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


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Waging war on a ***MAY***???

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Waging war on a ***MAY***???
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 06 March 2003 08:02 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My biggest problem with this looming war is its surrealist nature. I have to keep reminding myself that this is really happening. This is not a nightmare, but the world, in actual fact, went insane.

Every war in human history had some declared reason:

- we want what they got
- we hate the bastards
- we want revenge
- we defend ourselves
- he attacked our friend
- he is supporting our enemy
- he stole it from us
- he killed our king

and so on, and so on.

No matter how frantically I search my mind, trying to remember something I may have forgotten, the only officially stated reason for this war I can find is the following:

“Iraq MAY have weapons of mass destruction and MAY use it against us and MAY have ties with 9-11 and MAY have gassed their Kurds and MAY pause a threat to its neighbours and MAY destroy America".

Have I missed anything?

God Almighty and Jesus Christ on a crutch, any country on the face of Earth could be attacked based on these reasons. Several of them satisfy these criteria way beyond a MAY (the US for example).

The estimates I have heard were around half a million dead during this war. Half a million human beings – young, old, men, women, children and adults – for WHAT???

Massacre on this Grand Scale for a MAY???

Please, help me out here.

Have I lost my mind???

[ 06 March 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 March 2003 09:47 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No. But Bush and Blair, among others, have.

The answer to your thread title is in the question. The reasons you cite are not the reasons for the war. The war is to ensure American/British influence in the mideast, to get rid of Hussein because of a Bush family grudge, and to protect Israel. It has nothing to do with WMD. That is the excuse. It is not the reason.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 06 March 2003 10:01 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I know that josh, but what really disturbs me this time is the fact that they did not even try to be convincing. In the last Gulf war, there was a clear cut excuse: Iraq invaded Kuwait. As it turned out later, they were tricked into it by being given the green light (see interview with US ambassador after the war). So they went to some trouble to make it look legitimate. This time they didn’t bother.

There can be only two reasons:

a./ They think we are so stupid that we believe anything
b./ They don’t give a flying fuck about what we think.

Both of these are very scary reasons. If they are this confident, it means they got into the Hitler/Napoleon mindset: they must think they are unstoppable. And, if they think so, the world is in for a horrible upheaval that may culminate in WW3.

That is what’s so scary about it.

If the world splits into hostile and intransigent power-blocks (Axis vs. Allies) like EU vs. US/Britain, with Russia and China thrown in on either side, then we are screwed big time.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 March 2003 10:11 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think, sadly, both a and b are correct. These are people who see no limits on their exercise of power. "Prudence" is a word foreign to them. Plus they have no conscience. Any means justifies a given end.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 06 March 2003 10:50 AM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Suddenly I don't feel so bad about being unemployed...
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
kuba walda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3134

posted 06 March 2003 01:42 PM      Profile for kuba walda        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My guess is

quote:
b./ They don’t give a flying fuck about what we think.

From: the garden | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 March 2003 02:54 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's a topical piece, although the authour makes the rather outstanding, and ahistorical, assertion that this will be the US's first "unprovoked" war:

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2003-03-05.htm


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 06 March 2003 03:47 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
josh, thanks for the link. Now I am really scared. Compare these two quotes:

"We Americans have faith in ourselves—but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history." - George W. Bush in the State of the Union address. (in the document you linked to)

"We National Socialists, too, have deep in our hearts our own faith. We cannot do otherwise. No man can mould the history of peoples or of the world unless he has upon his will and his capacities the blessing of Providence."
-Adolf Hitler, to Nazi leaders on 2 June 1937, as reported by a correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph" Click

In the quotes at this link Hitler uses the word "Providence" 13 times. It was his favourite word. He was chosen by Providence. Scary, isn't it?

[ 06 March 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
kuba walda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3134

posted 06 March 2003 03:56 PM      Profile for kuba walda        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isn't it odd that Hitler would? I mean, he didn't believe in religion but evoked the protective will of God. Well, God is always on our side right?
From: the garden | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 07 March 2003 01:19 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gott Mit Uns.

Everybody and their dog, even Deacon Dave of MobGlob, says "God is on Our Side". Never mind that "our" is subjective. Right-wingers claim God tells them to ignore poor people because they are righteous in the ways of the Lord and poor people ain't. Left-wingers claim God tells them to have mercy on the poor and that the rich guys ain't righteous in the ways of the Lord.

Dubya Bush needs a better justification for war than this.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 07 March 2003 08:05 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What I find significant is the following: A few months ago there were only a few nut cases like myself, who found some similarities (never identities – for simpletons’ sake) between current US foreign/internal policies and those of Nazi Germany, prior to WW2.

In recent weeks there seems to be a proliferation of these comparisons on all the Forums I frequent. Even on Forums I only read (so it can not be contributed to my bad influence).

Here is a quote from Znet, by one of the regulars, who never once mentioned Hitler before: “I've thought that for quite some time, that George Bush reminds me so much of Hitler, it's really creepy.”

I am not saying that this proliferation proves anything, only that there must be some reason for it. People start feeling uneasy about the nakedly aggressive and belligerent attitude of the US administration and it brings back images from the past.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
marty raw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1137

posted 07 March 2003 09:57 PM      Profile for marty raw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Got Mit Uns.

Yeah, well, we got mittens, too.

Look, saying this war is ONLY about oil is as reductionist & innaccurrate as (my spelling) saying it's ONLY about WMD.

Hussein CANNOT be allowed to flout the will of the UN. If HE can, then ANYONE (including Bush) can, too. Then the world becomes a MUCH scarier place than it is now.

Is it just me or does anyone else find it hysterically funny that France, Russia, Germany & Belgium are all on the same side, AGAINST war???!!! That, to me, is a goddamn scream. Germany : sure, NOW you don't want war. France, Belgium : y'all weren't so "conchie" in 1914 OR in 1939-40. Russia : dust off that old cliche about the "peace-loving" peoples. What's wrong, is Iraq too organized? Spread too thin killing Chechens? And China : they're just trying to do what's right. THEY would never attack an innocent minority. THEY have respect for ALL humans, except those from Tibet or those parasites that practice Falun Gong.

Facile comparisons to Hitler : a wise man once said " once you compare someone to Hitler, you have just announced that you've run out of ideas and are arguing purely by emotion."


From: Toronto, baby | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 March 2003 10:06 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hussein CANNOT be allowed to flout the will of the UN.

News Flash: I AGREE WITH YOU! Sorry for shouting but invasion is not the only remedy - it's a last resort.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 07 March 2003 11:11 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
MR: Yeah, well, we got mittens, too.
And ear muffs, too. Heavy duty ones with sound protection.

From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 08 March 2003 05:22 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hussein CANNOT be allowed to flout the will of the UN. If HE can, then ANYONE (including Bush) can, too

Um, Bush has every intention of flouting the UN unless it does what he wants, remember? He's said this on many occasions. You're argument is basically that Bush has to flout the UN to prevent Hussein from flouting the UN, otherwise anyone will feel justified in flouting the UN.

Here's a thought. Let the UN decide for themselves when they've been flouted, and figure out a new excuse for your war.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 08 March 2003 05:51 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Speaking of flouting the UN, or rather not having to since you have a veto...

1. 24 Jul. 1973. S/10974

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution strongly deplored Israel's occupation of the Arab territories since 1967, and expressed serious concern with the Israeli authorities' lack of cooperation with the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General.

2. 23 Jan. 1976. S/11940

Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions.
The resolution called for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967, and deplored Israel's refusal to implement relevant UN resolutions. It furthermore reaffirmed the Palestinian people's right to self determination and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

3. 24 Mar. 1976. S/12022

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
In the draft, the Security Council expressed deep concern over Israeli measures to change the character of the occupied territories, in particular Jerusalem, the establishment of Israeli settlements, and human rights violations, and called for an end of such measures.

4. 29 Jun. 1976. S/12119

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution affirmed the Palestinian people's right to self determination, the right of return, and the right to national independence.

5. 30 Apr. 1980. S/13911

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution affirmed the Palestinian right to establish an independent state, the right of return or compensation for loss of property for refugees not wishing to return, and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967.

6. 1 Apr. 1982. S/14943

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
In the draft, the Security Council denounced Israeli interference with local governance in the West Bank, and its violations of the rights and liberties of the population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The resolution furthermore called on Israel to end all activities in breach of the Forth Geneva Convention.

7. 20 Apr. 1982. S/14985

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The draft strongly condemned the shooting of worshipers at Haram Al-Sharif on 11 April, 1982, and called on Israel to observe and apply the provisions of the Forth Geneva Convention, and other international laws.

8. 8 Jun. 1982 S/15185

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution draft condemned the Israeli non-compliance with resolutions 508 and 509, urged the parties to comply with the Hague Convention of 1907, and restated the Security Council's demands of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

9. 25 Jun. 1982 S/15255/Rev. 2

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli and Palestinian forces from areas in and around Beirut, and that the parties would comply with resolution 508. It furthermore requested that the Secretary General would station UN military observers to supervise the ceasefire and disengagement in and around Beirut, and that the Secretary General would make proposals for the installation of a UN force to take up positions beside the Lebanese interposition force.

10. 6 Aug. 1982 S/15347/Rev. 1

Vote: 11 in favor, 1 veto, 3 abstentions.
The resolution strongly condemned Israel for not implementing resolutions 516 and 517, called for their immediate implementation, and decided that all UN member-states would refrain from providing Israel with weapons or other military aid until Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory.

11. 1 Aug. 1983. S/15895

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution called upon Israel to discontinue the establishment of new settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, to dismantle existing settlements, and to adhere to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The resolution furthermore rejected Israeli deportations and transfers of Palestinian civilians, and condemned attacks against the Arab civilian population. The Security Council also called upon other states to refrain from giving Israel any assistance related to the settlements, and stated its intention to examine ways of securing the implementation of the resolution, in the event of Israeli non-compliance.

12. 12 Sep. 1985. S/17459

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution draft deplored the repressive measures applied by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, and called upon Israel to immediately cease the use of repressive measures, including the use of curfews, deportations, and detentions.

13. 29 Jan. 1986. S/17769

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution strongly deplored Israeli refusal to abide earlier Security Council resolutions, and called upon Israel to comply with these resolutions, as well as, the norms of international law governing military occupation such as the Forth Geneva Convention. The Security Council also expressed deep concern with violations of the sanctity of the Haram Al-Sharif, and with Israeli measures aimed at altering the character of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

14. 29 Jan. 1988. S/19466

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution called upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War to the territories occupied since 1967, and to conform to the Convention. The resolution moreover called upon Israel to refrain from practices violating the human rights of the Palestinian people.

15. 14 Apr. 1988. S/19780

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution expressed grave concerned with the Israeli use of collective punishment, including house demolitions. It condemned the policies and practices utilized by the Israeli authorities violating the human rights of the Palestinian People, especially the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army. Called on Israel to abide to the Forth Geneva Convention, and urged it to desist from deporting Palestinians.

16. 17 Feb. 1989. S/20463

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution strongly deplored Israeli persistence in violating the human rights of the Palestinian people, in particular the shooting of Palestinian civilians, including children. It also deplored Israel's disregard of Security Council decisions, and called upon Israel to act in accordance with the Forth Geneva Convention and relevant Security Council resolutions.

17. 9 Jun. 1989. S/20677

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution deplored the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, demanded that Israel would abstain from deporting Palestinian civilians for the occupied territories, and that it would ensure the safe return of those already deported. It also called upon Israel to comply with the Forth Geneva Convention, and requested that the Secretary General would give recommendations on measures guaranteeing compliance with the Convention, and the protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.

18. 6 Nov. 1989. S/20945/Rev. 1

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution deplored the Israeli violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, including the siege of towns, ransacking of homes, and confiscation of property. It called upon Israel to abide to the Forth Geneva Convention, to lift the siege, and to return confiscated property to its owners. The resolution requested that the Secretary General would conduct on-site monitoring of the situation in the occupied territories.

19. 30 May 1990. S/21326

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The draft resolution established a commission to examine the situation related to Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

20. 17 May 1995. S/1995/394

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution confirmed that the Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem was invalid, and called upon Israel to refrain from such actions. It also expressed its support for the Middle East peace process and urged the parties to adhere to the accord agreed upon.

21. 7 Mar. 1997. S/1997/199

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution expressed deep concern with the Israeli plans to build new settlements in East Jerusalem, and called upon Israel to desist from measures, including the building of settlements, that would pre-empt the final status negotiations. The resolution once again called on Israel to abide to the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

22. 21 Mar. 1997. S/1997/241

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution demanded an end to the Israeli construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, and to all other measures related to settlements in the occupied territories.

23. 26 Mar. 2001. S/2001/270

Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution called for a total and immediate stop of all acts of violence, provocation, and collective punishment, as well as a complete cessation of Israeli settlement activities, and an end of the closures of the occupied territories. The resolution furthermore called for the implementation of the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement, and expressed the Security Council's willingness to set up mechanisms to protect the Palestinian civilians, including the establishment of a UN observer force.

24. 14 Dec. 2001. S/2001/1199

Vote: 12 in favor, 1 veto (US) 2 abstentions.
In the resolution, the Security Council condemned all acts of terror, extrajudiciary executions, excessive use of force and destruction of properties, and demanded an end of all acts of violence, destruction and provocation. The resolution called on the parties to resume negotiations, and to implement the recommendations of the Mitchell Report. It also encouraged the establishment of a monitoring apparatus for the above mentioned implementation.

(list shamelessy copied from GNN forum, compiled from UN)


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 08 March 2003 08:18 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Flower, this is an awesome list. Could you tell me how to find it on the UN website? I looked but could not find it. I also would like to see other resolutions as well. Thanks.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 08 March 2003 08:39 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, first, it is only a partial list. (I also have a list of resolutions vetoed by the US, 1972 - 2002, but it is several pages in length)
Also, The UN website does not list vetoed resolutions, only the ones that were passed. Somebody spent a shitload of time comparing draft resolutions from the UN documents section to the lists of passed resolutions, and otherwise researching the voting on said resolutions -- something which I have neither the time nor patience to attempt to any great extent.

From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 08 March 2003 08:43 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks, Flowers. Could you PM the long list to me, please? I will also do a bit of research myself.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 08 March 2003 09:11 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK (Boo Flood Control)
From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 March 2003 10:57 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Great for the archives, FBI.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 08 March 2003 12:50 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's this, too:

quote:
In 1986 the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruled that the US was in violation of international law for "unlawful use of force" in Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. A UN resolution calling for compliance with the Court's decision was approved 94-2 (US and Israel voting no).

cliquez


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
marty raw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1137

posted 08 March 2003 07:42 PM      Profile for marty raw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow. An awesome list, indeed. And one that begs the question :

is the UN an effective organization? Has it ever been? Doesn't look that way.

it's failed to prevent wars, ethnic slaughters, oppression & terrorism from Korea to Rwanda & beyond. "Toothless" is a word that comes to mind. "useless" is another one.

So why the demand for UN approval for ANYTHING?
They make the League of Nations look effective.

Another question : why is American self-interest BAD, while the world looks the other way for, say, French intransigence?

Why bother with the UN at all?

Invasion IS the last resort. Any recent progress in inspections has been entirely due to the presence of 300 000 troops next door, not to a sudden Iraqi shift to a "sunshine policy."


From: Toronto, baby | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 08 March 2003 07:47 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think I might have said this before, but the UN is like chicken soup for a cold. It can't hurt. It's a place for talk, negotiation, and moral persuasion. Anything more is gravy.

And as for your last point, I don't necessarily disagree. But that is an argument for continuation of the containment policy.

[ 08 March 2003: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 08 March 2003 07:55 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK, what are the alternatives? Blocks of Nations, like Axis and Allies? One nation dictating to all the others? Total anarchy with every nation doing whatever they please?

Globalization in economics but total fragmentation (or worse -- domination) in politics and military? Do we, as nations, co-operate with each other or fight like mad dogs over scraps of the last kill?

I have had it with the UN-bashing.

Just because it has been sabotaged over and over again by self-interested heavy weights, it does not mean international co-operation is impossible.

Just remember the following:

quote:
UN Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in his 1978 memoirs explains that during Indonesia's 1975 invasion of east Timor (that the Security Council condemned and ordered Indonesia to withdraw, but to no avail):

"The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success"

Moynihan cites reports that within two months some 60,000 people had been killed (10% of the total population). Christopher Hitchens “The Trial of Henry Kissinger”.


(My emphasis)

[ 08 March 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Collins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3199

posted 08 March 2003 08:33 PM      Profile for John Collins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success"

Moynihan cites reports that within two months some 60,000 people had been killed (10% of the total population). Christopher Hitchens “The Trial of Henry Kissinger”.



This, of course is only a single example of this sort of realpolitikal behaviour, one form a list of thousands. Yet we still hear many Americans asking "Why do they hate us?", and we still hear those in power claim that it's 'freedom and democracy' that is hated.

Breathtaking.

What IS hated? A foreign policy that is devoid of conscience. Nothing else.

[ 08 March 2003: Message edited by: John Collins ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
John Collins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3199

posted 08 March 2003 08:37 PM      Profile for John Collins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Facile comparisons to Hitler : a wise man once said " once you compare someone to Hitler, you have just announced that you've run out of ideas and are arguing purely by emotion."

When the comparisons are facile, this is true. When it comes to Dubya, they aren't facile. Just demonstrable.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 08 March 2003 08:43 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Some people just point blank refuse to think the unthinkable, even though it was proven to be thinkable before.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
marty raw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1137

posted 08 March 2003 11:06 PM      Profile for marty raw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bush is not Hitler. BUSH IS NOT HITLER.

It's not a demonstrable comparison. You have not a leg to stand on.


From: Toronto, baby | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 08 March 2003 11:12 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Using full caps a second time is unlikely to convince me.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 08 March 2003 11:18 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ear muffs still on? As I said: “some similarities (never identities – for simpletons’ sake)”

Surely there must be something in common. Both rulers, both aggressive, both militaristic, both attacking other, much weaker countries without justification, both intolerant of dissent, both spying on their own citizens, both incoherent and superstitious (would not call it religion) and megalomaniac, both supported by ultraconservative elements and big business. Plus, Hitler did, and Bush is risking to, plunge the world into total war.

Have I said identical? No, I have not. I even warned simpletons not to confuse the two. I guess the warning was wasted on some simpletons.

[ 09 March 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 08 March 2003 11:45 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why bother with the UN at all?



The idea, I suspect is to prevent exactly what is happening today.
To put a bit of a positive slant here, it seems to me inspite of the shrub's declaration that things are becoming diluted. A good sign. People are starting to realize the repercussions of a war. Not good for no one.
At the same time a lot of other things are starting to dawn on people. Pollution, weather changes, allergies, cancers and the list goes on. We are not blind. I live near a village and people are talking a lot about world issues. It's a good sign.
It does keep me hoping, for the time being that common sense will take over.

From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 09 March 2003 12:34 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Clersal, we had a townhall meeting today with local residents who are concerned about the war. Most of them never bothered with politics or news before, but they are scared. Most said they feel something is different now, both good and bad. Things are stirring and it is a good sign. It may be too little too late, but there is something going on. We brainstormed a lot and most of the ideas were practical of the “what can we do” kind.
Just to give a few examples, we decided to do the following:

- campaign to install permanent anti-war lawn signs in the neighbourhood
- collect factual material in a pamphlet and distribute
- set up a mobile anti-war library in an old schoolbus and visit towns
- create an anti-war website with FAQ info and answering service
- long distance relay-marches on busy highways
- form a peace choir and perform in towns around us
- organize boycott groups against US products
- approach high schools and retirement homes with lectures and help with protest
- mobilize local churches
- create and distributes arm bands and dove pins

It was a very encouraging meeting. (My “burning bush” sign was a great success!!!)

[ 09 March 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 09 March 2003 12:42 AM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, we might be a lot smarter than we seem!

[ 09 March 2003: Message edited by: clersal ]


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 09 March 2003 02:10 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
marty raw:
quote:
Hussein CANNOT be allowed to flout the will of the UN. If HE can, then ANYONE (including Bush) can, too. Then the world becomes a MUCH scarier place than it is now.

marty raw again:
quote:
Why bother with the UN at all?

There you have it.
If a (more or less) legitemate argument won't fly, chuck it (and any semblence of legitemacy it was supposed to provide) - without batting an eyelash, or admitting that it wasn't relevant in the first place.
State (better yet, shout) that comparisons to Hitler are invalid, and then cite Hitler's actions to invalidate Germany's present stance.

See, Hitler isn't germany for all time.
And Bush isn't America for all time.
We hope.

[ 09 March 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 09 March 2003 08:11 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Back to the original topic of the thread. What are the likely consequences if the precedent of ‘pre-emptive’ war is established by the US? Will this give the signal to any dictator, anywhere in the world, that it is OK to attack a neighbour any time, for any reason, as long as the magic words are used: “they were a threat to us”?

I fear there will be far reaching consequences to this madness, some of which we can not yet see. The world may turn into a pack of snarling dogs, all trying to tear a chunk out of all the others. So much for human cooperation. Wolves definitely seem superior at this point.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 09 March 2003 05:02 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why stop at neighbours?
Anybody, anywhere may be a threat to someone's feeling of security. Anybody, anywhere may be harbouring terrorists.
All pre-emptive strikes are okay, if the US says they are. But be careful; the US may change its mind next month and use your aggressive act as an excuse to attack you next.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca