from accountability for his foreign policy (and it could be argued that because Iraq is not a democracy the army shields him from internal accountability also).

Should Iraq be disarmed? Of course. Should the US be disarmed? Of course. Every nation should be disarmed. Is war the way to do it? No, at least not at this time.

Mandrake I have no fear addressing this topic. But your irrational posts make it a waste of time addressing you.

[ 19 February 2003: Message edited by: Tackaberry ]


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 19 February 2003 10:46 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Gee, isn't it of odd how Vietnam, a country steeped in the Cunfusian tradition, didn't suddenly up and start applying our universally true world view to their own society.

Surely Moredreads, you're not suggesting that democratic freedoms and individual liberties are for westereners only, and cannot co-exist alongside a Confuscian tradition.

Ho Chi Min's constitution sounds great. But like all attempts to turn socialist theory in practical government, it looks great on paper, works lousy in practice.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 19 February 2003 11:12 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As in the document it was taken from, the US constitution, sounds great. But like all attempts to turn free market theory in practical government, it looks great on paper, works lousy in practice.

I am telling you that humane 'democratic' organization does not necessarily require that society conform to western political methods, and that societies have the right to govern themselves how they wish. Nor do I think that these methods are particularly democratic in reality.

What The US and France did in Vietnam vould hardly be consdiered 'democratic,' after all didn't they cancel UN sponsored elections in a unified Vietnam in the late 50's. Yes.

The search continues for a truly egalitarian state stucture.

[ 19 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Man With No Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3771

posted 19 February 2003 11:59 AM      Profile for Man With No Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[quote]Should Iraq be disarmed? Of course. Should the US be disarmed? Of course. Every nation should be disarmed. Is war the way to do it? No, at least not at this time. [quote]

I agree that every country should be unarmed, in a perfect world. But the world is far from perfect. So common sense says that I don't want crazy people from owning weapons. And Iraq is run by some crazy people.

I don't want war, but using the threat of war is acceptable. It's like when I went canoeing last summer. I approached a family of loons for a photo, and the male has issue with this. He flapped and squaked and looked rather annoyed. I don't want to feel the jaws of the viscious loon on my butt, so I quickly complied and backed off.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 19 February 2003 12:19 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Pre-emptive military strikes are morally repugnant.
Pre-emptive military strikes run contrary to the rule of law.
If pre-emptive strikes had been the accepted norm in the last forty years, we would have destroyed humanity during any number of episodes, not all involving the US (India and Pakistan for example).

We no longer live in a world wherer soldiers go toe-to-toe on a battlefield remote from any civilian area. The entire planet has become a battlefield. That's reality. World War III began on September 11, 2001. There are no longer any pre-emptive strikes, only defensive, strategic attacks. Pre-emptive strikes may be morally repugnant, but at least they make sense in terms of saving innocent lives. Should another Twin Towers disaster occur, who's going to answer to the dead because nothing was done to protect them?

I understand the rule of law. It says that, if someone threatens to kill you, the police will refuse to protect you until your stalker actually takes action. They'll merely tell you that there's nothing they can do without 'proof'. Even the courts back up the stalker, who will be repeatedly let out on bail/parole/probation until he commits an egregious breach, and even then will be given the benefit of the doubt. Just ask any one of the abused women who have suffered from this particular 'rule of law': if you're not dead, we can't defend you!

As for pre-emptive strikes by other nations like India and Pakistan, it was only common sense and the good offices of the U.N. and the U.S. that prevented disaster. During the Cold War, MAD prevented the use of pre-emptive strikes; since then, it has been up to the superpowers to stop burgeoning disasters.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 19 February 2003 12:21 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Vietnam would make a great thread topic, wouldn't it?

Certainly there have been many expressing the No Bush, No Saddam view. My point is that this could easily be expressed form the platform, but the view being expressed there tends to be No Bush, No UN. But i've made the point ad nauseum already, so time for me to shut up.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 19 February 2003 12:30 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
World War III began on September 11, 2001.

This provocation had provocation of its own. This was not what started the war because it did not happen in isolation or without someone feeling it was justified and necessary.

What America wants to do to Iraq is the exact same thing, but for different reasons and on a much bigger scale.

quote:
Pre-emptive strikes may be morally repugnant, but at least they make sense in terms of saving innocent lives. Should another Twin Towers disaster occur, who's going to answer to the dead because nothing was done to protect them?

Surely you're not suggesting that the only 'innocent lives' are North American lives. There are PEOPLE living in Iraq who have nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's reign, international terrorism, or even anti-american sentiment--and THEY WILL DIE in these pre-emptive strikes. Innocent people, living their lives, going to work or preparing a meal for their family or playing or laughing in their homes, will die. Who's going to answer to them?

Your logic fails. Big fat F.

The connection you're missing, mandrake, is that violence is no way to prevent violence. Rather, it's inevitable that a violent attack will provoke a violent response, retaliation, or will plant the seeds of desire for retribution.

War is simply NOT THE ANSWER.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Felonious Sloth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3761

posted 19 February 2003 02:56 PM      Profile for Dr. Felonious Sloth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"A Scud is not a WMD" Niether is an empty artillery shell, Artillery shells are always stored empty for reason of safety, the chemical are added immediately prior to use, the Scuds were designed to carry chemical payloads.
From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 19 February 2003 03:21 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The definition of "weapons of mass destruction" would make a great thread topic, wouldn't it?

I can't make a link work, but John Lloyd has a column in today's Globe that relates to the thread topic, suggesting that protesters are going way overboard by equating Tony Blair with Saddam and calling them equally bad. Worth a read, at any rate.

[ 19 February 2003: Message edited by: swallow ]


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 19 February 2003 04:04 PM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Great column. Thanks, swallow.
From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 19 February 2003 04:58 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Terrible, really.

Tony Blair V. Bush. Why can't we make a comparison?

Tony Blair happens to be leader of a uniquely privileged group of people know as Britons. These people are treated relatively well comparatively. Others, outside of this group or its associated groups (e.g. white Europeans), have second-class status, and are open to second-class treatment such as being bombed by British Harrier Jets.

Saddam Hussein happens to be leader of a uniquely privileged group of people who are members of the Ba'ath party in Iraq. These people are also treated relatively well comparatively. Others outside of this group, such a Kurds, are open to second-class treatment such as being bombed (or gassed) by French made Mirage Jets.

Yet somehow when we talk about these things, we see a distinction, focussing on the positive aspects of British treatment of 'themselves,' while focussing on the negative aspects of what Hussein does to 'others.' Yet somehow we make these fine distinctions when talking about the familiar, but do not when talking about the unfamiliar. There is a lot of talk about democracy, freedom of expression, human rights etc.

Sheep comparative argument about Vietnam is instructive, somehow, he manages to perceive France and the United States as being members of an elite group of democracies, yet ignore the fact that French and American treatment of Vietnamese people was extremely 'un-democratic,' as killing someone is the most un-democratic thing you can do to anyone.

Hitler also happened to be leader of a uniquely privileged group of people who were members of Aryan society in Germany. These people were also treated relatively well comparatively. Others outside of this group, such a Jews and Poles, were open to second-class treatment such as being bombed (or gassed) by Stuka dive-bombers.

The article of course brings up Churchill in comparison to Hitler. A remarkably apropos reminder of the early part of this century in which Churchill played such a unique role. The copy editors must have cut out the part about Churchill suggesting gassing Kurds tribes just after the first World War, but then space is limited in modern newspapers as their is so much advertising to go in them.

The main difference between Hitler and Churchill, and the thing that makes Churchill (as repugnant a character as he was) morally superior is that he did not start the war.

Tony Blair wants to start the war.

quote:
What's extraordinary is that these mistakes or miscalculations have been put on the same moral level as the humanitarian atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein.

