In India, the word public is now a Hindi word. It means people. In Hindi, we have sarkar and public, the government and the people. Inherent in this use is the underlying assumption that the government is quite separate from “the people.” However, as you make your way up India’s complex social ladder, the distinction between sarkar and public gets… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (77)Page 1 of 1 pagesDoes anyone here know anyone “terrified” of terrorism? I have yet to meet a tgerrified American! Sure there are some that (foolishly) are afraid to fly, but i doubt the numbers are much larger now that pre-911. . .
Posted by hmmm on Dec 7, 2004 at 10:14 AM “The Iraqi resistance is fighting on the frontlines of the battle against Empire.”
Yeah indiscriminate killing is good. And that nasty ole US trying to build up infrastrcuture is so very naughty! Shame on the US!!
Posted by howNutty on Dec 7, 2004 at 10:20 AM Yeah, look at all that “infrastructure” we built up in Fallujah. Indiscriminate killing sucks, unless you do it in the name of “freedom”. You can’t even write two sentences without contradicting yourself. How nutty is that?
Posted by Mattdog on Dec 7, 2004 at 11:42 AM “Indiscriminate killing sucks”
Yeah, i am against the crazy insurgents too! They will kill anyone, anytime. But perhaps we should just let them be - they are probably misuderstood. . . :)
Posted by goodPoint on Dec 7, 2004 at 12:13 PM Only a person from a country other than the U.S. could write such truth. Violence is no answer, but understanding motives for violence is a step to finding answers. Can the evil “Empire” even be resisted? Perhaps rot from within will eventually dislodge the immense power being hoarded by the few.
There are some beginnings of dissent within the military, but who will lay down their arms to face prison time? Who will follow their conscience when it conflicts with the demands of an amoral authority? Who will dole out justice?
Posted by pick of the litter on Dec 7, 2004 at 12:32 PM Good point indeed. Perhaps we should have just let them be and not invaded their country under false pretense, thereby not creating “crazy insurgents”. I’m sure it is the rest of the world who is wrong on this one, not us. Great critical thinking there.
Posted by Mattdog on Dec 7, 2004 at 1:12 PM I agree. These people the man calls “terrorists” are just victims of society. Instead of killing them or holding them in Guantanamo Bay we should be trying to understand them. They might have valid reasons for blowing up civilians and beheading people on film. To try to impose our values system on them is unconscionable.
Posted by Ted on Dec 7, 2004 at 1:19 PM This article is exactly right. It’s so silly of Americans to think that just because some “terrorists” flew airplanes into a building that there is some kind of threat.
Posted by Ralph on Dec 7, 2004 at 1:26 PM Yer right there Ralph. The terrorists were Arabs and so are Iraquis. There’s the nexus. Let’s go bomb Saudi Arabia next. They too are Arabs. No, that won’t work, cuz that’s where the terrorist were actually from. Besides Saudis are W’s friends.
Ralph, are you really Ted? Or are both of you just equally ignorant? Maybe you are both “terrorists” who are happy that the Bushites are focusing on someone besides yourself.
Posted by Mattdog on Dec 7, 2004 at 1:53 PM there have only been several replies and the sarcasm is ten feet thick already. it’s a way of skirting around saying what you mean. let’s communicate, brothers and sisters.
Posted by joish on Dec 7, 2004 at 2:22 PM We have plenty of money for entitlements because we have a double economic system and the one has wiped out the debt in the other with plenty to write and print checks against to the tune of hundred of trillions of dollars. Go to my personal webpage and click on Its the Economy Stupid at <www.voicenet.com/~chseitz>
Posted by Charles H. Seitz on Dec 7, 2004 at 3:30 PM There are plenty of good arguments against the invasion of Iraq but calling it imperialism is not one of them. The left is always throwing that word around and, like the Bush/Hitler analogy, it really shows an ignorance of history.
I know it’s hip to blame the U.S. for everything, but there are plenty of bigger problems. Why is it that the same people who claim to outraged over the “illegal” invasion of Iraq and the plight of Al-Qaeda POWs in Guantanamo Bay don’t seem to mind the U.N. sitting on its hands while genocide is taking place in the Sudan?
Posted by Ted on Dec 7, 2004 at 3:55 PM And one more thing: this article’s attempt to equate the United States and Al-Quaeda is hogwash. Does ITT really expect people to take this seriously?
Posted by Ted on Dec 7, 2004 at 4:23 PM There’s another uncited risk within the resistance movements as described by the author. That’s the co-opting of those movements by oppressive groups who have their own agenda, as distinct from any effort to enhance justice or combat imperialism. Saddam’s ideological heirs in Iraq and al-Qaeda across much of the world are clear examples. It’s a far stretch to suggest that they have noble intentions; all you have to do is see how they behave when they achieve power (I will lump the Taliban and al-Qaeda together for the moment since they have much the same agenda for societies they hope to rule). US policies are feeding those movements by inspiring fury and David-against-Goliath “heroism” such as suicide bombing, but to equate all anti-US or anti-"imperial" movements as being inherently worthy of admiration is naive. I believe that the Baathists and jihadists themselves would be even more aggressively imperialistic if they had the chance.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 7, 2004 at 7:41 PM American soldiers are “volunteers in a poverty draft?” Pathetic losers who join the service as a last result? Fuck you. I did a four-year hitch in the Army because I wanted to, not because I had nothing better to do with my life. The soldiers, sailors, and airmen who are fighting and dying overseas are heroes, not pitiful “victims” who didn’t know what they were getting into when they VOLUNTEERED.
“The Iraqi resistance is fighting on the frontlines of the battle against Empire. And therefore that battle is our battle.” How moral of you to side with Zarqawi and the rest of the animals who behead people and film it rather than align yourself with an “empire.” If you’re going to side with our enemy then you better do it in your third-world shithole of a country India, instead of here in America.
Posted by Marshall on Dec 7, 2004 at 7:49 PM Enjoy your blinders.
When they all come home and they have reduced VA benefits, and they have psych problems which the armed forces say aren’t covered, or have sicknesses that can’t be traced to the battle field, and when all the blood is spilled and you look up to find that Iraq is no different than it was before we wasted the lives, except the US now has IT’S selected dictator in place...you’ll suddenly remember that you had seen this movie before...and that the people you so blindly and obediently treat as infallible and follow without question led you down the golden path...dont’ be looking for us poor, misguided, liberal, anti-Americans to rise up in your defense.
You wanted this mess. Knock your freakin’ socks off!
Posted by Liberal but Proud on Dec 7, 2004 at 10:01 PM The Iraqi ‘insurgents’,the Afgan ‘insurgents’.When Russia was at war with Afganistan, we called them freedom fighters.During the Iran/Iraq war,we supported Sadaam Hussein and gave him money and weapons,because we didn’t like Iran at the time.After that war,which we helped along,Sadaam asked us if we would interfere if he were to invade Kuwait,supposedly because Iraq had some historical claim to parts of Kuwait,he was told by an ambassador named April Gilespie,that the US “didn’t take positions on Arab/Arab disputes”,in other words,telling him that we wouldn’t interfere.This was reported by UPI on Nov.9,1990.Thats called a ‘bait and switch’.Osama Bin Laden has stated that his grievance with the US.is that we’ve put an armed force in Saudi Arabia,which is considered Holy Land by all Muslims.Not that he hates us because of our’freedom’.Which is probably why he’s considered a hero by a large percentage of Arabs.We’ve done nothing but meddle,interfere,and mess with these peoples lives for at least the last 50 years.Why? Because they own the vast majority of OIL reserves in the world.NO OTHER REASON!If you poke someone in the eye,and keep doing it, they’ll get pissed,and poke back.So lets stop poking these people in the eye,and maybe they will not poke back.
Posted by mike on Dec 8, 2004 at 12:21 AM God damn the stinking pile of shit USA.
Every soldier, every lazy teacher, every crooked politician, and every junk food sucking, TV-addicted ignorant shitheaded citizen.
Worst country ever!
Posted by worldman on Dec 8, 2004 at 3:14 AM Worldman huh well what world are you living in? The USA until bush took it over was since it’s
birth the greatest nation on planet earth. So you
can rag on bush all day but, don’t disrespect the
U.S. even if 59 million got the wool pulled over
thier eyes.As for Marshall you must stroke your gun every night to make you feel more like a man. Liberals
aren’t the ones who won’t stop outsourcing jobs to
india your man bush is. So don’t rag on real Americans buddy.
Posted by Buford B. Buford on Dec 8, 2004 at 8:59 AM Not until the entire American indoctrination and propaganda system-which includes the proper and honest recording of American history regarding U.S. ‘intervention’- is dismanteled, will the American public at long last, understand why people from countries most of them have never even heard of wish them harm, or even dead.
Only by understanding the facts, can we hope to avoid similar or far worse attrocities in the future.
Stu
Posted by stu on Dec 8, 2004 at 11:43 AM Hey Marshall,
go take your jingoistic, barely concealed racist bullshit “patriotism” elsewhere.
go blow your CO or something, maybe you’ll lose some of that hostility.
Posted by The Great Went on Dec 8, 2004 at 12:59 PM The article by Mr. Roy is very insightful; I don’t care care if he is from Bombay or Podunk. We are seeing more and more suppresion of truth here in our country by sarkar than ever before. I applaud the whistle blowers and soldier truth-tellers who tell it like it is.
Posted by Peatie on Dec 8, 2004 at 1:46 PM As for “worldman” defecating on America, I just have this suspicion that he lives in the US and enjoys its benefits. I’m not typically the kind who says “love it or leave it”, God knows I’m indignant about plenty these days, but really, if you’re so irreversibly disgusted either do something active to improve the place, or consider stepping off. To accept protection and sustenance while spitting at your benefactor is deep hypocrisy. If you’re a citizen, pitch in. If you’re an immigrant, why did you come here? To get your kids a blue passport?
Posted by Kuya on Dec 8, 2004 at 4:44 PM Greatwent: Fuck you. Fuck your mother. Fuck your dog. You don’t know what patriotism is, so don’t call me a racist or a jingoist when I take offense to someone siding with Zarqawi and his animals. If you gave one shit about this country then the kind of filth that’s in this article would make you hostile, too. I bet you and Roy have been inconsolable ever the since those evil imperialist soldiers broke up the resistance’s party in Fallujah. Pretty soon they’ll be all out of places to build bombs, fabricate passports, and behead civilians on camera.
Posted by Marshall on Dec 8, 2004 at 5:25 PM Marshall,
If we are to truly face facts about terrorists and terrorism, the U.S government has been the worst terrorist over the past 50 years of human history. This is not an opinion, it is a documented fact that you can find quite easily. In fact, it is many many documented pages of fact that outlines quite clearly the U.S governments interference in world politics and democratic process in other countries. Much of this is the kind of action which receives little attention such as economic sanctions, so-called “free trade”, locking countries into “treaties” (which makes it almost impossible for a country to back out of), and so on. These very actions alone are responsible for many many hundreds of thousands of deaths and suffering, and these actions don’t even include the so called classical acts of war and terror such as bombs and military intervention. On top of these “non violent” acts, the U.S government has also been responsible for the propping up of sadistic and brutal regimes through financial assistance, training and/or covering up the use of death squads, ignoring the abuse of human rights, or even removing democratically elected leaders and instilling their own puppet. Let us not forget that Saddam is one of these.I don’t think that anyone should disrespect the military servicemen and women, and your choice to have been one of these is admirable. However, why would a U.S soldier be regarded as any better than an Iraqi soldier? They are both only doing their jobs. An Iraqi soldier is still just another person trying to earn a living for his family and himself. And why is an insurgent or member of the resistance necessarily some kind of evil terrorist? Sure, the beheading of civilians is abhorrent, however I would hazard a guess that these actions are being carried out by a minority. Has it occurred to you that the majority of the insurgents and resistence are mostly just average people? If I woke up one morning to find that my country (a sovereign country) had been illegally invaded by another, my friends and family were being killed, maimed, abused, I think I would be stirred to defend it. Being a member of the resistence does not automatically mean that these people are Saddam supporters, or anti U.S for that matter. Many of the insurgents did not support Saddam, and in fact were fighting against him in power before the war. But just because they didn’t like Saddam, it doesn’t mean they want to embrace the U.S occupation either.
Being a member or even ex-member of the U.S military in this day and age (probably one of the most defining times in history), gives yourself and other serviceman great power. It gives you and them the power to say NO. It gives you huge sway in how the government acts because you can choose not to fight. Not an easy path to take, but a hugely influential one. If every soldier that didn’t agree with the war said no, imagine how the government would have to listen. Defending the U.S is one thing, but attacking a sovereign nation is completely different, and only continues to foster the anti american sentiment we all feel and suffer for.
Posted by Stu on Dec 9, 2004 at 12:15 AM Zarqawi and his jihadist zealots will shrink from no crime; their actions, words, and publications make it clear that they will self-justify any amount of spilled blood, no matter the victims. As for the insurgents, how many of them had their houses bombed or watched their kids starve during the days of the sanctions? If someone invaded my country after having armed the bastard dictator who wrecked the nation in a mad war (1980-88), and then applied crippling economic sanctions (1991-2003) when they knew damn well that the tyrant and his cronies would always eat well while my children starved, once they were in town I’d load my rifle and pay back in spades! US soldiers are paying for the stupidities of the past (and present) in blood. I have friends among them, and it sickens me that they must bear this price. The whole war is ill-conceived, based on lies, and wasteful of American military (and Iraqi civilian) lives.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 9, 2004 at 2:57 AM Listen we dont know why the terrorist hit us. But the US doesnt have any more right to hit them. They killed our people so lets kill theres. If we want to stop the violence in our country then we should start some in another, we will use our intimidation that will work. Please to stop a fire you dont use a flame thrower. To stop violence why not use understanding and peace. But if you are a small voice in the dark(not the super power of the world)than violence is the only way until people gain more understanding of the small organization and forced recognizing of the media.
Posted by Ian on Dec 9, 2004 at 10:24 AM Why do I always hear people blaming the U.S. for economic sanctions against Iraq. Why does nobody seem to be bothered by (or even want to investigate) the likelihood that France, Russia, China, and god knows who else were lining their pockets with money that was supposed to feed starving people? Also, Stu says the invasion of Iraq was illegal. According to what? Because we didn’t have permission from the U.N. Security Council? Seeing that the invasion was blackballed by countries that were probably on the take, what gives that body any legitimacy?
Posted by Ted on Dec 9, 2004 at 10:46 AM My point was in answer to comments about why insurgents are shooting at and bombing US troops. They’ve either suffered from (if you prefer) rich-country-imposed sanctions and/or bombings (of which the US is the richest, most powerful, and most directive of the lot), or, they were Saddam’s constituents and are retaliating for his ouster. Or, they are people who will not tolerate a foreign military force on their soil, regardless of why. I’ll stand by my point that the sanctions hurt civilians rather than military or political leaders, inspiring hate and vengeance. Saddam’s mass murders or danger to America (to the extent that he really was dangerous, which, it turns out, wasn’t much) don’t change any of this.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 9, 2004 at 7:09 PM Ted, the iraq invasion was illegal because THEY DIDN’T ATTACK US!!!!!!!THEY WERE’NT A THREAT TO US!!!!!!What part of that is so hard to understand? Hey Marshall,what’s up dude?Can’t come up with a coherent response so all you can say is f#% you?Pretty much sums up your whole arguement!
Posted by mike on Dec 9, 2004 at 7:14 PM And as far as Fallujah is concerned,is’nt it funny how after we leveled that city, ‘insurgents’ attacks increased in Baghdad?H’mmm.Curious,would’nt you say?Of course you wouldn’nt, cause Bush or Limbaugh didn’t tell you that.
Posted by mike on Dec 9, 2004 at 7:25 PM Mike, that doesn’t answer my question. I didn’t ask why you think the war is wrong, I asked what LAW makes the war illegal. What part of that is so hard to understand?
But don’t feel bad, Mike. I’ve heard plenty of people call it an illegal war and have never met anyone who can tell me why. Like you, they usually respond by reeling off their objections to the war without citing any kind of legal authority. So Michael, either quit harping on this “illegal war” or do some research and make the case.
Posted by Ted on Dec 9, 2004 at 9:30 PM I cannot stand by and read this stuff without replying any longer.
Kuya, you are simply delusional. It does not matter what anyone says - you are right in your own mind; so stay there, enjoy yourself and stop talking. It’s nonsensical.
Stu, you have no idea what it is to be a soldier. You sign up, you kill or you die. You do not take the money and then decide that it’s against your religion. I have more respect for a Quaker who will not fight (respect if not understanding) than for someone who signs up and then refuses.
I don’t know what the right answer is - if you’re all so smart, what do we do about Iran? They will have a nuke shortly (2-4 years). Think about it.
Posit: it does not matter what you do as America - some people will hate you. You are the “empire”. Test of theory: the US abruptly stops supporting Israel and declares the Palesinians their new best friends. Will that not enrage a whole new group that may start blowing things up? Even some weirded-out ex-soldiers (like Timothy McVeigh) will blow you up. People hate you. So what?
America, do what you must. I may not like it - but I generally prefer it to the alternative, and most of my Canadian friends feel the same.
That ought to
Posted by A Canadian on Dec 9, 2004 at 10:09 PM Actually, I think it’s delusional to lose sight of cause-effect relationships. Arming dictators, ignoring harm to civilians, bombing neighborhoods even by accident, all of these cause hate, revenge, readiness to do violence. And I’ll still maintain that no matter how horrible Saddam was, no matter how thoroughly hated he may have been by however many Iraqis, coalition/US actions are not going to appear somehow beneficial to those who have suffered as the result. Even if they’re glad Saddam is out of the picture. Why would they?
Posted by Kuya on Dec 10, 2004 at 12:02 AM Firstly Kuya, right on!!
Ted if your so addament on getting people to prove it IS an illegal war, do you have any arguements to suggest that it is legal??
Mike was right when he was saying they didn’t attack US, they didn’t pose any direct threat, so why go after them (other than for oil). I don’t know if there is actually a ‘law’ that says it’s illegal, but there at least should be.
If anything is it just plain immoral, if it were the right thing to do, if he was such a big threat, America and my other Brittish chums (the English (Tony Blair)) would not be the only ones going along with it (and the other 6 or 7 countries or so).
So go on Ted, explain to me what is legal and moral about invading Iraq??
Posted by Scottish reader on Dec 10, 2004 at 3:19 AM All of this anger and hope is making me heady. Therefore I will insert my own opinion in the hopes that I can help direct our energies to a more constructive center, where soldiers and social workers alike can find a mutually beneficial view from which we can productively put forth our efforts.
We are all doomed. Let’s have some fun togther while the sun still shines.
Posted by rocco on Dec 10, 2004 at 3:46 AM I forgot the ‘e’ in together. My apologies. But we’re still doomed.
Posted by rocco on Dec 10, 2004 at 3:48 AM Thanks for proving my point, Scottish reader. That point is that most people who scream about the war being illegal have no idea what they’re taling about. Obviously you are no exception.
Posted by Ted on Dec 10, 2004 at 9:36 AM Is the idea that the war is illegal UNLESS it can be shown to be legal? Funny how the illegal thing came out just in time to ATTEMPT to influence the election. . . (and from that paragon of virtue, “defender of Rawanda”, Kofi the idiot).
Posted by huh? on Dec 10, 2004 at 9:53 AM My bad,I should have said unjustified instead of illegal.To hide behind terms like legal and illegal is to completely sidestep the issue.True, there is no law that can be applied here to bring the perpetrators of this ‘crime’ to justice,but that doesn’t make it right.Back in the day, it wasn’t ‘illegal’ to beat your wife,but did that make it right,and would you support a wife beater because it wasn’t ‘illegal’? It seems that you would.But thats just my opionion,I could be wrong.
Posted by mike on Dec 10, 2004 at 12:07 PM mike finally got it right: “thats just my opionion,I could be wrong”. Yes indeed he certainly nailed that one!
(While it may not be illegal to post on this website ideas that are really dumb, it is not illegal, just unjustified. That applies to > 80% of the posts here. . . :) )
Posted by huh on Dec 10, 2004 at 1:02 PM The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).
Posted by zeke on Dec 10, 2004 at 11:29 PM The number real issue here is misconseptions. Not every American agree’s with the war or loves Bush but that dosen’t mean let terrorism fester. I don’t really think George Bush did the right thing but I think it is ridiculous to label a country as “imperialistic” when the majority of it’s population dont want to see war anymore then anyone else. I think what people miss is that Bush highly underestimated what it takes it liberate a country, especially when it is being ran by politicans and investors looking for oil so they have our kids pussy footing around the country, dieing more and more each day to line their own pockets. America is not particularily ran by the people anymore rather the big corporate fat cats a lobbyists in Washinton. I would deffinetly call Saudi Arabia’s crooked dealings a much larger issue to deal with the Iraq was. Not every insurgent is fighting our troops because they hate though I beleive also. Maybe just maybe we did not make our message clear as to why we were there and what we call a liberation the Iraqi’s people call an invasion. So many things could have been done differently but I as a citizen refuse to take responsibility for the actions of war mongers across the globe. Everybody from somwhere else bad mouthing Americans has nt the slightest idea of what an American is. We don’t all want this war or any war for that matter but we got stuck with it.
Posted by Brian on Dec 11, 2004 at 7:47 AM I think there is only one one solution: revolution.
for the state is so stable, It can only be overthrown by force.
Posted by sole on Dec 11, 2004 at 11:38 AM dude.
all yous have to say to fucking asshole pro-war people is:
“what would YOU do if another country invaded your land, got rid of your president (no matter how hated he was - and we ALL know how hated Bush is!), then totally destroyed your country’s infrastructure, and occupied it for a really long time while bringing in their own corporations to fix everything up? ... and BEFORE they did all that, they spent 12 years imposing an embargo, resulting in half a million kids’ deaths, and before THAT, they spent several weeks bombing the shit out of your country!”
i bet most people would say that they’d defend their land with everything they’ve got, and never EVER trust ANYONE from the outside.
beat the Bushies at their own game.
Posted by boyo on Dec 11, 2004 at 9:56 PM Yes, thanks Zeke! :-)
Sole, to take up arms against the government would only strengthen their police function. They’d just appropriate more funding for weapons, activate the National Guard units across the country, etc etc. Force would be a losing strategy, accomplish the anti-result you want.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 11, 2004 at 11:01 PM To ‘posted by a Candian’
not sure what you read into my post on history, but you’re right...i don’t know what it’s like to be a soldier, nor will i ever. the point i was trying to make about the proper recording of history actually relates somewhat to your tirade. perhaps if we knew and understood the attrocities commited by our governments (especially the american government) in the past, we wouldn’t be so eager to sign up and participate in future attrocities.
Posted by stu on Dec 12, 2004 at 11:46 AM I think that “posted by a Canadien” was referring to my post, which was posted by another Stu (maybe I should call myself Stu #2).
There are two of us so confusion reigns. Sorry about that.
Posted by Stu on Dec 12, 2004 at 5:19 PM Brian,
How come the majority of Americans kept Bush in if the majority don’t want war? You kinda didn’t make any sense?
Posted by Scottish Reader on Dec 12, 2004 at 7:45 PM This is one of the best, most succinct discussions on this topic in a year’s reading of excellent articles.
I’m thinking that Empire always collapses under its own weight--eventually. But after how much damage? And what is the price of collapse? Less than it might be if we continue in non-violence, and link hands now.
Posted by Crone on Dec 12, 2004 at 7:45 PM Zeke, that’s a novel interpretation of the UN Charter but assuming for the sake of the argument that a country needs permission from the Security Council, does it make any difference to you that France, Russia, and possibly China were bought and paid for Saddam Hussein? If they’re on the take from one of the countries in the conflict do they still determine when an invasion is “legal?”
Posted by Ted on Dec 12, 2004 at 8:42 PM wow!! i really like the way this is going. This forum certainly has all the right ingredients for the making of a great blockbuster movie. And what a fasinating cast of characters.
My Fity Cents:
Marshalls comments certainly deserves an emmy nomination or better still a cameo role in the next season of sopranos?? or maybe jerry-springer is a sure bet!
Ted- not to short sell your contribution. I like your detached wise-shaolin-monk like attitude. A little sneaky i must admit but the intrigue factor of your character is indeed Ummm! ...intriguing!?. Your character deserves the critics choice award. Ebert and Roeper certainly have their fingers up...but i don’t know which.
Kuya- I like the revolutionary zeal and passion in your comments. I can almost picture casting you in a lead role of- “motorcycle diaries part deux- the return of che guevera”. By the get a personal trainer or easy- to-store ‘blow-flex’ and start pumping iron...we’ll need that gold tanned, chiseled, sixpack look for this one. And also practice saying ‘hasta la vista’ since the script involves blowing anything and everything in sight into a big ball of yellow flame..you know the drill! ;)
Stu 1 n 2 : You two can probably put the olsen twins out of business. How does “UberSize us” sound?!. Am sure burger-king would be more than willing to promote it. Besides chick flicks are hot these days. OOpsey!! my bad, i assumed your gender. Pardon me! if my assumptions incorrect but with the advances in plastic surgery, these days gender-guesssing can be a little tricky.
All the others-- you folks, your contribution was fabulous. Awesome!!..it was like so cool...i mean its was super!!.You know what i mean?...i was like, like saying to myself these folks are awesome!!. You folks are so HOT!!. Oh my god!! i can almost see you all on the glossy pages of the next Spring collection catalog of ‘Abercrombie n Fitch’. By the way ‘Blue’ is in..’Red’ is so five minutes ago.
I apologize for polluting the decorum of this sacred forum but i think its well within EPA standards. Anyway you folks are a great inspiration...keep the good thing going. And yes one more thing, if any of you were offended ‘blame it on canada’ or better still ‘ the freedom hating, escargot eating frenchies’ ...or on the third thought ‘hollywood liberal
Posted by Silent observer on Dec 13, 2004 at 3:49 AM Thanks for the laugh, Silent Observer. My abs were six-pack at one time… then I woke up!
:-) :-) :-)
Posted by Kuya on Dec 13, 2004 at 9:10 PM Does Robinsons historic guilt imply that Friday is forever free of guilt? Is Friday responsible for his acts? Robinson sure is.
Posted by The swdesh vicarage on Dec 14, 2004 at 4:26 AM >How come the majority of Americans kept Bush in if >the majority don’t want war? You kinda didn’t make >any sense?
Because it was more important to us to help gays keep their liaisons spicy and convince them not to dabble in the folly of marriage? :)
Perhaps they didn’t report this in Scotland, but the differences between “Skull” and “Bones” did not include their pro war stance.
Posted by laundry insurgent on Dec 15, 2004 at 1:01 PM (No longer) Silent observer:
I see your character being played by a college-aged, tussly-haired wiseacre (perhaps not unlike Ethan Hawke in Reality Bites or the film student in Scream 2), with a touch of that wincing, posturing, earnestly rebellious edge we’d come to love from 80’s hearthrobs River Phoenix and Corey Feldman. We’ll wardrobe you in hemp pants, obvious message buttons (Racism Sucks!), and an ironic t-shirt...perhaps a funny hat? and put you in the mall you hung out at in jr. high for some biting-commentary-driven “fish-out-of-water” hijinx.
Have some sympathy and some taste, kiddo. You also are doomed. Am I the only one who takes great solace from this? Besides, we’ve got some time to spend together. Rome wasn’t sacked in a day.
Posted by rocco on Dec 16, 2004 at 10:54 AM If you doubt anything in this article see the movie Uncovered: The Iraq War by Robert Greenwald, and Highjacking Catastrophe. Also read Greg Palast’s book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. The book describes in 30 pages the real deal regarding the econonomic terror the IMF, and World Bank are causing throughout the third world. This article is right on. Individuals acting collectively is the only hope we have.
Posted by jimmy joe on Dec 17, 2004 at 12:19 AM In the occult, there is a term called the Brotherhood of the Snake. To simplify, the Brotherhood of the Snake is the “Us Verus Them” mentality, and it has entered the very most subtle parts of every human mind on this planet that it takes years to undo its poisoning. It has all but changed the core of our souls. It is responsible for the Iraq war, and it is responsible for the arguments fueled on this thread. It is also responsible for the thousands of years of violence that people of three religions- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam- which are so close together that it is hard to believe they would ever want to kill each other, are both suffering and causing. Each claims that its god is the one, true god. Now put these three religions right next to each other, with people who have unquestioning faith in this, and what’s going to happen? Now take this a step further and look at where democrats and republicans are going. The Brotherhood of the Snake has also created a very effective defense mechanism for itself. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to see everyone on the planet as “us.” The more I type, the more dissent you have for me. I feel some cynical remarks heading my way already.
I find this article to be very intelligent and I have sent it to all of my friends. I have friends that are both Republican and Democrat. I myself am an anarchist. No, I don’t believe in violence and chaos like most people think anarchists believe. I believe in self-government, and the honoring of one’s own responsibilities, as well as letting others believe what they want to believe. I don’t need a government to help me do that. This world is already heading towards that feared chaos and violence that people think anarchy would cause. I feel it is time to stop deluding ourselves with the idea that there is order. The only reason I am able to even view this article is because of my parents and their generosity, which is in and of itself another reason to write. Other people are not so lucky. The chaos is here, it is there, and it is widespread. it will soon be felt in America and other first-world countries around the world. It is our own fault for not taking responsibility for our own actions.
Don’t bother replying to this post, I won’t be reading them anyway, as I do not want to be part of this argument. I just wanted to offer my views. I read plenty of others’ views all the time. I don’t want to come off as closed-minded, but I usually don’t go back to posts like these. I came to read the article, but it is rare that I post on articles I read. This one is good, in my opinion. I feel everyone should read it.
Posted by anarchist0 on Dec 17, 2004 at 1:45 AM Reading these posts always reminds me of why democracy is such a horrible idea. But, while I’m here, I might as well buy some anti-Bush merchandise.
Posted by plasticmakeshappy on Dec 17, 2004 at 7:21 AM Sarkar and public? Government and the people? A very interesting framework to use when discussing the relationship between American citizens and their government. As Roy points out, in the U.S. this symbiotic relationship appears to be devoid of all practicality. Instead, it is based on fear, which recalls Micheal Moore’s assessment of American violence in Bowling for Columbine. Massive fear and private greed is most certainly what contributed to the enslavement of black people, lynching and Jim Crow.
If the “people” and their governments are inextricably linked, what is it that contributes to the appalling divisions and disparities in American society? Privatization and fear. It is what contributes to the violent dichotomy of global militarism on the one hand, and privatized terrorism on the other. And despite the seemingly complicit relation between governments, militarism, and transnational coroporations, the wanton abuse of global greed has contributed greatly to the lawlessness that motivates government officials to pursue private profits, while the general masses live in fear of having nothing to profit from at all.
It is time to unite sarkar and public for the common good of us all.
Posted by global on Dec 19, 2004 at 7:04 PM This article is great, but there is a problem...... how do you think this would work???
Posted by Holman on Dec 20, 2004 at 8:50 AM i want to thank everyone for these articles, special thanks to mike, stu 1,2 and the anarchist for their honesty and use of mind. to expand this good discussion i guess it would be better if you listened to an arabic muslim point of view.
very breifly, we look at the america as a big gang buildin an economy on stealing other nations goods and economy. brain-washed people(large media n hollywood(controlled by world zionism)) with leaders that does not differ from each other(only by whos more loyal to israel), america being a little guard for israel made us arabs and every free nation on the face of the earth hate or fight america. we are defendin our islam, kids, families, economy and most of all our MINDS. we aint no terrorists this a pure lie. no reason for us to kill unless in case of defence. (for every action a reaction at the same level). in islam the respect for others weeks and strongs and refuse using violence, whether it was under a nazi thoughts or for few dollars more.
simply we cant live under the jungle law.
IMPORTANT: ISRAEL OCCUPIED PALESTINE IN THE YEAR 1948 AFTER IT WAS AN ARAB PROPERTY FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE.
ZIONISM : JEWISH INSTITUTION CONTROLS MONEY AND ALMOST THE EARTH BEHIND CURTAINS.
AMERICANS ingnorance is our enemy not the people. we realy have a worm chests if you tried honesty with us.
Posted by arabic on Dec 31, 2004 at 10:44 PM I THINK I can give you guys a LITTlE hope anyhow.
It won’t be too awfully long now until many of us Native, or First Peoples will be available, ready, and willing to SHARE WITH WHOEVER AMONG YOU (sorry....didn’t intend the caps) has enough respect for the narrative, patience to hear it (it can be long, occasionally), and the heart to carry WITH you the things you WILL receive (if receptive to such things) from the ceremonies that will be revealed in the coming years, the stories, and just the gigantic outpouring of love and respect WE HAVE FOR YOU.
But, we must ALWAYS feel INVITED, see? It may have happened sooner had we felt this from you.
Something to think about…Do the right things, always...but try not to worry yourselves over this mess too much, eh?
Posted by bird on Jan 6, 2005 at 2:11 AM Ted, et al.,
Oh, for Christsake—there’s a TON of resources out there explaining why the Iraq War was/is illegal, for anyone who cares to look. To cite just one example, go to www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/legalarticles.html and you can review any number of papers that explain why it violated international law.
Here’s a pertinent excerpt from one of them:Under Article 1(1) of the [U.N.] Charter, the world organization’s central purpose is “to bring about by
peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or
settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.”17
Similarly, Article 2(3) obligates member states to “settle their international disputes by peaceful
means,”18 while Article 2(4) provides that:
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.19
It is beyond dispute that these provisions, and the Charter as a whole, impose a general prohibition on the
use of force to resolve conflicts in international relations. The Security Council and General Assembly
have consistently reaffirmed this legal principle.20 The prohibition against force is binding on all
states not only through the Charter but as a peremptory norm in customary international law,21 so
fundamental that “no derogation is permitted.”22 It is, in short, the cornerstone of the collective
security system established by the U.N. to prevent any recurrence of the horrors of World War II.
Only two exceptions, specified in the Charter and supplemented by customary international law, permit
the lawful use of force. First is the right of individual or collective self-defense in response to an
armed attack, under Article 51. Second is the specific authorization of force by the Security Council
as a last resort to maintain international peace and security, under Chapter VII.
If the planned attack by the U.S. and U.K. against Iraq fails to meet the specific criteria set forth in
these exceptions, or under principles of customary international law, then it will be an unlawful act of
aggression—defined and condemned by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal as “the supreme
international crime.”23There you go, Ted. Now you’ve “met someone who can tell you why.”
Posted by Rich Whitney on Jan 6, 2005 at 8:24 AM if you get the chance, watch arundhati roy read her presentations on c-span. she’s extremely watchable.
Posted by zeke on Jan 9, 2005 at 5:43 AM i think that this things are really dom because i don"t get all this stuff"s of the Empire people i just dont like it and dont know about it that much i dont know why but the only thing that i can tell you is that i dont get enithing from all this things ok bye just remember ok bye nos bemos al rato
by melisa gonzales
Posted by melisa gonzales on Jan 12, 2005 at 10:31 PM Arundhati Roy’s counter-globalization article is nothing but colourful metaphors and passionate similes sewn together in a colourfully patterned quilt of libel designed to stroke the fires of the oppressed, unwashed masses. Much like my last sentence, there was no tangible substance to Roy’s argument, only a well decorated cry that America and global super-villain Bush are to blame for all of your life’s problems.
Roy’s words are carefully chosen and play off a reader’s gullibility. Every mention of the “Empire” is accompanied by an animated adjective that recklessly villainies’ First World actions: “illegal invasion… brutal occupation”. Roy then uses her command of language to assert a sense of community and heroism for examples of confronting this 1984 brand of government: a huge victory was forged by coming together… therefore that battle is our battle, and so on. Arundhati Roy’s hasty judgements are chopped full of flavourful half-truths and quarter-pounder lies. Would you like ignorance with that?
Posted by Christian on Mar 13, 2005 at 10:29 PM Good lord, it’s awful how much you extremists love to twist someone’s words to make it seem like somebody is saying either exactly what you believe or exactly the opposite. Probably about 1 in 15 of these postings have referred to what Mr. Roy was actually saying, and the rest have referred only to selective phrases that can be used to mean a variety of things. The facts are that those organizations who condemn a resistance against their own flaws (as no one can seriously claim to have no flaws, although the major sides of this battle do claim this) can not claim any moral superiority. The people dying in these conflicts are victims, and no matter how patriotic, fanatical, zealous or pitiful they are, they do not deserve to die over such basic human rights as food and shelter. What Mr. Roy is trying to illustrate is that it is the common people who carry the load of society, and in general, suffer with no benefit around the world, and this is possible because all of us in rich countries are so insulated that we can not possibly comprehend what billions of people around the world have to live through, and we do nothing to elevate the human condition worldwide. Think of the lengths you would go to in order to save your life, your family, and loved ones, if everything you knew and held dear was threatened with destruction. The only difference between the people in the west and the people in third world countries is that in the west the threat is a falsehood propagated by a decadent government, and in third world countries the threat is real and ever-present. The struggle to right society’s wrongs is a just one, but it is filled with its own flaws as well, and it is not the fault of the common people of the east or west, but it is our responsibility worldwide to start making changes, because the sarkar certainly will not.
Posted by Nico on Mar 14, 2005 at 11:30 AM I am very sorry, I meant to write “Miss” Roy.
Also, by extremists, I meant those of the right and left, as ignorance can affect all people of all classes, and by resistance I meant both non-violent and violent as a reaction to the degree of oppression.
Posted by Nico on Mar 14, 2005 at 11:37 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Arundhati Roy
- People vs. Empire
Only global resistance from below can counter repressive states - Seize the Time
Arundhati Roy charts a strategy against empire - The Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire
- New World Disorder
War is peace. Now we know.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
