It is convenient to attribute the current anemic state of the anti-war movement to the ephemeral attention span of the iPod generation, but the shift is more likely due to hopelessness. The problem may lie in the suspicion that there are no easy solutions and the only way out may be forward, with more blood to be shed before peace… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (46)Page 1 of 1 pagesThe war in Iraq has the potential to free millinos who had been brutalized by a very evil man for decades. I have yet to see what better alternative we had. The one that comes most quickly to mind - do nothing - led to hundreds of thousands of deaths due to sanctions and Saddams brutality. Another would have been lifting sanctions and would have allowed Saddam to revive his (well documented) aggresive ambitions and continue to kill his own people in droves.
Still, the hell with the Iraqis. I too would have preferred them to suffer and die - rather than expend any US blood to help them. Still i do have to acknowledge the benefit the war has brought about - even if far from perfect.
Posted by howSilly on Jun 29, 2005 at 2:29 PM http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/063005D.shtml
This is good. See article at above link.
An Iraqi Peace Process
By Robert Dreyfuss
Tom PaineWednesday 29 June 2005
Posted by pick of the litter on Jun 30, 2005 at 1:12 PM “Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.” - Abraham Lincoln
Posted by Lefty on Jun 30, 2005 at 3:25 PM howsilly said: “The war in Iraq has the potential to free millinos who had been brutalized by a very evil man for decades. I have yet to see what better alternative we had.”
The original US plan was to set up a caucus - handpicked by the occupation admin - which would then elect Iraq’s leaders. The admin only allowed one-man-one-vote after Grand Ayatolah Sistani brought thousands of protesters into the streets and threatened civil disobedience. The American military-industrial establishment is now in Iraq because of the oil. Everything that happens in the middle east happens because of oil. Buying into the we-are-here-to-spread democracy myth helps people to forget that unpleasant fact - who was it who said human beings cannot take too much reality?
Posted by A to Z on Jul 1, 2005 at 4:05 AM Everything I read about the Iraq conflict has failed to change my initial prognosis - mainly that it has become an anti-colonial war of independence. You can talk “terrorism” and “foreign insurgents” till the cows come home but the basic energy driving it is old-fashion patriotism or nationalism. Just as in Vietnam where all the talk was about the threat of communism but the basic energy driving it was patriotism. Every conflict with this configuration has resulted over the long run in the victory of the nationalists - starting with the American war of independence against the British.
Posted by A to Z on Jul 1, 2005 at 4:32 AM “Everything that happens in the middle east happens because of oil.”
No argument from me. I only feel pity that Sudan does not have comparable developed resources so that the US would turn its attention there and begin another “war of aggression” to stop the genocide taking place. The *genocide* that is happening right now, as the world averts their collective eyes. Even worse than Saddams Iraq - which was plenty horrible.
While i have some sympathy for Iraqis fighting for their “national freedom” i have no sympathy for the foreign terrorists that threaten it much more than the US occupation. They are the real enemies of Iraq, the US is just the clumsy do gooder.
What kind of person blows up themself and other citizens of their country (often including children)? All but the most crazed bible thumpers here - who see abortion as *murder*, recoil against those techniques.
Posted by howSilly on Jul 1, 2005 at 8:09 AM AIPAC, the traitors who run the Israeli
Lobby, were the main players responsible
for getting us into this war and they
control both parties. If it weren’t for
our Israel First foreign policy run by
the Zionist Neocons and their pseudo-liberal
Dem counterparts, we wouldn’t be at war
with half the world.
Kerry would have been no better on this
subject and everyone knows it.
Until we deal honestly with the Israeli
control of our media and government we
wasting our time even discussing the issue.
Posted by Martin on Jul 1, 2005 at 1:37 PM Bush Sr. and Jr. have killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam ever did. Twp wars waged by war powers granted because of lies, twelve years of an embargo that victimized only Iraq’sordinary citizens, and the devastation of depleted uranium, napalm, daisy cutters, 500 pound bombs and other weapons of mass destruction have done far more horror to the Iraqis than did Saddam Hussein.
Remember that the US financed and armed Hussein. We gave him the gases that killed the Kurds and the arms that killed Iranians. We didn’t even have him on our terrorist list prior to the Axis of Evil speech. We had him contained. He was too weak to kill anyone. We had subdued Saddam too well. We couldn’t get him to defy us...so Bush had to lie to go to war. His legacy as the world’s leading terrorist is clear.
No matter when we leave, civil war will break out. This is the nature of the situation which Bush and his neocon murderers set up by their inability to understand the consequence of the invasion. We are in the Vietnam of this era, like it or not.
There will have to be a draft to replace the troops that are ending their tours. We don’t have them. This is such a horror.
Bush the Terrorist:
Posted by Reg on Jul 2, 2005 at 9:39 PM HS said:
“The war in Iraq has the potential to free millinos who had been brutalized by a very evil man for decades. I have yet to see what better alternative we had. The one that comes most quickly to mind - do nothing - led to hundreds of thousands of deaths due to sanctions and Saddams brutality. Another would have been lifting sanctions and would have allowed Saddam to revive his (well documented) aggresive ambitions and continue to kill his own people in droves.
Still, the hell with the Iraqis. I too would have preferred them to suffer and die - rather than expend any US blood to help them. Still i do have to acknowledge the benefit the war has brought about - even if far from perfect.”
Lots of false premises there HS. First, I can think of a lot of things we could have done. First we could have spent the money and resources wasted in Iraq on public education and public medicine here in America. Since Iraq has never attacked us, had no ability to attack us, had no WMD, had no ties to al Quida, I think we could, and should have just ignored Iraq. They were none of our business. There are a lot of countries brutalized by evil men, not the least of which is Cuba, which has nuclear weapons and is 90 miles from U.S. territory and whose citizens regularly attempt to traverse the Gulf of Mexico, risk death by drowning in makeshift rafts, in order to get away.
Ah, but no oil, or oil fields in Cuba, or Iran or North Korea.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 3, 2005 at 6:23 PM Reg,
Did you see the reference to PNAC on that “Bush is Terrorist” site? If you really want to be utterly outraged check up on PNAC - Project for the New American Century - a fascist organization of extreme, right-wing Neo-Cons founded by top Neo-Con, fascist, chickenhawk - William Kristol. From a quick look at their site it is easy to see that their plan is to take over the world.
Lovely, no? I hope they all find themselves at the end of a long rope tied to a tall tree.
What I find most ironic about these Neo-cons is that there are quite a few Jews among them. Most of the Jews I know are liberal democrats, and for good reason. The conservatives are mostly racists who hate Jews. So, what could compel a Jew to be a Neo-con? Greed? I don’t have the answer, but, given the history of the Jews, I will say that there can be no bigger fool in the world than a conservative Jew.
When the rest of the Neo-cons have had their fill of the Jews among them, Paul Wolfowitz and his ilk will find themselves decorating a lovely conservative livingroom - as a pair of matching lampshades.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 3, 2005 at 6:36 PM Hi Lefty - you picked option 1 - do nothing. It is the option being used now in Sudan. I agree it is definitely the better one for the US (and with tv and other entertainments, we are really good at averting our eyes. . .)
STILL - in the end - “helping” is useless if we only make things worse.
Posted by howSilly on Jul 4, 2005 at 9:14 AM No, I didn’t pick option one. I said the resources wasted in Iraq for the sole purpose of the personal enrichment of Bush, should be spent on public education and medicine in America.
Second, Iraq and Sudan are not in pari delicto. What’s appropriate for Iraq is not appropriate for Sudan. What is currently happening in Sudan (WHICH IS NOT HAPPENING IN IRAQ), is that 100’s of thousands of people are being murdered. Maybe someone should tell Bush there’s half a billion barrels of oil reserve in Sudan. Since Bush is the spiritual leader of “The Culture of Lies” 100’s of thousands dead doesn’t get his attention, but 1/2 billion barrels of oil should, no?
Posted by Lefty on Jul 4, 2005 at 12:04 PM Iraq HAD to be invaded. We’re talking about a country in which:
-US elections were the norm
-Citizens were disenfranchised due to race
-there was a history of aggression
-there was a history of being uncooperative with the UN
-Money was given to terrorists (the families of suicide bombers in this case)
AND they invaded a country just to make money from oilAny government that does that kind of shit needs to be overthrown immediately… LOL
Posted by NYC Insurgent on Jul 4, 2005 at 9:48 PM typo in that last post it was supposed to say “BS elections were the norm”
Posted by NYC Insurgent on Jul 4, 2005 at 9:49 PM Hard to believe that there are still ignoramuses
peddling that lampshade nonsense !
No reputable holocaust historian, revisionist
or orthodox, believes that and the bar of soap
crap. Even Vad Vashem, Wiesenthal Center, et al,
have repudiated those bogus atrocity stories.
Given the history of the left, only fools would
identify with it, Jewish or otherwise.
The real libertarian Right, Rand, Rothbard,
Von Mises, Friedman, are heavily Jewish at
least in the ranks of the top thinkers.
The neocons are another story, they are all
ex-libs or ex-Trots of one brand or another.
Mostly Jewish but plenty of gentile neocons
too.
“lefty” himself is a far-Right Kahanist Racist
of the sort that even Sharon is finished with.
Posted by Martin on Jul 5, 2005 at 8:49 AM NYC Insurgent,
You’re list of reasons for invading Iraq seems quite applicable to the Unites States.
First, until 1965, African-Americans were harassed and intimidated at the polls by whites and it was LEGAL. If you look at the 2000 elections, there was a systematic pattern of voter intimidation among the black communities in Florida. That list of felon’s Katherine Harris’ office requested contained a lot of false positives, the majority of whom were black, but the state did nothing about it.
Second, the U.S. has been pursuing a policy of expansion and aggression ever since the Monroe Doctrine of 1820 was created. Just look at all the territories that fell into U.S. hands at the ends of the Mexican War in the 1840s and the unjustifiable Spanish-American War of 1898: Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, etc. Since WWII the U.S. has enforced the will of its narrow cabal of business interests all over the world: look at Chile in 1971, or Nicaragua in the 1980s. Heck, just look at all the U.S. sanctioned acts of terrorism against Cuba from 1959- present.
Third, the U.S. has repeatedly obstructed and vetoed U.N. resolutions condemning behavior it either was participating in or thought it might need to partake in at some point in the future. Israel, one America’s closest allies, is in violation of 69 U.N. resolutions to date.
Fourth, the U.S. has engaged in all sorts of violent repression around the world, which easily qualifies as terrorism under any definition. The U.S. supported the Indonesian government’s eradication of 1/3 of East Timor’s population from 1975-1999. The U.S. funded the Contras in Nicaragua to terrorize the local populations in order to eradicate the Sandinista government solely because it was left-wing. Currently, the U.S. has refused to extradite terrorist Luis Posada Carriles to Venezuela to face charges of orchestrating the death of 73 innocent civilians aboard an airplane. Why? Because the act was made against Cuba. NYC, terrorism goes both ways, like it or not. A little introspection could go a long way for you.
Posted by Bud on Jul 5, 2005 at 10:04 AM Bud, you make some valid points but in typical
Chomskyite fashion, you overstate your case.
Only in the southern states was there legal
intimidation against black voters till 1965.
More blacks live in the north and have since
WW2.
California was only part of Mexico for 22 years
so they have no great land claims there.
The Texas war was more complicated than you
make it out to be.
Allende was destroying both the Chilean
economy and society. I do not approve of
Pinochet’s subsequent violations of human
rights but that situation is more complicated
than Auntie Noam has presented it.
Cuba and the Phillipines were given their
independence by the US, not by Spain.
Cuba is a totalitarian dictatorship of the
worst kind regardless of any US aggression.
The Sandinistas were trying to set up a Soviet
dictatorship there, which doesn’t justify
most of the Contra atrocities.
That Timor atrocity figure was concocted by Auntie
Noam, who deliberately downplayed the two million
Communist murders in Cambodia.
Auntie lacks credibility.
You need to read some history books not written
by Howard Zinn.
Imperialism was a collectivist-statist-progressive
and anti-laissez-faire movement.
Agree with you about Israel but we should get out
of the UN too.
Posted by Martin on Jul 5, 2005 at 10:42 AM Dear Bud,
I know my list applies to the United States that was the point ;)
And dear Martin,
Shut the fuck up ;)
Posted by NYC Insurgent on Jul 5, 2005 at 10:58 AM Dear NYC and Martin,
Sorry, NYC, I wasn’t sure if you were serious or not, but I thought I should play it safe by acting as if you were.
Martin, the U.S. was trying to bait the Sandinistas into dealing with the Soviets by telling Nicaragua’s neighbors to not supply them with arms so that by default the Sandinistas would have to go the Soviets, thereby setting up a pretext for U.S. military aggression. We will never know when Spain would have de-colonialized Cuba and the Philippines because the U.S. took those lands from Spain! As for Cuban independence, just look at how the U.S. responded when a very popular revolutionary movement took hold there in 1959 led by Fidel Castro. Can you say coup to reinstall a pro-mafia, pro U.S. business interest government? With respect to your interpretation of Castro’s regime, he did horrible things such as establishing free healthcare and education for all Cubans. As a result of his actions Cuba, unfortunately, has a life expectancy almost identical to that of the United States.
Regardless of what Allende was doing, he was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED!! I thought the U.S. was pro-democracy, but obviously I have been proven wrong by America’s actions.
With respect to voting rights intimidation in the U.S., the fact that it happened in the South does not dilute the fact that it happened on U.S. soil, even while we were going to war in Southeast Asia to supposedly free the populace.
That Timor body count figure can be independently verified by such disreputable sources like the United Nations and the TIMORESE THEMSELVES! Just ask Amy Goodman about what went on there. Please note the sarcasm in this post.
Posted by Bud on Jul 5, 2005 at 11:25 AM Hitler was democratically elected.
So what ?
Spain seemed in no hurry to decolonize
those lands. I do oppose that war, actually
think the last justifiable US war was in 1812.
The Brits burned down the Capitol so a response
was legitimate.
There was an article 20 years ago in ITT by a
Soviet friend of Weinstein’s which went into how
the Sandinistas wanted to become part of the
Soviet bloc, they were not innocents.
That said, I didn’t support the terrorist
Contras.
Castro totally destroyed the Cuban economy and
within two years was even rationing sugar !
Sugar in Cuba ! There is no free anything and
those services quickly melted down.
Cuba had a life expectancy that was the highest
in Latin America before Castro and they also had
a substantial middle class which Castro destroyed.
It’s true that Batista was as corrupt as some
US Mayors, that hardly justified installing a
Communist dictatorship.
Amy Goodman is about as unreliable source on
ANYTHING as one can get.
What Timorese ? They all think the same way ?
And the UN has credibility ?! Please.
Bud, Edward Said defined sarcasm as the lowest
form of humor, I agree.
NYC Insurgent, thanks for the support, I’ll
continue to earn it.
Posted by Martin on Jul 5, 2005 at 11:55 AM Martin,
A Hitler-Pinochet analogy is far more accurate than an Allende-Hitler one. Allende and Hitler were on opposite ends of the political spectrum. If you want a very accurate Spanish-speaking equivalent to Hitler, just look at Francisco Franco.
I find it funny that you say the whole U.N. has no credibility, presumably because of the so-called Oil for Food Scandal. Remember, the U.S. and U.K. had veto authority over any contract they did not approve of under that program, yet neither country raised any objections. Wasn’t it the IAEA and Mohammed El Baradei who were correct about Iraqi WMD?
I also find it funny you criticize Castro over his sugar policy. Last time I checked, U.S. backed Cuban nationalist terrorists burned tons of acres of sugar under Operation Mongoose, based out of Miami, Florida. In one instance, U.S. supported terrorists attacked a sugar packing palnt in Cuba, killing 400 innocent workers.
Of course, you have no evidence to prove that Amy Goodman is not a credible source for U.S. backed Timorese massacres at the hands of the Indonesian military. I am not saying the Timorese all think alike, rather, they probably can recall the atrocities committed against them better than anyone else.
Posted by Bud on Jul 6, 2005 at 2:33 PM Actually they were both socialists as
was Franco.
No, the UN never had any credibility, could
recommend works but maybe you should read
what I already have.
Castro was rationing sugar years before the
US measures and the US measures never effected
any significant part of Cuban agriculture.
It was Castro’s socialist policies that ruined
it.
Where’s the documentation for the 400 workers
being killed claim ? Castro has killed at least
17,000 himself. I could recommend books here too.
I’ve listened to Amy Goodman for years on a local
Pacifica and she has no credibility.
I came to that conclusion myself.
Again, where’s the documentation for the claim
of 1/3rd Timorese being killed ?
I’m not defending Suharto but where’s the beef ?
Posted by Martin on Jul 6, 2005 at 4:57 PM Martin,
Hitler and Franco were not true socialists. Socialism is about proletariat political liberation in addition to the workers owning the means of production. Zapatero in Spain (cerca 2004) is more closer to a true socialist than Franco or Hitler. Along the same lines, the U.S.S.R. was never a true communist state. Marx knew that a nation could only transform into a communist state after it had industrialized and created a substantial working class. Russia was an agricultural economy mostly comprised of peasants at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution.
That statement regarding the terrorist atrocity in Cuba was noted in Raymond Garthoff’s book, “Reflections”.
Earlier you mentioned that Castro devastated the Cuban health sector. Not true. According to a 1986 report by UNICEF, the country enjoyed one of the most dramatic gains in children’s health under Castro.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the credibility of Amy Goodman. I watch her everyday and have seen her speak in person so I have a good grasp of her credibility as well.
If the Timorese massacres did not exist in such large numbers, why then did the Clinton administration between September 8-11, 1999 suddenly reverse 25 years of support for the Indonesian government with respect to its Timor policy? To see how moral the U.S. is, just look at a National Intelligence Estimate from 1965 that warned of the dangers if a populist government took hold in Indonesia. A few weeks later, the movement was dead and Suharto eventually came to power, with U.S. support.
Posted by Bud on Jul 6, 2005 at 5:37 PM Earth to Bus, socialism is all about state
control of the economy. It has failed in
almost 200 countries exactly to the extent
that it has been tried.
Over half the Cuban doctors came here after
Castro’s Communist dictatorship was installed.
The UN has no credibility whatsoever in any of
its agencies. Go down to Miami and talk to the
over one million people who have risked life and limb fleeing Castro’s Communist dictatorship,
which is EXACTLY the type of regime leftists
like you want to establish here and all I can
say is, come and try it ! Pinochet will seem
like a tea party compared to what will happen
on the day of reckoning with socialist sheist
asses like you. Only Haiti has a lower standard
of living in the Hemisphere than Cuba except
maybe Nicaragua which has totally destroyed by
the Sandinista goons headed by the child molester
and Castroite Daniel Ortega.
Sukarno established a violent, barbaric
Communist dictatorship in Indonesia and
also annexed West Timor, with no complaints
from Auntie Noam either.
I listened to Amy for years and it would fill
more space than we have here to list all her
lies. Whether she and her lover, Nairn, are
reliable witnesses on East Timor I can’t say.
But I’ve seen enough of her lying on all sorts
of other issues to be leery.
If Clinton was so concerned about East Timor,
why did he offer to send 200 (!) troops there ?
Doesn’t sound like much concern to me !
Oh, Auntie Noam was opposed to even that at the
time as I can testify from my exchanges with him !
I suggested that we ought to massively intervene
if there was actual genocide but it seems Auntie
didn’t believe his own agit-prop here.
USSR was a true socialist-communist state, no
one believes that withering away of the state
crap line that apologists like you concoct.
Auntie Noam pushes the same line, which is where
you got it along with everything you spout.
Did you try to verify Garthoff’s claim ?
No, it just sounded like your preconceived
prejudices and you let it go at that.
You are a piece of work. You need to read
some other things, I’ve read all of Chomsky’s
books and even reviewed them in two left pubs
sometime back. But you never read the other
side.
Posted by Martin on Jul 7, 2005 at 7:18 AM Earth to Martin (sound familiar?) but Nicaragua was decimated by the Contras and right wing death squads the U.S. supported. The Reagan administration was fearful that Nicaragua would set an example for other Latin American nations whose citizens were suffering under the right-wing dictatorships of the time. When Nicaragua went to the World Court to seek condemnation of U.S. sponsored terror, it received it. But the U.S. ignored the ruling because they are above the law, right? Only political adversaries of America can be condemned for breaking the law in Martin’s world.
Once again, the U.S.S.R. was never allowed to fully develop into a communist state because real and immediate threats of American aggression forced Lenin to clamp down on basic freedoms ( does the White Sea invasion ring a bell?).
Finally, Noam Chomsky is a prolific writer and one of the most gifted intellectuals of our time. I would stack up his academic credentials against any conservative like David Horowitz or Irving Kristol anytime, anywhere.
Posted by Bud on Jul 7, 2005 at 7:52 AM Nicaragua was devastated by the Sandinistas
own disastrous policies as Ramirez, Wheeler
and other top Sandinista officials admitted
after the voters threw them out in 1990.
They tried a Soviet-Cuban style workers
dictatorship including nationalizing the
peasant farms and it backfired on them &
caused many recruits to join the Contras.
The World Court is an arbitrary body with
a few leftist Judges that has no authority
over the US. Read the dissenting opinion
by the Japanese Judge in that decision.
Did Auntie Noam forget to mention it ?
He indicts the Sandinistas big time.
I was in Nicargaua in 1979 before they
came to power and nothing existed then
like the poverty they created once they
got in including ethnic cleansing of the
Miskito Indians. A point never brought
by the Chomskyite Professional Communist
Holocaust Deniers, no, Buddy, I’m afraid
the 200-300 hundred million victims of
world communist has forever discredited
all forms of socialism (they are the same
thing in reality anyway).
Chomsky is a prolific writer but he’s also
a prolific liar and he’s not a historian
nor is he an intellectual. Even his lingusitic
achievments are now under serious doubt, see
Paul Postal’s essay in The Anti-Chomsky
Reader, Postal is one of many former admirers
of his.
Compared to Rand or Rothbard or Von Mises,
Noam is a big zero. His main footnote is
himself or some leftist rag, his sources
do not check out as you will see when you
look up the works I referred you to.
His last 25 books all read the same because
in reality they are the same book, as the
editors of The Guardian noted when I tried
to do a second Chomsky review for them in
1992 before they folded (1948-1992).
The USSR was never under serious threat from
a few thousand US/UK soldiers in 1919. My
great Uncle was there and it was nothing in
the larger picture and I suppose THAT is the
excuse for the Communists killing 100 million
people in the USSR alone ? See The Black Book
of Communism and the many works of Solzhenitsyn.
Lenin had planned to clamp down from the beginning, he was following the totalitarian
Communist Manifesto of Marx in concentrating
all power in the hands of the state, which is
the only way collectivism ever works.
And Trotsky was as bad as Stalin since he
authored the Red Terror and Kronstadt.
Chomsky’s notion of a good example is horsepuckey
as anyone who looked at Ho Chi Minh or any other
Red thug can tell you. They were all TOTAL
FAILURES. No one wanted to emulate them,
again you regurgitate Auntie Noam’s BS.
Have you ever had a thought of your own ????
Posted by Martin on Jul 7, 2005 at 8:25 AM Michael Hardesty, aka Martin, Mikey, Peter, Jack Barnes, etc., is a conservative TROLL who is paid to post under numerous names (including others’ screen names), and has conversations with himself in order to disrupt liberal discourse. IGNORE HIM.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 7, 2005 at 10:07 AM Bud, it’s common knowledge that conservatives, especally Bush, have never met a fascist dictator they didn’t like.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 7, 2005 at 10:11 AM hey, who cares ? when are you going to answer his
arguments instead of recycling Mossad propaganda ?
there is no liberal discourse going on here anyway, only commie line apologetics by bud and racist,fascist apologetics by the nazi ariel sharoners like you.......
Posted by Liz on Jul 7, 2005 at 11:00 AM NYC Said:
“Iraq HAD to be invaded. We’re talking about a country in which:
-US elections were the norm
-Citizens were disenfranchised due to race
-there was a history of aggression
-there was a history of being uncooperative with the UN
-Money was given to terrorists (the families of suicide bombers in this case)
AND they invaded a country just to make money from oilAny government that does that kind of shit needs to be overthrown immediately… LOL”
First of all NYC, that’s B u l l s h i t. Second, then why didn’t Bush invade China, the much bigger threat? Because he’s a world class, draft dodging, chickenhawk, coward? Third, if the imbecile/crook Bush hadn’t squandered US resources on his personal war in Iraq (which aim is soley for the personal enrichment of the Bush family), and instead directed the same resources to capturing OBL and crushing al Quida, London wouldn’t have happened today.
And Fourth, Michael Hardesty, aka Martin, Mikey, Peter, Jack Barnes, etc., is a paid conservative TROLL who posts under numerous names (including others’ screen names), and has conversations with himself in order to disrupt liberal discourse. JUST IGNORE HIM.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 7, 2005 at 3:20 PM Only the Israeli Lobby and their paid traitors
like lefty have benefitted from this war as they
were the only ones to benefit from Bush, Sr’s
first unjustified war. Entirely a Zionist operation through tight control of the media
and Congress.
There is no evidence that the Bush has personally
benefitted from this war nor has it been good
for the oil industry. The price increases are all
done by a government entity, OPEC.
Again, you have produced absolutely no PROOF
that any of the people you name have ever used
any other names. Zilch, zip, nada, nothing.
Exactly as you have produced no proof on
the issue here at hand, the Palestine Conflict.
You are a typical whiney liberal who suffers
from a total inability or unwillingness to
argue either reasonably or civilly.
Every time you post I’m going to be right
on like a fly on doodoo.
Clinton dodged the draft too. So what ?
The idiots are the ones who didn’t.
Posted by Martin on Jul 8, 2005 at 9:05 AM I confess, I’m the only one here who has posted under many other names.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 8, 2005 at 9:06 AM Here is the story, divide and conquer, each side getting half truths from their heroes.
Amy goodman was attacked in the massacre in E. Timor, but I’m afraid it scared her into the centalized socialist camp, like Noam Chompsky, they will never follow the money to the central bankers.
The right knows about the criminality of the Federal Reserve,(google “The Money Masters” but beware Alex Jones), but any time a country tries to recover their domestic resources from the colonizers, we’re told “they’re commies” and send the CIA after them. Of course, during the cold war, small countries had to choose the US or Russia. To oppose one meant joining the other, either way, the bankers win.
Central Banking is pure theft, causing all social spending to enslave us.
Mass, unnatural immigrations, have been used to disrupt countries.(See the Irish before the civil war) This is the base for conservative (not right-wing)anti-immigration policies.
They are not told how WTO/IMF/World Bank Policies of economic enslavement in South America, FORCE mass immigration, breaking apart their families, while stealing our jobsand lowering our wages. Divide and conquer!
These new immigrants are trying to save their families from the same people we are.
Well, conservatives, how do you like getting screwed by the Republicans, like the Liberals were screwed by the Democrats.
Posted by Two-wings on Jul 9, 2005 at 2:18 PM Michael Hardesty, aka Martin, Mikey, Peter, Jack Barnes, etc., are all the same person, a paid conservative TROLL who posts under numerous names (including others’ screen names), and has conversations with himself in order to disrupt liberal discourse. JUST IGNORE HIM.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 10, 2005 at 4:15 PM Michael Hardesty, aka Steverino, Martin, Mikey, Peter, Jack Barnes, etc., are all the same person, a paid conservative TROLL who posts under numerous names (including others’ screen names), and has conversations with himself in order to disrupt liberal discourse. JUST IGNORE HIM.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 11, 2005 at 10:50 PM “...given the history of the Jews, I will say that there can be no bigger fool in the world than a conservative Jew.”
That’s right, Lefty. Jews have no reason at all to be wary of big government. Any Jew who favors restrictions on state power is clearly ignorant of his people’s history.
Posted by Alphonse on Jul 13, 2005 at 3:20 PM Alphonse,
I do not believe that “big government” as liberals see it, is a threat to Jews at all. Why would Jews be afraid of a government that provides universal health-insurance, fully funds public education, protects the environment, provides free child-care, and regulates unscrupulous private entities? The one aspect of government on which both liberals and libertarians agree is that government should not regulate private behavior, especially sexual/reproductive behavior. Liberals fully support the protection of minorities and have sponsored hate-crimes legislation that would create harsher punishment for acts that qualify as such an offense. Conservatives are the ones who oppose hate-crime bills and free speech.
Posted by Bud on Jul 13, 2005 at 5:46 PM First of all, Bud, conservatives are all for free speech. It’s liberals who pass laws (in various European countries) making it a crime to badmouth someone’s religion or “incite racial hatred.”
Secondly, your liberal vision for the U.S. is all well and great, but that’s beside the point. The fact of the matter is that the Nazi Holocaust proves that the central government should be as hamstrung as possible. And that notion is anything but liberal.
Posted by Alphonse on Jul 14, 2005 at 8:02 AM Bud, or who ever you are, just a small point. Hitler calling himself a socialist is the same as Bush calling himself an environmentalist. Both are basically lies, designed to fool good natured people into following them. Hitler was no more a socialist or Bush an enviromentalist than Genghis Kahn.
Posted by Matilda Gatsby on Jul 18, 2005 at 3:40 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Chris Barsanti
- These Guns for Hire
Blackwater unites conservative Catholics, evangelicals and neoconservatives to fight a theoconservative holy war - Bohemia Revisited
- Original Sin
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 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?
462 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
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