Mistakes? Miscalculations?

The overthrow of Prime Minster Mossadeq, to choose one example, was not a mistake nor a miscalculation; it was policy.

There is a difference. But there are too many mistakes and miscalculations and faulty straw man arguments in this article to be worth the bother, really.

This for instance:

quote:
But, I would ask the demonstrators, would not a parallel be to have seen Winston Churchill, in 1940, as a man too compromised by his anti-Labour past to support in the struggle against the Nazis? Bad arguments and faulty dossiers are bad. A totalitarian regime that commits crimes against humanity is something other than bad -- is it not?

In 1940, the ruling elites in Britain and the US were highly sceptical of suggestions that Hitler was committing any extraordinary 'crimes against humanity,' other than the war itself. This hindsight retelling of the story is commonplace, Churchill and Roosevelt fought the war against the axis not out of humanitarian concern, but because it was forced upon them.

But then, as you say, Churchill's real attitude towards Hitler would make another interesting thread. I have heard that he was dismayed when the US ruled out a negotiated peace with Germany.

[ 19 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 19 February 2003 05:47 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Surely you're not suggesting that the only 'innocent lives' are North American lives. There are PEOPLE living in Iraq who have nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's reign, international terrorism, or even anti-american sentiment--and THEY WILL DIE in these pre-emptive strikes. Innocent people, living their lives, going to work or preparing a meal for their family or playing or laughing in their homes, will die. Who's going to answer to them?

Your logic fails. Big fat F.


Of course North American lives are not the only 'innocent lives', but it is the West that is under attack by fanatical Muslims, rogue nations, and their surrogates. If we could drop just one bomb or fire just one bullet, and take out the person or persons responsible for all of the evil in a given country, that would be ideal. But we don't live in an ideal world, and all of the leftist delusional fantasies in the world can't change things.

There are certain things that can only be accomplished by direct action. More than a decade of diplomacy and wishful thinking have not moved Saddam so much as a millimetre from his original position of Dictator of Iraq and Warmonger of the Western World.

quote:
The connection you're missing, mandrake, is that violence is no way to prevent violence. Rather, it's inevitable that a violent attack will provoke a violent response, retaliation, or will plant the seeds of desire for retribution.

War is simply NOT THE ANSWER.


Wrong. If all else fails, violence may be the only way of preventing violence. The cowards way is to say, "If I don't attack them, maybe they won't do violence to me." Great idea, if it works, but when it comes to bullies, they'll search out targets, without being provoked. Sometimes war is the only answer. Sometimes you need to have the guts to stand up for yourself.

We're dealing with hate-filled and jealous enemies. To appease them only encourages them. I heard many who marched last weekend saying, "If we go to war against Iraq/Al Quida/Arabs we'll just make them mad, and create more terrorists." Guess what; they're already mad, and they don't need excuses to become terrorists. We already know they're trying to get us. If we can't talk them out of it (and there's no evidence of success in that route), then we have to get them before they get us.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 19 February 2003 06:36 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Of course North American lives are not the only 'innocent lives', but it is the West that is under attack by fanatical Muslims, rogue nations, and their surrogates. If we could drop just one bomb or fire just one bullet, and take out the person or persons responsible for all of the evil in a given country, that would be ideal. But we don't live in an ideal world, and all of the leftist delusional fantasies in the world can't change things.

There are certain things that can only be accomplished by direct action. More than a decade of diplomacy and wishful thinking have not moved Saddam so much as a millimetre from his original position of Dictator of Iraq and Warmonger of the Western World.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The connection you're missing, mandrake, is that violence is no way to prevent violence. Rather, it's inevitable that a violent attack will provoke a violent response, retaliation, or will plant the seeds of desire for retribution.
War is simply NOT THE ANSWER.


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

Wrong. If all else fails, violence may be the only way of preventing violence. The cowards way is to say, "If I don't attack them, maybe they won't do violence to me." Great idea, if it works, but when it comes to bullies, they'll search out targets, without being provoked. Sometimes war is the only answer. Sometimes you need to have the guts to stand up for yourself.

We're dealing with hate-filled and jealous enemies. To appease them only encourages them. I heard many who marched last weekend saying, "If we go to war against Iraq/Al Quida/Arabs we'll just make them mad, and create more terrorists." Guess what; they're already mad, and they don't need excuses to become terrorists. We already know they're trying to get us. If we can't talk them out of it (and there's no evidence of success in that route), then we have to get them before they get us.


Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out, eh, mandrake? I guess not everyone else is as resigned to the prospect of Bush's never-ending war (and it truly will be a war without end) as you are. The proclamation "it is the West that is under attack" demonstrates your fundamental ethnocentrism. This didn't start on Sept. 11, 2001. To the people of the Middle East, this war has been going on for centuries. Every colonialist adventure onto their soil is a another reminder of the crap an ongoing succession of western empires have been heaping on folks out that way for time immemorial. Not that you seem to care, of course. You dehumanize your enemies and portray the West as victim, shrugging off the deaths of innocents (after all, "they" are the terrorists), all of which merely demonstrates a profound moral bankruptcy. You are a sponge, soaking up every half-truth and lie emanating from the White House and spewing it back out.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 19 February 2003 06:48 PM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
but when it comes to bullies, they'll search out targets, without being provoked. Sometimes war is the only answer. Sometimes you need to have the guts to stand up for yourself.

We're dealing with hate-filled and jealous enemies. To appease them only encourages them.


The first thing I thought when I read this was you're describing the United States under Bush.

Scuds are not WMD. The chemical or biological agent that goes in them is the WMD. The scud can potentially be used as a deliver device, just like a person could. Are people not named Bush WMDs?
Yeah, defintions of WMD would be a good thread topic Swallow. And thanks for the article interesting.

Mandrake, the midle east and many other nations are upset for a reason. you don't really think this anger is imbedded in their religion or something, do you? that would be the kind of generalization about a religion that could you booted from a discussion board... Their anger has a cause.
do you agree that the purpose of the modern army is to shield its citizens from accountability of foreign policy, as per the O Citizen article?

Is it just me or do most agitators post in EST business hours? Like it was a job or something


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 19 February 2003 06:58 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
you don't really think this anger is imbedded in their religion or something, do you? that would be the kind of generalization about a religion that could you booted from a discussion board... Their anger has a cause.

No, I don't think their anger is embedded in their religion, but some of them certainly misuse and pervert their religion as a justification for mass murder. I know that their anger has a cause, but do they really believe that the solution to their problems lies in attacking the very people who might help them to solve those problems?

quote:
Is it just me or do most agitators post in EST business hours? Like it was a job or something

Semi-retired ...O.K.?

quote:
do you agree that the purpose of the modern army is to shield its citizens from accountability of foreign policy, as per the O Citizen article?

The purpose of a modern army is to shield it's citizens, and to maintain world peace.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 19 February 2003 07:12 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I know that their anger has a cause, but do they really believe that the solution to their problems lies in attacking the very people who might help them to solve those problems?

Like the butcher Sharon? Or the people who would seize their oil and appoint another bloody dictator to ensure they have no ideas about democracy and keeping oil revenues for themselves?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 19 February 2003 07:21 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wingy, you forget that the same people who so often accuse "the left" of living in a rose-coloured fantasy world tend to be the same ones who, contrary to the lessons of history itself, believe the United States is always on the side of the just, who's leaders are honest, pure and stalwart men who would never deceive us about their true goals. Which of course is always the global flowering of truth, justice and democracy.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 19 February 2003 09:27 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Like the butcher Sharon? Or the people who would seize their oil and appoint another bloody dictator to ensure they have no ideas about democracy and keeping oil revenues for themselves?

Bring up the theme to "Twilight Zone".


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 19 February 2003 11:27 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you will feel at home?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 19 February 2003 11:32 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The purpose of a modern army is to shield it's citizens, and to maintain world peace.

How sweet. But fucking wrong. The purpose of a modern army is to protect investment, funnel public funds for private gain, and secure (steal) resources from the rightful owners.

If a modern army's purpose was to maintain world peace, one would have to agree they've done a pretty fucking lousy job, no?

Unless you define "world peace" as mantaining your privilaged position in the world at the expense of the rest of humanity, that is.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Felonious Sloth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3761

posted 19 February 2003 11:55 PM      Profile for Dr. Felonious Sloth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The police exist to maintain law and order yet crime still exists, imagine what would happen if we abolished all police forces. The same applies for the military; the world would be a far worse place if no military forces existed. There will always be scumbags like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein.
From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
BLAKE 3:16
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2978

posted 19 February 2003 11:58 PM      Profile for BLAKE 3:16     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
World War III began on September 11, 2001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

.


World War III wasthe American-Soviet "Cold War". World War IV was declared with NAFTA and the Zaptista rebellion.


From: Babylon, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
marcy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3562

posted 20 February 2003 01:06 AM      Profile for marcy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
thank you, moredreads, for your concise and historically mindful comment about bac ho - (i think it's nguyen that thanh) who started as a nationalist and a member of the french socialist party, became - as did many in the period - (dashiell hammett, anyone?) a communist , from which position he actively resisted japanese imperialism in a united front - the viet minh. other "nationalists" went to china or collaborated. good god, even that red-hating warlord, chiang kai shek, recognized ho's provisional government. something france just couldn't do. thereafter, elections were never held because ho and the viet minh woulda won. sound familiar? yup. you just gotta be slightly pink. i'm getting iran in '53 and a whole litany of really annoying interventions before and since simply because the particular governments were "tainted by socialism." you want your main source of pre-'39 appeasement, that's probably as good a guess as any. to the us and the tory brits, the bolshies were a bigger threat than hitler. so, let him have czecholslovakia, and maybe he'll go after the soviets - soon. c'mon, even mackenzie king - after a cozy chat with adolf in the late '30's - thought he was a well-meaning good guy. and so it goes. i think if you stand up to one creepy tyrant-type, you're standing up to 'em all. i just have to say this, no matter how tangential - before fidel ran to the beefy embrace of nikita, he was on the ed sullivan show, waving to wild applause. even had his fatigues on and his hat. or is it a cap? then, he decided that feeding people (not to mention giving them an education) would require kicking out the mob and nationalizing the sugar companies. he coulda been a happy social-democrat but, the rest, dear comrades was, and still is, history. anyway, i don't know how i got so off topic. oh yeah, i was complementing moredreads. (read U Thant's statement on the vietnam war)
From: vancouver | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 20 February 2003 01:16 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's an interesting piece by Eric Margolis, foreign correspondent for the Toronto Sun...not exactly a left-wing newspaper.

He makes the case that war is not justified and that further inspections are the answer.

Case dismissed for lack of hard evidence


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 20 February 2003 02:35 AM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mandrake, I respect your semi-retired. My profs call me a semi-student

But that said, I'll put the pieces together for you. The army protects its citizens. From what? From violence. Where idd that violence come from? Anger.
This is all a fair sumamry of what you said above.

Ask yourself why they are angry. It is because of the effects of Western imperialims, starting with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (one of Laden's favourite references) through to Israel, through to the US proping up dictators, through to American economics in the region.

The conclusion, once you add the one step you are missing, Is that the modern military shields a public from accountability in foreign policy. We buttress ourselves in UN vetoes. We diliberately close all avenues of accountability.

When you shield yourself from accountability with force, whether it be on the schoolyard or in global politics, you are committing an immoral act, and breeding further contempt, and further anger.
So round and round it goes until the angry find a way to get revenge, and thrust accountability on you.


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 20 February 2003 09:36 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yay! I can close this now. 100 posts, huzzah!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca