Page 1 of 1 pages
We should listen to Cindy. But not just her. We should also listen to the rest of her family. Both have important - but diametrically opposite - stories to tell.
Posted by wolf on Aug 22, 2005 at 7:29 AM
I can remember he prelude and opening act of this war.The right shouted down anyone who said"Let’s be certain before we invade and wind up with a war of insurgency we may never win"with cries of “TRAITOR!“and “WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING THE TERRORISTS?“with that form of reasoning,we dove into this war.
Now here we are,two years later,with a conflict that will go on as long as we let it and the contempt of the the rest of the world.The only people who support this war are those in the oil business and the right-wing morons who can’t come to terms with the fact that they were tricked by their own party.
Isn’t it funny though that the people who say the most vicious things about Cindy Sheehan are those who never served(I’ll be mean,like them, and suppose it was from a lack of patriotism)or don’t have anyone in their family serving in Iraq or even Afghanistan.
Even more funny is the fact that the baby boomers,who protested to avoid Vietnam,got us into another pointless war.Boy,people sure can run up huge costs when they don’t have to pay for it.
Posted by wwoods on Aug 22, 2005 at 9:45 AM
“We” did not invade Iraq. The U.S invaded Iraq. Why is the U.S.A “we”? Why identify with state power? Why can’t “we” be the workers of the world, who happen to have the same core interests, which don’t include invading anyone?
When leftists use the terms “we”, “us”, “our” etc, they often mean some country, race, or tribe. “We” are the producers of the world’s wealth, not the different ruling cliques and wannabe rulers be they Bushes, Blairs, Husseins, Castros, Putins, al-Sadrs, Bin Ladens (you get my drift, and whatever entity they represent.
Anyone who falls into the ideological trap of “we” as the U.S or Germany, or the Shiites, or the Tutsi, or the Basques has already lost.
Workers in Iraq and the United States have the SAME interests, they are both bieng exploited in an ever worsening way. If they unite, the war will end.
If WE (workers in both countries) stopped the oil production in Iraq, and shut down the ports in the U.S.A. If WE shut down the trains, trucks, weapons factories, airports, mines, refineries, banks, etc, (in both countries, as well as in Germany, Kuwait, Qatar etc.) the war couldn’t be waged.
Without the workers not a single bulb can light up, not a single phone can ring, not a single letter can be sent, not a single working class kid can be recruited into the the army, not a single war can be fought. WE, not the U.S.A can end it already.
Posted by al-Dakari on Aug 22, 2005 at 12:42 PM
“Here is the question to the parents of American service men and women that the Bush administration never thought to pose, much less answer: Is the war in Iraq worth the life of your son or daughter?”
And did they ask, ” Is the war on Tarawa worth the life of your son or daughter?” How about North Africa? Berlin? Gettesburg? Bunker Hill?
What is freedom worth? Is nothing worth risking one’s life?
Cindy Sheehan’s son answered, “Yes.” so we can continue to freely debate it.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 22, 2005 at 1:36 PM
Dude,
hate to point this out, but the only people fighting for freedom in Iraq are the Iraqis. Sorry WTH…
al-Dakari:
Spoken like a true Marxist :) In his own words “The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got”
and
“[We] have nothing to lose but [our] chains. [We] have a world to win!”
Posted by the great went on Aug 22, 2005 at 3:34 PM
al-Dakari: You speak of a separate class of working class human beings as, in effect, the means of production. I agree that ‘we’ as in human beings should stop separating ourselves. The United States has to stop creating an imaginary evil ‘other’ as it has with the Iraqis and as it did with the Vietnamese. However, separating ourselves as human beings into the working class, you essentially create an evil other, the bourgeoisie, and so you are doing exactly what the United States has been doing with Iraq. It will lead to more conflicts and more wars. Until ‘we’ means human beings and we start recognizing ourselves as fellow humans and start treating one another as such, there will never stop being wars. However, this Utopia is beyond us as human beings…So we will continue to kill each other.
Posted by lostlib on Aug 22, 2005 at 10:46 PM
lostlib:
Genetically, all humans are essentially the same. However in our world there are two classes whose selfish interests are diametrically opposed to each other. I’m not inventing an evil “other”; this is reality.
I don’t believe that humans in our present world can act in a utopian, selfless, KUMBAYA way. But I’m not as pessimistic as you are.
I believe that solidarity and class unity are in the workers’ self-interest. It is in their interest not to be used as cannon fodder in imperialist wars. It is not in their interest to exploit anyone.
The salvation of humanity will not be the result of humans evolving into a gracious, selfless species. They will act in their self-interest. However it is in the self-interest of workers to destroy capitalism and its ceaseless drive for wars of plunder. It is in the self-interest of workers to unite as a class against an enemy class who acts in its own self-interest.
Individualism, competition, greed are in the self-interest of the bourgeoisie. Basically the selfish thing for workers to do for themselves and their families is to reject all bourgeois ideology (not just greed and competition, but patriotism as well). So all my hopes lie in the hope that workers start being truly self-interested.
To create a world in which selflessness is the norm, you need a revolution by people who acted selflessly. Even if the selflessness of workers is done out of self-interest.
I hope I make sense. Marxism can be tedious like that.
Posted by al-Dakari on Aug 22, 2005 at 11:53 PM
That one weird sentence goes like this:
I’m not inventing an evil “other”; this is reality.
Gosh computers suck !!!!
Posted by al-Dakari on Aug 22, 2005 at 11:58 PM
“Genetically, all humans are essentially the same. However in our world there are two classes whose selfish interests are diametrically opposed to each other. I’m not inventing an evil “other”; this is reality.
I don
Posted by lostlib on Aug 23, 2005 at 12:22 AM
One more thing:
Posted by lostlib on Aug 23, 2005 at 12:26 AM
You guys are a little far afield. I’m quite interested in what WTH had to say. He seems to be saying Casey signed up, he knew what was at stake and he paid the price. The trouble with this line of reasoning is that we now live in an environment where our government can not be trusted to honestly lay out for us what is at stake.
The American people got behind a false message of national self defense. A good many of us were skeptical and were ignored. Those who answered the call (and enlisted) can surely be thanked for their patriotism. However, as the facade that they knew what was at stake falls apart, we can see now that they were essentially used for an entirely different and less noble purpose. Awareness of the reality of this war is rapidly being reflected in poll after poll.
The administration is relentless about telling us that we are winning the war on terror. Frankly, I don’t know what victory looks like in Iraq. More and more it seems that stopping further failure may be victory enough. Our CEO president doesn’t understand one of the basic principles of business. Throwing more money into a bad idea doesn’t make it a good idea. Likewise, continuing this war - which was clearly a mistake - is throwing good blood after bad. More death will not change a mistake into a success.
Pragmatists are beginning to come to a similar conclusion and toning down the ‘victory’ rhetoric. In order to end hostilities in Iraq via any sort of military solution, we would need to escalate the degree of brutality to a level we really wouldn’t entertain as a nation.
What is left of our reputation couldn’t sustain it either. It is time to end it.
Posted by GrayArea on Aug 23, 2005 at 10:21 AM
GreyArea - if you had the authority to do as you pleased, what would you do? Pull the troops out immediately? Or?
What do you think the consequences of your choice might be?
Posted by wolf on Aug 23, 2005 at 10:34 AM
This is interesting. I find conservatives do this to me all the time. They are in effect asking “Well how would *you* fix the mess my beloved administration has created?”
The consequenes of staying in Iraq are plain to all but the ‘dead-enders’ in the administration who are blind to their own failures. (ie: firing the entire Iraqi army and police force)
I would, in fact, immediately implement a policy of withdrawl. As it is, our presence there is inciting escalating violence and our soldiers are largely there to provide security for our own presence. Naturally, it would be impossible to remove us all at once, but it could be done soon, and effectively. We would, of course, still have control of the air above the country to support the government as needed. We have had that control for over a decade.
Bush claims that a timetable for withdrawl would give our enemies cause to simply wait out our departure. I see no evidence to support that claim. Meanwhile an abrupt change in policy would certainly send the right message to the newly elected government. “If you would like to remain in power, you are going to have to step up and do what it takes to hold onto it.”
As for the conventional wisdom that says departure would be disastrous, this fails to recognize that remaining in place is equally, if not more, disastrous. One can’t exactly claim that the administration knows what it is talking about when they predict the outcome of a course of action. Their predictions have proven to be utterly worthless up to this point. Wouldn’t it be nice if someone had said “invasion would be disastrous” - Oh yeah, they did.
We need to stop killing and dying as soon as possible.
Posted by GrayArea on Aug 23, 2005 at 11:45 AM
GreyArea - i have very little doubt that your plan would reduce US deaths in the short term. Perhaps that is all that one should aspire to?
As for whether the world would be better off if we followed your plan, i don’t know. I don’t even know if it would have been better to leave Iraq alone in the first place. So what if millions had died from sanctions and Saddam - they were not US citizens, and perhaps we should have just averted our eyes, as we do now for Sudan. . . (and of course, if Iraq were to fall into an even worse civil war or end up with an even worse dictator, it simply need not be the US’s problem)
Posted by wolf on Aug 23, 2005 at 12:52 PM
Oh, we definitely have a problem, wolf. We are under the illusion that the war on terrorism can be won by killing everyone who hates us faster than we can create new adversaries. Is Fallujah peaceful now? Is that what we have in store for the rest of Iraq?
Let’s assume that staying the course is the right move. How many terrorists/insurgents do you suppose we would need to kill in order to buy enough time for the government to train a security force? How many terrorists and insurgents will that new government need to kill after we are gone to maintain security?
Would that number rival Saddam’s death toll? Remember that he had decades to quell various uprisings and eliminate threats to his power. Reasonable estimates suggest he has the blood of 200,000 of his own people on his hands. Awkward that much of Saddams killing was done while we were actively engaged in selling him weapons.
Look at the overall number of Iraqi citizens who have died at our hands directly. How many Iraqi conscripts (young men drafted into Saddam’s army to defend their country) did we kill with our own bombs and planes during the first Gulf war?
We beat the crap out of that country twice. Is beating them up more going to make them love us? We need to get out now. The mistake has already been made. Continuing to make mistakes is not the solution.
Posted by GrayArea on Aug 23, 2005 at 1:15 PM
GreyArea, here are just a few comments. Fallujah has never been a representitive area of Iraq, so i doubt that it will become one now. One can wonder how to establish law and order in a lawless land. It is a difficult task, to say the least (and one formerlly eschewed by Bush in the 2000 elections).
It would be interesting to know if the terrorists/insurgents are suffering from “bad publicity” as they do their indiscriminate killing. . .
The analogy that always comes to my mind regarding this war is this: Police respond to neighbours calls about a battered women/children. They come and arrest the clearly violent man, but the woman and kids attack the police. Perhaps the police should simply not intervene - they are not wanted? Or perhaps they should, on general principles (beating women/children is wrong). Of course, if it leads to the man being convicted and the women/children evicted, one would have to wonder if any good was done, regardless of intentions.
I don’t have the answers, clearly. I do have a Palistinian friend who used to lament that millions were dying from sanctions (perhaps he exagerrated?). Oddly enough, he was against the war (his arguments made me ever so slightly in favor. . .)
Posted by wolf on Aug 23, 2005 at 1:53 PM
Tidy analogy, but it is incredibly arrogant to always imagine us as the police rescuing everyone, wolf.
I happen to love this country, but many of us refuse to accept that some major bad actors are out there on our behalf. We aren’t viewed by all as the police, you know. To many, we have invaded a family home. Having ransacked the place and failing to find what we were looking for, we have declared that all we ever wanted was to get rid of our former friend the wife-beater. We insist that we are doing this only because we love the family so much that we want them to live in peace.
Despite our pure intentions, installing a new husband seems to have killed a few of the children.
I am not concerned about any bad publicity of the terrorist/insurgents. In fact our own publicity, while horrible, is greatly subsidized by the corporate media machines. The fact that you believe the attacks to be indiscriminant is a function of Fox News and the rest. You also probably believe that at least 99% of the Iraqi
Posted by GrayArea on Aug 23, 2005 at 9:08 PM
I feel I was too dismissive of your analogy. I actually appreciate the care you took in showing unintended consequences. I only meant to reject that default image of the U.S. as the nice policeman. It is easy to get carried away with analogies. You should have seen the yarn I was beginning to spin about the neighbors coming over and throwing rocks - I had to cut myself off. Thanks for the thoughtful chat.
Posted by GrayArea on Aug 23, 2005 at 9:17 PM
wow,
an actual intelligent debate between two courteous people on this website!
kudos GrayArea and Wolf…keep up the good work!
Posted by the great went on Aug 24, 2005 at 12:48 AM
Peaceful intelligent dissent IS patriotic, in the sense that it’s true to the values that America has always said it upholds. It is the role of free citizens to become informed, to evaluate government policies, and to support or to speak out against those policies as their understandings best guide them.
It’s the insistence upon uncritical backing of government policy, most especially a policy of war, that violates American values. Cindy Sheehan has not only the right but the obligation to speak out and try to convince others that her position has merit.
1600 anti-war protests last week. Someone thinks her position has merit!
It’s also perfectly legitimate to ask the question whether it’s worth the risk to one’s own life or worth enduring a loved one risking theirs in support of a war. What goals are being pursued by fighting the war? What are the compelling reasons that it needs to be fought? These are for the government in question to answer forthrightly and with clarity. Then the citizens themselves can make their judgment. Since most citizens will offer the benefit of the doubt out of a sense of patriotic duty, it’s even more essential that they have a clear idea of exactly what the reasons are (and there may be very good reasons) that they are expected to take up arms or send their kids to do so.
And if the reasons given turn are changed after the fact, because the original justifications are not factual, well, that ought to be very instructive.
Posted by Kuya on Aug 24, 2005 at 1:53 AM
That word “turn” in the last sentence is a typo.
Posted by Kuya on Aug 24, 2005 at 1:54 AM
Somehow we got a long way from the original topic, but then again the connection is there.
This War is not a policing job, not a case of wife beating. Have you have forgotten some of the early videos and testimony from Iraqis. People pushed off of buildings, dunked in vats of acid, women summarily executed for adultery, Saddam
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 24, 2005 at 6:13 AM
WTH, you are patently wrong about the makeup of the insurgency. 90% of it is homegrown Iraqi nationalism. See “Mideast Forum”, The Nation, August 15-22 issue. Furthermore, it would not be in the interest of either Syria or Iran to allow foreign fighters to use their countires as staging grounds. The ruling Baath party in Syria is Shiite, so why would they let radical Sunnis use their border to enter into Iraq? The same goes with the Mullahs in Iran. Iran is one of the biggest winners of the invasion. Several of the major political parties in Iraq, including the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, are Iranian backed. Iran has cozied up to the most recent Iraqi leadership. That myth that the insurgency is mostly foreign is a ploy by GWB to cast this war as part of the “war on terror.” It also lets the president give a reason to refuse to negotiate with the insurgency and continue his policies unabated.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 24, 2005 at 12:05 PM
Liberal,
If you are dismissing my comments based on what David Corn has to say, then we are not really talking about the dangers of the War on Terror per se, we are only arguing pro or anti George Bush. The Nation and Corn are so blatantly against anything Bush has done or may do that there is nothing to discuss. This problem predates either President Bush and will continue post Bush.
My concerns have to do with the larger problem of the rabid kill-the-infidels types who have a long term program aimed at our distraction.
If we leave Iraq it seems reasonable that it would encourage the religious fanatics.
How many insurgents are from what nation is not relevant since they put Islam ahead of country. This is why the push for a theocracy. Our quibbling about details only serves their cause by the division and diversion it produces here.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 24, 2005 at 1:16 PM
The article to which I am referring was not written by David Corn, it was a forum on the MIddle East by several well-respected scholars of that region, among them David Cole and Shibley Telhami, who is actually quite moderate in his views on the situation in Iraq.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 24, 2005 at 3:22 PM
I have noticed that when I say something outrageous or inflammatory I can easily raise a large number of replies, but very few people are responding to any serious attempt to address the seriousness of the War on Terror and the possibility, even probability of another major attack on the U.S.
Is this because you think 9/11 was only a one-time protest against U.S. encroachment on Islam? Do you really believe if we leave Iraq that will pacify this fanatical group?
You can call me cynical (I
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 25, 2005 at 8:21 AM
This is not at all like vietnam. The us sent advisors to help the south stand up to the north. Then we sent troops to train the south.
Then the us sent more troops to train the south.
When the troops were trained then we could come home.
Is this sounding familiar to anybody?
Posted by brian28 on Aug 25, 2005 at 9:44 AM
Actually, WTH, you do not understand Osama Bin laden’s ambitions and aspirations at all. He wants to rid the holy kingdom of Saudi Arabia and all Muslim nations of western influence, and that means toppling the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt because they have repressed their own people with strong U.S. backing for decades. It wasn’t until after the Gulf War that OBL began to target U.S. assets overseas and at home due in large part to the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which he viewed as sacriligious. This guy’s ambitions are only regional, he will cease to target the U.S. and its allies if they leave the Middle East and end their support for the Saudi royal family and Mubarrak.
Contrary to what you think, the continued presence of U.S troops in Iraq is EXACTLY what OBL wants. That way the U.S. continues to inflame Muslim opinion which swells his recruiting base and more and more “infidels” die in ever greater numbers. There is a reason why France and Germany have not been attacked by Al-Qaeda and the U.S. and U.K. have.
Finally, it is the desire of Al-Qaeda to prevent democracy in Iraq, but they make up only a very tiny percentage of the resistance. History reveals that negotiating with the local national resistance which does have a stake in a successful outcome of their country can and does reduce a great proportion of the violence. These Iraqi insurgents do not have the same belief system as Al-Qaeda and if these guys put down their arms, the violence nearly ceases to exist. Al-Qaeda gets pushed into the fringe of Iraqi society and public opinion swells against that group. The continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and the continued use of Abu Ghraib as a prison only feeds right into Osama’s hands. That is exactly what Richard Clarke said before the war. He knew that invading Iraq would only fulfill a prophecy by OBL that the U.S. would invade and occupy a Muslim nation. OBL has never been more popular now.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 25, 2005 at 9:48 AM
WTH
Perhaps no one responds to the “seriousness of the war on terror” because they don’t feel that Iraq counts as an attempt to address it. This war was predicated on a lie, and once you lie to me,and continue to lie to cover the original lie, everything is suspect.
I don’t doubt that there are those out there that have us as their “target number one” but I think you miss the point, and although I agree with Liberal’s call on Osama’s agenda, etc., what Al Qaeda has galvanized is all out hatred of the so called West. because of the war in Iraq, the problem now is much bigger and broader than it was when 9-11 happened, and it isn’t a problem that responds to good ole fashioned brute force.
This is why remaining in Iraq is so completely the opposite of what we should do to fight the “war on terror”. Responding to the War on Terror is not an either/or thing-it requires thought and debate-neither of which is allowed-without the other side screaming “traitor” and a number of other unintelligent things.
This act of blasting the concerns of people who do not blindly follow the Administration’s version of reality further harms America and weakens Her mightly.There are real enemies out there, but they are not in Iraq.
Posted by kaela on Aug 25, 2005 at 3:45 PM
al-Dakari- 100 million people have already been sacrificed to the false god of Marxism. That isn’t enough for you?
Posted by chopper on Aug 28, 2005 at 5:48 PM
WhatTheHeck, I found you again. You do keep changing your spots and trying to be more subtle here and there. You are a busy little SHILL aren’t you. Pathetic though. Sorry to you people who thought you were debating with a person of substance but it’s none other than Roger Ramjet again. Tracked you back here, jeez are you a creepy dude or what? Oh al-Dakari too?
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Aug 29, 2005 at 2:05 AM
al-Dakari I have something to say to you, ....U Scare Me…. Idiot, anybody who wants to see the level of the opposition go here and check out USM’s quotations, then do the same for al-Dakari.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2103/
Heh I hope you’ve got a real job, because you are piss poor as a disinfo SHILL. I’ll bet you describe yourself as an intelligence officer. Sounds like an ambition rather than a description in your case
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Aug 29, 2005 at 3:14 AM
So whattheheck is actually ramjet?
Is that guy an arms dealer, defense contractor, supplier or DU or what?
Posted by Ammonia D on Aug 29, 2005 at 9:49 PM
There may be two of them playing about eight characters, and it may just be one. Rabbit hasn’t used too much time on collating all the details yet. al-dakari and U Scare Me are definately the same, note above link and the funny Quote marks. There are also distinct similarities between this character and others. You’ll notice his transparent tactics and how he always rushes in the first post of a new name to define his new image. “I’m just this dude trying to understand the truth”, or “I’m just a naive girl, wondering about the truth” or “I’m just an educated man trying to get to the bottom of all this DU fuss” Here he’s a good ole boy asking “what the heck is all the fuss about”. “I’m just skinny and weak”
He’s an official Shill and if you want to see him get totally outed go to:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2298/
Here he can be seen tripping himself up, dancing like a tame bear to Rabbit’s tune and giving himself away at every turn. All the while he tries to maintain the line that Depleted Uranium (ie: Nuclear Power Station Waste) is no more harmful than lead.
He doesn’t even realise that nobody is stupid enough to buy such absolute drivel. But check out the scale of the establishment pro-DU effort. They are clearly very serious about trying to keep the lid on this one. This by the way is why none of these other characters have responded to me when I’ve caught him at it here and at a few other spots. He is too busy with the DU project disinfo.
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Aug 29, 2005 at 11:48 PM
Good work exposing that guy for the liar he really is.
Posted by Ammonia D on Aug 30, 2005 at 8:45 AM
It saddens me deeply that there are still so many that believe 9/11 was done by a bunch of arabs with box cutters! The real terrorists are the neocons running Americas government.Does False Flag attack mean anything to you?The towers were imploded! buildings don’t cave in on themselves so beutifully form the damage they had.It’s a very very scary thought,that our leaders not only allowed it to happen,but were involved.The war on terror,or any other noun,(drugs,crime,ect…)are just tools for them to exploit us,the taxpayers. (sorry,I know my spelling is aweful)Wake up people!
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Aug 30, 2005 at 7:58 PM
KVK, there are still people who believe the earth is flat. Don’t hold your breath waiting for most of the sheeple to wake up. Act Now!
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Sep 1, 2005 at 11:26 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
We should listen to Cindy. But not just her. We should also listen to the rest of her family. Both have important - but diametrically opposite - stories to tell.
I can remember he prelude and opening act of this war.The right shouted down anyone who said"Let’s be certain before we invade and wind up with a war of insurgency we may never win"with cries of “TRAITOR!“and “WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING THE TERRORISTS?“with that form of reasoning,we dove into this war.
Now here we are,two years later,with a conflict that will go on as long as we let it and the contempt of the the rest of the world.The only people who support this war are those in the oil business and the right-wing morons who can’t come to terms with the fact that they were tricked by their own party.
Isn’t it funny though that the people who say the most vicious things about Cindy Sheehan are those who never served(I’ll be mean,like them, and suppose it was from a lack of patriotism)or don’t have anyone in their family serving in Iraq or even Afghanistan.
Even more funny is the fact that the baby boomers,who protested to avoid Vietnam,got us into another pointless war.Boy,people sure can run up huge costs when they don’t have to pay for it.
“We” did not invade Iraq. The U.S invaded Iraq. Why is the U.S.A “we”? Why identify with state power? Why can’t “we” be the workers of the world, who happen to have the same core interests, which don’t include invading anyone?
When leftists use the terms “we”, “us”, “our” etc, they often mean some country, race, or tribe. “We” are the producers of the world’s wealth, not the different ruling cliques and wannabe rulers be they Bushes, Blairs, Husseins, Castros, Putins, al-Sadrs, Bin Ladens (you get my drift, and whatever entity they represent.
Anyone who falls into the ideological trap of “we” as the U.S or Germany, or the Shiites, or the Tutsi, or the Basques has already lost.
Workers in Iraq and the United States have the SAME interests, they are both bieng exploited in an ever worsening way. If they unite, the war will end.
If WE (workers in both countries) stopped the oil production in Iraq, and shut down the ports in the U.S.A. If WE shut down the trains, trucks, weapons factories, airports, mines, refineries, banks, etc, (in both countries, as well as in Germany, Kuwait, Qatar etc.) the war couldn’t be waged.
Without the workers not a single bulb can light up, not a single phone can ring, not a single letter can be sent, not a single working class kid can be recruited into the the army, not a single war can be fought. WE, not the U.S.A can end it already.
“Here is the question to the parents of American service men and women that the Bush administration never thought to pose, much less answer: Is the war in Iraq worth the life of your son or daughter?”
And did they ask, ” Is the war on Tarawa worth the life of your son or daughter?” How about North Africa? Berlin? Gettesburg? Bunker Hill?
What is freedom worth? Is nothing worth risking one’s life?
Cindy Sheehan’s son answered, “Yes.” so we can continue to freely debate it.
Dude,
hate to point this out, but the only people fighting for freedom in Iraq are the Iraqis. Sorry WTH…
al-Dakari:
Spoken like a true Marxist :) In his own words “The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got”
and
“[We] have nothing to lose but [our] chains. [We] have a world to win!”
al-Dakari: You speak of a separate class of working class human beings as, in effect, the means of production. I agree that ‘we’ as in human beings should stop separating ourselves. The United States has to stop creating an imaginary evil ‘other’ as it has with the Iraqis and as it did with the Vietnamese. However, separating ourselves as human beings into the working class, you essentially create an evil other, the bourgeoisie, and so you are doing exactly what the United States has been doing with Iraq. It will lead to more conflicts and more wars. Until ‘we’ means human beings and we start recognizing ourselves as fellow humans and start treating one another as such, there will never stop being wars. However, this Utopia is beyond us as human beings…So we will continue to kill each other.
lostlib:
Genetically, all humans are essentially the same. However in our world there are two classes whose selfish interests are diametrically opposed to each other. I’m not inventing an evil “other”; this is reality.
I don’t believe that humans in our present world can act in a utopian, selfless, KUMBAYA way. But I’m not as pessimistic as you are.
I believe that solidarity and class unity are in the workers’ self-interest. It is in their interest not to be used as cannon fodder in imperialist wars. It is not in their interest to exploit anyone.
The salvation of humanity will not be the result of humans evolving into a gracious, selfless species. They will act in their self-interest. However it is in the self-interest of workers to destroy capitalism and its ceaseless drive for wars of plunder. It is in the self-interest of workers to unite as a class against an enemy class who acts in its own self-interest.
Individualism, competition, greed are in the self-interest of the bourgeoisie. Basically the selfish thing for workers to do for themselves and their families is to reject all bourgeois ideology (not just greed and competition, but patriotism as well). So all my hopes lie in the hope that workers start being truly self-interested.
To create a world in which selflessness is the norm, you need a revolution by people who acted selflessly. Even if the selflessness of workers is done out of self-interest.
I hope I make sense. Marxism can be tedious like that.
That one weird sentence goes like this:
I’m not inventing an evil “other”; this is reality.
Gosh computers suck !!!!
“Genetically, all humans are essentially the same. However in our world there are two classes whose selfish interests are diametrically opposed to each other. I’m not inventing an evil “other”; this is reality.
I don
One more thing:
You guys are a little far afield. I’m quite interested in what WTH had to say. He seems to be saying Casey signed up, he knew what was at stake and he paid the price. The trouble with this line of reasoning is that we now live in an environment where our government can not be trusted to honestly lay out for us what is at stake.
The American people got behind a false message of national self defense. A good many of us were skeptical and were ignored. Those who answered the call (and enlisted) can surely be thanked for their patriotism. However, as the facade that they knew what was at stake falls apart, we can see now that they were essentially used for an entirely different and less noble purpose. Awareness of the reality of this war is rapidly being reflected in poll after poll.
The administration is relentless about telling us that we are winning the war on terror. Frankly, I don’t know what victory looks like in Iraq. More and more it seems that stopping further failure may be victory enough. Our CEO president doesn’t understand one of the basic principles of business. Throwing more money into a bad idea doesn’t make it a good idea. Likewise, continuing this war - which was clearly a mistake - is throwing good blood after bad. More death will not change a mistake into a success.
Pragmatists are beginning to come to a similar conclusion and toning down the ‘victory’ rhetoric. In order to end hostilities in Iraq via any sort of military solution, we would need to escalate the degree of brutality to a level we really wouldn’t entertain as a nation.
What is left of our reputation couldn’t sustain it either. It is time to end it.
GreyArea - if you had the authority to do as you pleased, what would you do? Pull the troops out immediately? Or?
What do you think the consequences of your choice might be?
This is interesting. I find conservatives do this to me all the time. They are in effect asking “Well how would *you* fix the mess my beloved administration has created?”
The consequenes of staying in Iraq are plain to all but the ‘dead-enders’ in the administration who are blind to their own failures. (ie: firing the entire Iraqi army and police force)
I would, in fact, immediately implement a policy of withdrawl. As it is, our presence there is inciting escalating violence and our soldiers are largely there to provide security for our own presence. Naturally, it would be impossible to remove us all at once, but it could be done soon, and effectively. We would, of course, still have control of the air above the country to support the government as needed. We have had that control for over a decade.
Bush claims that a timetable for withdrawl would give our enemies cause to simply wait out our departure. I see no evidence to support that claim. Meanwhile an abrupt change in policy would certainly send the right message to the newly elected government. “If you would like to remain in power, you are going to have to step up and do what it takes to hold onto it.”
As for the conventional wisdom that says departure would be disastrous, this fails to recognize that remaining in place is equally, if not more, disastrous. One can’t exactly claim that the administration knows what it is talking about when they predict the outcome of a course of action. Their predictions have proven to be utterly worthless up to this point. Wouldn’t it be nice if someone had said “invasion would be disastrous” - Oh yeah, they did.
We need to stop killing and dying as soon as possible.
GreyArea - i have very little doubt that your plan would reduce US deaths in the short term. Perhaps that is all that one should aspire to?
As for whether the world would be better off if we followed your plan, i don’t know. I don’t even know if it would have been better to leave Iraq alone in the first place. So what if millions had died from sanctions and Saddam - they were not US citizens, and perhaps we should have just averted our eyes, as we do now for Sudan. . . (and of course, if Iraq were to fall into an even worse civil war or end up with an even worse dictator, it simply need not be the US’s problem)
Oh, we definitely have a problem, wolf. We are under the illusion that the war on terrorism can be won by killing everyone who hates us faster than we can create new adversaries. Is Fallujah peaceful now? Is that what we have in store for the rest of Iraq?
Let’s assume that staying the course is the right move. How many terrorists/insurgents do you suppose we would need to kill in order to buy enough time for the government to train a security force? How many terrorists and insurgents will that new government need to kill after we are gone to maintain security?
Would that number rival Saddam’s death toll? Remember that he had decades to quell various uprisings and eliminate threats to his power. Reasonable estimates suggest he has the blood of 200,000 of his own people on his hands. Awkward that much of Saddams killing was done while we were actively engaged in selling him weapons.
Look at the overall number of Iraqi citizens who have died at our hands directly. How many Iraqi conscripts (young men drafted into Saddam’s army to defend their country) did we kill with our own bombs and planes during the first Gulf war?
We beat the crap out of that country twice. Is beating them up more going to make them love us? We need to get out now. The mistake has already been made. Continuing to make mistakes is not the solution.
GreyArea, here are just a few comments. Fallujah has never been a representitive area of Iraq, so i doubt that it will become one now. One can wonder how to establish law and order in a lawless land. It is a difficult task, to say the least (and one formerlly eschewed by Bush in the 2000 elections).
It would be interesting to know if the terrorists/insurgents are suffering from “bad publicity” as they do their indiscriminate killing. . .
The analogy that always comes to my mind regarding this war is this: Police respond to neighbours calls about a battered women/children. They come and arrest the clearly violent man, but the woman and kids attack the police. Perhaps the police should simply not intervene - they are not wanted? Or perhaps they should, on general principles (beating women/children is wrong). Of course, if it leads to the man being convicted and the women/children evicted, one would have to wonder if any good was done, regardless of intentions.
I don’t have the answers, clearly. I do have a Palistinian friend who used to lament that millions were dying from sanctions (perhaps he exagerrated?). Oddly enough, he was against the war (his arguments made me ever so slightly in favor. . .)
Tidy analogy, but it is incredibly arrogant to always imagine us as the police rescuing everyone, wolf.
I happen to love this country, but many of us refuse to accept that some major bad actors are out there on our behalf. We aren’t viewed by all as the police, you know. To many, we have invaded a family home. Having ransacked the place and failing to find what we were looking for, we have declared that all we ever wanted was to get rid of our former friend the wife-beater. We insist that we are doing this only because we love the family so much that we want them to live in peace.
Despite our pure intentions, installing a new husband seems to have killed a few of the children.
I am not concerned about any bad publicity of the terrorist/insurgents. In fact our own publicity, while horrible, is greatly subsidized by the corporate media machines. The fact that you believe the attacks to be indiscriminant is a function of Fox News and the rest. You also probably believe that at least 99% of the Iraqi
I feel I was too dismissive of your analogy. I actually appreciate the care you took in showing unintended consequences. I only meant to reject that default image of the U.S. as the nice policeman. It is easy to get carried away with analogies. You should have seen the yarn I was beginning to spin about the neighbors coming over and throwing rocks - I had to cut myself off. Thanks for the thoughtful chat.
wow,
an actual intelligent debate between two courteous people on this website!
kudos GrayArea and Wolf…keep up the good work!
Peaceful intelligent dissent IS patriotic, in the sense that it’s true to the values that America has always said it upholds. It is the role of free citizens to become informed, to evaluate government policies, and to support or to speak out against those policies as their understandings best guide them.
It’s the insistence upon uncritical backing of government policy, most especially a policy of war, that violates American values. Cindy Sheehan has not only the right but the obligation to speak out and try to convince others that her position has merit.
1600 anti-war protests last week. Someone thinks her position has merit!
It’s also perfectly legitimate to ask the question whether it’s worth the risk to one’s own life or worth enduring a loved one risking theirs in support of a war. What goals are being pursued by fighting the war? What are the compelling reasons that it needs to be fought? These are for the government in question to answer forthrightly and with clarity. Then the citizens themselves can make their judgment. Since most citizens will offer the benefit of the doubt out of a sense of patriotic duty, it’s even more essential that they have a clear idea of exactly what the reasons are (and there may be very good reasons) that they are expected to take up arms or send their kids to do so.
And if the reasons given turn are changed after the fact, because the original justifications are not factual, well, that ought to be very instructive.
That word “turn” in the last sentence is a typo.
Somehow we got a long way from the original topic, but then again the connection is there.
This War is not a policing job, not a case of wife beating. Have you have forgotten some of the early videos and testimony from Iraqis. People pushed off of buildings, dunked in vats of acid, women summarily executed for adultery, Saddam
WTH, you are patently wrong about the makeup of the insurgency. 90% of it is homegrown Iraqi nationalism. See “Mideast Forum”, The Nation, August 15-22 issue. Furthermore, it would not be in the interest of either Syria or Iran to allow foreign fighters to use their countires as staging grounds. The ruling Baath party in Syria is Shiite, so why would they let radical Sunnis use their border to enter into Iraq? The same goes with the Mullahs in Iran. Iran is one of the biggest winners of the invasion. Several of the major political parties in Iraq, including the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, are Iranian backed. Iran has cozied up to the most recent Iraqi leadership. That myth that the insurgency is mostly foreign is a ploy by GWB to cast this war as part of the “war on terror.” It also lets the president give a reason to refuse to negotiate with the insurgency and continue his policies unabated.
Liberal,
If you are dismissing my comments based on what David Corn has to say, then we are not really talking about the dangers of the War on Terror per se, we are only arguing pro or anti George Bush. The Nation and Corn are so blatantly against anything Bush has done or may do that there is nothing to discuss. This problem predates either President Bush and will continue post Bush.
My concerns have to do with the larger problem of the rabid kill-the-infidels types who have a long term program aimed at our distraction.
If we leave Iraq it seems reasonable that it would encourage the religious fanatics.
How many insurgents are from what nation is not relevant since they put Islam ahead of country. This is why the push for a theocracy. Our quibbling about details only serves their cause by the division and diversion it produces here.
The article to which I am referring was not written by David Corn, it was a forum on the MIddle East by several well-respected scholars of that region, among them David Cole and Shibley Telhami, who is actually quite moderate in his views on the situation in Iraq.
I have noticed that when I say something outrageous or inflammatory I can easily raise a large number of replies, but very few people are responding to any serious attempt to address the seriousness of the War on Terror and the possibility, even probability of another major attack on the U.S.
Is this because you think 9/11 was only a one-time protest against U.S. encroachment on Islam? Do you really believe if we leave Iraq that will pacify this fanatical group?
You can call me cynical (I
This is not at all like vietnam. The us sent advisors to help the south stand up to the north. Then we sent troops to train the south.
Then the us sent more troops to train the south.
When the troops were trained then we could come home.
Is this sounding familiar to anybody?
Actually, WTH, you do not understand Osama Bin laden’s ambitions and aspirations at all. He wants to rid the holy kingdom of Saudi Arabia and all Muslim nations of western influence, and that means toppling the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt because they have repressed their own people with strong U.S. backing for decades. It wasn’t until after the Gulf War that OBL began to target U.S. assets overseas and at home due in large part to the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which he viewed as sacriligious. This guy’s ambitions are only regional, he will cease to target the U.S. and its allies if they leave the Middle East and end their support for the Saudi royal family and Mubarrak.
Contrary to what you think, the continued presence of U.S troops in Iraq is EXACTLY what OBL wants. That way the U.S. continues to inflame Muslim opinion which swells his recruiting base and more and more “infidels” die in ever greater numbers. There is a reason why France and Germany have not been attacked by Al-Qaeda and the U.S. and U.K. have.
Finally, it is the desire of Al-Qaeda to prevent democracy in Iraq, but they make up only a very tiny percentage of the resistance. History reveals that negotiating with the local national resistance which does have a stake in a successful outcome of their country can and does reduce a great proportion of the violence. These Iraqi insurgents do not have the same belief system as Al-Qaeda and if these guys put down their arms, the violence nearly ceases to exist. Al-Qaeda gets pushed into the fringe of Iraqi society and public opinion swells against that group. The continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and the continued use of Abu Ghraib as a prison only feeds right into Osama’s hands. That is exactly what Richard Clarke said before the war. He knew that invading Iraq would only fulfill a prophecy by OBL that the U.S. would invade and occupy a Muslim nation. OBL has never been more popular now.
WTH
Perhaps no one responds to the “seriousness of the war on terror” because they don’t feel that Iraq counts as an attempt to address it. This war was predicated on a lie, and once you lie to me,and continue to lie to cover the original lie, everything is suspect.
I don’t doubt that there are those out there that have us as their “target number one” but I think you miss the point, and although I agree with Liberal’s call on Osama’s agenda, etc., what Al Qaeda has galvanized is all out hatred of the so called West. because of the war in Iraq, the problem now is much bigger and broader than it was when 9-11 happened, and it isn’t a problem that responds to good ole fashioned brute force.
This is why remaining in Iraq is so completely the opposite of what we should do to fight the “war on terror”. Responding to the War on Terror is not an either/or thing-it requires thought and debate-neither of which is allowed-without the other side screaming “traitor” and a number of other unintelligent things.
This act of blasting the concerns of people who do not blindly follow the Administration’s version of reality further harms America and weakens Her mightly.There are real enemies out there, but they are not in Iraq.
al-Dakari- 100 million people have already been sacrificed to the false god of Marxism. That isn’t enough for you?
WhatTheHeck, I found you again. You do keep changing your spots and trying to be more subtle here and there. You are a busy little SHILL aren’t you. Pathetic though. Sorry to you people who thought you were debating with a person of substance but it’s none other than Roger Ramjet again. Tracked you back here, jeez are you a creepy dude or what? Oh al-Dakari too?
al-Dakari I have something to say to you, ....U Scare Me…. Idiot, anybody who wants to see the level of the opposition go here and check out USM’s quotations, then do the same for al-Dakari.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2103/
Heh I hope you’ve got a real job, because you are piss poor as a disinfo SHILL. I’ll bet you describe yourself as an intelligence officer. Sounds like an ambition rather than a description in your case
So whattheheck is actually ramjet?
Is that guy an arms dealer, defense contractor, supplier or DU or what?
There may be two of them playing about eight characters, and it may just be one. Rabbit hasn’t used too much time on collating all the details yet. al-dakari and U Scare Me are definately the same, note above link and the funny Quote marks. There are also distinct similarities between this character and others. You’ll notice his transparent tactics and how he always rushes in the first post of a new name to define his new image. “I’m just this dude trying to understand the truth”, or “I’m just a naive girl, wondering about the truth” or “I’m just an educated man trying to get to the bottom of all this DU fuss” Here he’s a good ole boy asking “what the heck is all the fuss about”. “I’m just skinny and weak”
He’s an official Shill and if you want to see him get totally outed go to:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2298/
Here he can be seen tripping himself up, dancing like a tame bear to Rabbit’s tune and giving himself away at every turn. All the while he tries to maintain the line that Depleted Uranium (ie: Nuclear Power Station Waste) is no more harmful than lead.
He doesn’t even realise that nobody is stupid enough to buy such absolute drivel. But check out the scale of the establishment pro-DU effort. They are clearly very serious about trying to keep the lid on this one. This by the way is why none of these other characters have responded to me when I’ve caught him at it here and at a few other spots. He is too busy with the DU project disinfo.
Good work exposing that guy for the liar he really is.
It saddens me deeply that there are still so many that believe 9/11 was done by a bunch of arabs with box cutters! The real terrorists are the neocons running Americas government.Does False Flag attack mean anything to you?The towers were imploded! buildings don’t cave in on themselves so beutifully form the damage they had.It’s a very very scary thought,that our leaders not only allowed it to happen,but were involved.The war on terror,or any other noun,(drugs,crime,ect…)are just tools for them to exploit us,the taxpayers. (sorry,I know my spelling is aweful)Wake up people!
KVK, there are still people who believe the earth is flat. Don’t hold your breath waiting for most of the sheeple to wake up. Act Now!
register a new account »Posting Security