Page 1 of 1 pages
Mr Hayden,
You have no idea just how many Americans disagree with your prophet of doom assessment. Sure, support for the war is slipping among the general public. Who can blame them given the shallow negative news coverage. But the people that are closest to the conflict, the soldiers, are re-enlisting at unbelievably high rates. Even first time enlistment is now exceeding goals.
How disheartening it must be for them to read your sob story written from the comfort of your luxury living room.
You and Jane have apparently learned very little since Vietnam. You have not changed. Back then you gave tacit support to the communists. Now, you do the same for the terrorists. That’s some legacy.
“My son’s friend Todd Jones just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. At a celebratory gathering at his parents’ home, we chatted a while, and I asked him what he thought were the biggest problems facing the military. Without hesitating, he shot back: ‘The terrorists and the media.’ “
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110007113
“Guess we have to face it: Patriotism is alive and well. Soldiers believe in the Army, and they believe in their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They love their comrades, too. And yes, the word is “love.” They would die for the man or woman serving beside them. They’re risking their lives to save a broken state, to give tens of millions of human beings a chance at decent lives, to do the grim work that no one else in the world is willing to do.
Their reward? The Cindy Sheehan Extravaganza. Predictions of disaster. The depiction of Michael Moore as a hero and our soldiers as dupes. And a ceaseless attempt to convince the American people that there’s no hope in Iraq.”
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/pfriendly_new.php
Expand your reading list beyond Michael Moore’s website. Please, Tom.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 23, 2005 at 9:46 AM
Natalie,
Soldier’s always fight for each other when push comes to shove. This applies for both sides in any conflict and has nearly nothing to do with the rightness of the cause.
We are now in the midst of a struggle that is both religious and nationalist. The kind of struggle that can scarcely be understood, much less fought and won, by an external power.
We cannot impose a Pax Americana on Iraq. We have changed the regime there and started a democratic process. We need to tie our withdrawal to the political milestones in place and allow the Iraqis to be responsible for themselves. The international community, the U.S. included, will lend support.
Posted by wchadwel on Aug 23, 2005 at 10:13 AM
Why does Cindy get so much press and her family so very little? Seems sort of odd. . .
Even amongst the “gold stars” there is no agreement about the war. Just like the general population.
Quiz question: how many more Iraqis died from sanctions and Saddam than from the war? No need to be exact, just use a multiplicative factor. (To be fair, losing even a single US life to save thousands of Iraqi lives is not a good trade, at least for the US.)
Posted by wolf on Aug 23, 2005 at 10:43 AM
Natalie,
It’s not only Tom Hayden,it’s also the majority of Americans.
Many soldiers are espousing right-wing perspectives.I did at that age.Hell,I even voted for Bush 41.However,media and news fed to our troops is carefully filtered.They did it to me and my shipmates when we were deployed,they’re doing it this time in Iraq.Haven’t you noticed how groups like Fox News trumpet the fact that the military gets much of their news from Fox?
By the way"predictions of disaster”?Sorry,try postdictions.
I see your also quoting the New York Post.Gee,isn’t that the paper run by arch-reactionary Rupert Murdoch?Real objective source there.I trusted the New York Post more during the Eighties when they ran articles about coma babies and Nessie sightings.
By the way,my little brother is serving in Iraq,Baghdad,as a hummer driver so save yourself a few keystrokes.He and I have disagreements about the war yet he has his prerogative.I would never insult,belittle or question his patriotism the way the right has done to the left.In this war,unlike Vietnam,it was not"Hell no!We won’t go!”,it was"let’s not be too hasty before we commit,before we bite off more war than we can chew”.That statement,in the right’s eyes,merited the term “TRAITOR!”,usually by fox News stooges who have never spent day one in military service.
Oh,about Vietnam,unlike this war,the president who got us into Vietnam was a combat veteran.Also not even Nixon was cold blooded enough to cut military spending by 25%during a war the way this administration has.
Posted by wwoods on Aug 23, 2005 at 1:26 PM
I see “Natalie” is still haunting ITT. I agree that the news reportage is shallow. Negative? Only spin-meisters demand to see the “positive” side of war. This article (intro to a photo gallery by Salon) gives a few insights why graphic images have been absent in the MSM:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082305O.shtml
Iraq: The Unseen War
By Gary Kamiya
Salon.com
Tuesday 23 August 2005
a few excerpts:
” Aug. 23, 2005 This is a war the Bush administration does not want Americans to see. From the beginning, the U.S. government has attempted to censor information about the Iraq war, prohibiting photographs of the coffins of U.S. troops returning home and refusing as a matter of policy to keep track of the number of Iraqis who have been killed. President Bush has yet to attend a single funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq.”
——————————————————————
“Governments keep war hidden because it is hideous. To allow citizens to see its reality - the shattered bodies, the wounded children, the incomprehensible mayhem - is to risk eroding popular support for it.”
——————————————————————-
“It is because we believe that the American people are not getting a look at the reality of the Iraq war, for Americans and Iraqis alike, that we decided to run this photo gallery. It is no secret that Salon has published many more pieces questioning and challenging the Iraq war than supporting it. But that is not why we think it is important that these images be seen. We would have run them even if we supported the war. The reason is simple: The truth should be told. “
——————————————————————
“There is no way for any journalist, whether reporter or photographer, to capture the multifaceted reality of Iraq. But all of the journalists I have spoken to who have worked in Iraq say that the blandly optimistic pronouncements made by the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq are completely false. A picture of a dead child only represents a fragment of the truth about Iraq - but it is one that we do not have the right to ignore. We believe we have an ethical responsibility to those who have been killed or wounded, whether Iraqis, Americans or those of other nationalities, not to simply pretend that their fate never happened. To face the bitter truth of war is painful. But it is better than hiding one’s eyes.”
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 23, 2005 at 2:12 PM
Natalie, you criticize Tom Hayden for casting a negative picture of the war from his living room, but what about all the right-wing pundits, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O’Reilly, that offer their assessments from a lavish network studio in Manhattan? Going by your logic, their opinions are no better.
You offer a quote to support the notion that the U.S. mission over there is noble and that we are improving the lives of Iraqis. Only someone with their head in the sand would say that. Electricity is still sparse, the hospitals are woefully equipped (remember how the U.S. attacked and shut down the hospital in Fallujah because it was telling the truth about civilian casualties of the U.S invasion?), and Iraqis stand in long lines to get gasoline in an oil rich nation. Furthermore, ask the more than 25,000 dead Iraqis if their nation is better off and their lives are being improved. Ask the significant majority of Iraqis that want the troops gone soon or now (see the poll figures quoted in this article) if the U.S. military is making everything okay. Ask Naomi Klein, who put to rest the “reconstruction” myth by noting in her lengthy visit to Iraq that the only rebuilding is occuring inside the U.S. Green Zone while rubble is still in the streets from the bombings of 2003. Saigon during the Vietnam War until 1975 was a safe place for U.S. soldiers who could walk around without fear of being shot at or blown up. Not so with Baghdad. The security in that city is far worse than Saigon’s cerca 1967. This whole war is worse than the one we fought in Vietnam.
Natalie, you also need to read the other Iraq article on this website, the one discussing the constitution and what it portends in order to see what the ever-deteriorating status quo is in Iraq.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 23, 2005 at 5:27 PM
Yeah, Liberal, you make a good point about right-wing pundits. Most of them don’t really know the true picture, either. The difference in my mind is that they are at least being supportive of a foreign policy that was debated and voted on. There were national elections, 2002 and 2004, the results of which were to increase the power of the party most forcefully advocating the policy.
I have zero patience for people who demonstrate and protest against their government’s official foreign policy when troops are in harm’s way. I deplore any of it that went on during Kosovo by right-wing pundits or others and I deplore it now. It breaks my heart to think what this powerful righteous nation could accomplish as far as beating back totalitarianism and encouraging freedom and democracy if we could just be united on these issues. My god, look what we accomplished in the 40’s. Then, we were unified. It was no “cake-walk”, though, and it isn’t going to be as far as Islamic fundamentalism is concerned.
What must a dictator or terrorist think when they listen to the U.S. media and gauge what threat America is to their survival? They must think to themselves…hmmm…..half of America is on my side. What am I worried about?
I think most liberals want us to succeed in Iraq, and understand that if we do, it will be good for the world. I know my liberal parents and siblings do, even though they hate George W. Bush. But I can’t help but think that many of them don’t, and if they could pull the lever for failure or success, they’d put their politics first and opt for failure. I hope I’m wrong on that, but I’m just watching and listening. Perhaps many Republicans would do the same if the roles were reversed. I think it’s a question we should all ask ourselves and think about.
I can’t think of any better way to insure failure than to follow the advice of Tom Hayden or Cindy Sheehan.
“Tom Hayden and I were once comrades-in-arms in a movement to overthrow America’s democratic institutions, remake its government in a Marxist image and help America’s enemies defeat her sons on the field of battle. Now he is running for mayor of Los Angeles and many people are asking me, “Does this past matter?” I think it does.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1056
(At least I assume the writer is the same Tom Hayden I saw at rallies so often with Jane Fonda. If not…..sorry, other Tom!!)
Posted by Natalie on Aug 23, 2005 at 11:02 PM
Natalie:
There were national elections, 2002 and 2004, the results of which were to increase the power of the party most forcefully advocating the policy.
The Reichstag fire in 1932, like the mass murders of 9/11, worked “to increase the power of the party most forcefully advocating the policy” as well. Almost all of us wish that other parties and factions had been more forceful in advocating power thereafter. I know I intend to do so.
I have zero patience for people who demonstrate and protest against their government’s official foreign policy when troops are in harm’s way.
I know that patience or tolerance of any sort is not the strong suit of the present regime and its supporters, Natalie. May I refer you to Bring Them Home Now for some of the troops’ and their families’ views on the subject of the present “adventure” in Iraq?
It breaks my heart to think what this powerful righteous nation could accomplish as far as beating back totalitarianism and encouraging freedom and democracy if we could just be united on these issues.
I agree. But beating back totalitarianism and encouraging freedom and democracy” begin at home, Natalie. Not only were the mass murders of 9/11 used as a “catastophic, catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor” to forward the Plan for a New American Century’s aggression abroad, they were also used as an excuse to do what Osama bin Laden could never do, to throttle back our freedom at home via the PATRIOT Act and to undermine our democracy in Ohio in 2004 as it had been in Florida in 2000.
What must a dictator or terrorist think when they listen to the U.S. media and gauge what threat America is to their survival?
The present American regime in fact has embraced dictators in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. And it treasures Osama bin Laden, allowing him his freedom, using him as its foil to justify whatever excesses it deems necessary.
I think most liberals want us to succeed in Iraq, and understand that if we do, it will be good for the world.
You may be right here. I know that Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kerry, Lieberman, Pelosi… all of the DLC Demoplicans are furious with the incompetence with which the present regime has carried out its aggression. These people want to do it “properly”! They want more war, more troops, more death, more destruction. So you may be right on this point.
I know my liberal parents and siblings do, even though they hate George W. Bush.
I don’t hate George W Bush, Natalie. He’s in way over his head and the folks he’s taking advice from are not the traditional conservative base of the Republican party but the neocon fringe which has an agenda all its own, which seems to think since “victory” has proven illusory in the Middle East that it will now settle for the destruction of any and all power centers outside of Israel. I do hate all of the present regime’s policies but once the regime itself is out of power I will be relieved and satisfied. Of course I’m sure they’ll have to answer to the courts for their war crimes.
I can’t think of any better way to insure failure than to follow the advice of Tom Hayden or Cindy Sheehan.
Well Tom Hayden is just another Demoplican politician as far as I’m concerned, but Cindy Sheehan is an individual who has decided to do what she can to end this monstrous war, and by doing that she hopes to give her son Casey’s death a dignity the present regime has tried to steal away along with his life’s breath itself.
As for ending anti-American terrorism Cindy Sheehan has hit the nail on the head, and her prescription seems to me the only one that will do so : “You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism.”
Posted by John Francis Lee on Aug 24, 2005 at 3:09 AM
Well said JFL.
“What must a dictator or terrorist think when they listen to the U.S. media and gauge what threat America is to their survival? They must think to themselves…hmmm…..half of America is on my side.” (from a post above)
This is just utter bullshit. Americans plainly see the debacle that the Bush/neocon foreign policies are bringing US. Nobody supports terrorists by desiring peace. War as an answer will never bring “unity” ... think what single-minded nations are…. fascist dictatorships!
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 24, 2005 at 6:19 AM
pick of the litter:
‘They must think to themselves…hmmm…..half of America is on my side.’
Actually that’s correct. The half that voted for George W Bush are in favor of dictatorship. Bring on the Great Man on the White Horse and let me get back to business, back to sleep, back to my TV…
Posted by John Francis Lee on Aug 24, 2005 at 7:32 AM
Posted by wolf on Aug 24, 2005 at 7:37 AM
“The half that voted for George W Bush are in favor of dictatorship.”
Seems you have a clear idea of your political opposition. And kudos to you, you are careful not to underestimate same, which can be a costly error in politics.
Posted by wolf on Aug 24, 2005 at 8:03 AM
Natalie, you do not understand the un-democratic nature of your comments. It is clear YOU do not understand how the other half think. How can we discourage and disparage democracy at home while we ostensibly enforce it militarily abroad? The first amendment is meant to protect unpopular speech, for popular speech needs no protection. Free societies tolerate all sorts of viewpoints. If you don’t like that Natalie, then you can leave and go to, I don’t know, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Nepal, or Indonesia. The second and fourth countires on that list have recieved significant military aid from the U.S. government by the way.
With respect to the 2002 elections, I guess you are referring to success as the fact that Republicans picked up ONE seat in the Senate, in which a decorated war hero lost to a man who received five military deferments due to football injuries but nevertheless painted his opponent as unpatriotic. The Democrats would still have had control of the Senate if Paul Wellstone hadn’t died, and he was leading his opponent by eight points at the time.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 24, 2005 at 8:27 AM
Wolf, Cindy Sheehan is not advocating kicking Israel out of the Middle East, neither is JF Lee. I believe he is advocating that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders and leave the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. If you look at a map, Gaza and the West Bank do NOT make up all of Israel.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 24, 2005 at 8:32 AM
Liberal - My comments were addressing JFL comment (not Cindy’s). While you may be correct in your assertion of what JFL meant, it seems clear that Palestinians want “their” entire country back. Push the Jews into the sea and all that. . .
Of course, it could be worse. The Indians could decide they want back “their” country too!
Posted by wolf on Aug 24, 2005 at 9:31 AM
Want an exit strategy:
We could throw in the towel
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 24, 2005 at 11:18 AM
WTH, you just don’t get it. If the U.S. respected the right to Iraqi self-determination it would have left that country long ago. The Iraqis do not like Saddam, but they have seen the anarchy and mistreatment of its people that resulted from an invading power occupying its land. Thus by default some desire a return to order and the security from terrorism that Saddam’s regime provided. The U.S. is not acting in favor of Iraqi freedom either. When you defy U.N. Security Council Resolutions and the 1907 Hague Convention and completely rewrite the economic policies for the benefit of foreign multinational corporations to exploit the natural resources of a country without any input from the people, you are not respecting their freedoms. When you arbitrarily round up innocent civilians in search-and-seizure raids and throw them into Abu Ghraib where they are tortured, sodomized, and even murdered, you are not respecting their freedoms. When you isolate a potent ethnic minority in drafting a constitution in order to show “progress” back at home, you are not respecting Iraqi freedoms.
If the U.S. truly desires Iraqi freedom, then it must accept the fact that Iraq’s President and Prime Minister want to cozy up to the mullahs in Iran. Furthermore, respect for human rights and democracy go hand in hand, and when the U.S. does nothing to ensure that the legal freedoms that Iraqi women enjoyed under Saddam remain in place, it is not acting in favor of democracy.
The U.S. never was bothered by Saddam’s atrocities when he was a pawn in America’s MidEast strategy, but when he took an independent course, that is when all the rhetoric about his atrocities and suppression began to surface. The U.S. took Saddam out because he was no longer serving America’s interests. The Bush administration acted out of its own selfishness, the rhetoric about freedom and democracy was just the conveneient cover story to give to the American people.
And finally, enough of the French bashing. You repugs need to get a new line already.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 24, 2005 at 11:33 AM
WTH, your last line about Tom Hayden just epitomizes the violent filth that spews forth from Right-wing talking heads. Remember Pattie Robertson’s little statement about the need to assassinate Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, despite that it is illegal under U.S. and international law to even threaten to do so? Remember what O’Reiily said about the Gitmo detainees, that he would execute them if he were in charge? Remember the felon G. Gordon Liddy’s statment “aim for the head” with respect to how his listeners should deal with DEA agents?
Posted by Liberal on Aug 24, 2005 at 11:39 AM
“We could stay as long as it takes to let this country learn the freedoms and the responsibilities of self determination.”
Well, whatever happened to the conservative idea that America not become the world police? I’m not even sure that peace is the ultimate goal of the bigtime oil wheeler and dealers (who seem to be pulling a lot of the puppet strings for Bush). I agree with Bud that the other article about Iraq here (Echoes of Oslo, By Mark Levine, In These Times, Sunday 21 August 2005, which btw also appears in truthout.org) is quite insightful.
here’s a relevant quote from that article:
“The idea of “sponsored” or “managed” chaos as a defining characteristic of contemporary neoliberal globalization has already been demonstrated by scholars working on Africa, the former Soviet Union, and other locations along the “arc of instability” that happens to contain some of the world’s most resource petroleum rich and politically unstable countries. The main thrust of this argument is that the coming “Age of Peak Oil” makes it strategically necessary for the United States to maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq, and thus have unrestricted influence over its vast oil. In an environment where the vast majority of Iraqis do not want either of these things, creating a situation of violence and instability becomes a logical, and perhaps the only feasible way, to secure them.”
Echoes of Oslo
By Mark Levine
In These Times
Sunday 21 August 2005
I’ve seen this idea around more than a few
times.
“Or we could try something else. An energy policy designed to rapidly wean us from oil, which we promulgate to the rest of the world. No more money (read weapons systems) to the middle-ages middle east. “
....wolf, this is soo true. If the U.S. put its resources in the right places, like if we used NASA’s wits and funding and some of those insane military programs, we could be running on water. Why go to another planet when we could make this one so much better off? Why should space be more important than the health of earth and all of us creatures who live here? Why not put space exploration on the back burner until we have solved more problems here where real life is? I just don’t understand the priorities here.
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 24, 2005 at 11:57 AM
I find siginificant irony in that it appears we will have been successful in accomplishing what Bin Laden couldn’t: the establishment of an Islamic theocracy in Iraq. Weeeeee!!! So much for spreading democracy and freedom. Oh, but maybe I’m being too hasty. Maybe instead we’ll get a full on civil war, with Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syrai joining in the fun! We’ll call it Lebanon 2.0!
Posted by volvillain on Aug 24, 2005 at 12:08 PM
“The U.S. never was bothered by Saddam’s atrocities when he was a pawn in America’s MidEast strategy, but when he took an independent course, that is when all the rhetoric about his atrocities and suppression began to surface. The U.S. took Saddam out because he was no longer serving America’s interests. The Bush administration acted out of its own selfishness, the rhetoric about freedom and democracy was just the conveneient cover story to give to the American people. “...posted above by Liberal
that is so damn right!
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 24, 2005 at 12:09 PM
From Tom Hayden’s article….Usually wars generate a public reluctance to withdraw without
Posted by Jon B on Aug 24, 2005 at 12:14 PM
A few comments:
pick - i think NASA is one of our better investments. If it and other esoteric enterprises (particle accelerators, etc) did not exist, science would not have advanced nearly as much as it has (i say this as a physicist, myself and many others like me being inspired by various esoteric endeavors). However, i do imagine we could divert significant resources from defense to more useful technologies.
Jon - the whole Jesus “love thy enemies” is a fun ploy to use. However, nonbelievers should think twice before quoting religious texts (and then hopefully refrain and speak of something they are more familiar with). If you really want to know the answers to the questions you pose above (and it really would behoove you to do so) i would strongly urge you to talk with some people of faith, which i expect you will find is far from a homogenous group. . .
Posted by wolf on Aug 24, 2005 at 12:53 PM
It’s going to be fun to watch and see how long the meek can keep the earth after they inherit it.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 24, 2005 at 1:28 PM
Wolf said:“If you really want to know the answers to the questions you pose above (and it really would behoove you to do so) i would strongly urge you to talk with some people of faith, which i expect you will find is far from a homogenous group. . .”
This is a VERY good point wolf raises. The media does a lot of talking about specific Christian groups, such as Pat Robertson’s as if that is the only Christian POV. We Christians are not any more homogeneous than the Muslims or the Jews. There are so many sects and sub-sects with many openly hostile to one another. It seems as though Robertson and Bush are from a sect that relies heavily on Old Testament concepts. Fire and Brimstone, smiting enemies, etc… As far as I am concerned, the Old Testament is no better than a Greek tragedy. The New Testament on the other hand is the foundation of my fiath, though not the be all end all. I think Jesus would be agrieved to have people essentially murder in his name. But, as wolf points out, we all have different POV.
I also agree with wolf’s comments regarding NASA and physics and I’m not even a scientist. On another note I think its sad that we’re spending serious dough on reviving a missle defense program when our borders are still some what porous and our soldiers go without proper equipment. WTF?
Posted by volvillain on Aug 24, 2005 at 1:42 PM
Liberal,
So my “... last line about Tom Hayden just epitomizes the violent filth that spews forth from Right-wing talking heads.”
Well, maybe you should view the TV program featuring our vets who were in the Hanoi Hilton when Tom and Jane were dishing out their pro-commie lines. At least I didn’t wish one of those guys on him. Come to think of it YEAH! Why not?
How would he like to hang by his hands which are tied behind his back until his shoulders dislocate? This had nothing to do with any talking head opinions
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 24, 2005 at 1:46 PM
Speaking biblically, “love thy neighbor (and enemy)” , “thou shall not kill”, “turn the other cheek” , all point the way to peace,... peace, the necessary ingredient for a “civilized” society, for sustained prosperity. The oil economy seems destined to play out like the dinosaur, it is ultimately a short-term energy solution and it is foul, foul , foul….so bad for our health. If the oil economy depends upon war and strife, where/when is the longterm prosperity going to emerge? It must be clean energy which leaves no blights upon the land and the people, where environmental health is the indicator of healthy economies, peace and prosperity. For to “Love thy neighbor” is to be ecologically conscientious, we do not pollute our neighbor’s land or livelihood.
I have a theory about some of these hateful times we live in. There ain’t enough love going around. Not that there’s a shortage, humans have endless capapcity, but peace and prosperity go hand in hand and all the war and violence going on is an economic dead-end, a bleak picture indeed.
What I find in the West, when you get past our voracious material greed, is that we have the love. In this culture, we have the freedom to choose whom we love. We make our own choices in whom to marry and I believe that most of us choose to marry for romantic reasons, we believe in love. Children raised in a loving environment respect life and generally pass the love onward. What results does a culture face when marriages are arranged and abusive relationships are tolerated? Divorce is messy but at least it is a freedom. The patriarchal systems function in a great absence of love in my book. Cultures that prize boys only are only half there. The power of family relationships, the balance of the sexes is so out of whack…......the repression of equal sexual satisfaction (or even sexual knowledge).... this type of culture has got to be holding resentment like a bubbling volcano. Rather than look within, it looks outward. No wonder boys end up warriors before they even hit puberty. Loveless and prosperless culture will easily recruit its young to the military as culture which cherishes its young will be loathe to see them off to battle.
I’ve rambled, hope my point comes across. The West is the Best. If we led the world with the example of love that we are so capable of, would we not see our neighbors as extensions of ourselves? Would we not be welcomed instead of hated and feared? We could use our might to truly spread prosperity and not death and hegemony.
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 24, 2005 at 2:50 PM
WTH, how about the Muslim man who was beaten to death by his American guards? His leg muscles had turned to mush at the time of his death. How about the young Iraqi boys who were anally raped by U.S. soldiers and private contractors at Abu Ghraib? We have yet to see the footage because the government won’t release it. I remember a domestic population that was similarly kept in the dark about its government’s atrocities. That population was NAZI GERMANY!!
The atrocities in Vietnam were not limited to the NVA. How about the use of chemical warfare in South Vietnam by the U.S. military in the form of agent orange and napalm? Not only did U.S. soldiers get ill from agent orange, but generations of innocent Vietnamses civilians still suffer from U.S. acts without a dime of compensation from our government, the guilty party.
Oh, yeah, remember the the several hundred innocent women and children massacred by U.S. forces at My Lai? The people at My Lai got caught, this stuff was going on everywhere.
Final Death Toll in Vietnam
United States: roughly 58,000
Vietnamese: 2-3 million
Posted by Liberal on Aug 24, 2005 at 3:04 PM
Thank you for your great EXIT IRAQ article. I posted a link to it at www.gnostics.com/newsletter.html
However I must say, trusting Democrats to have guts is like expecting Bush to have a clue. They are part of the reactionary political climate that has become America.
Suzanne Radford, editor
Gnostics & The Social Revolution
Posted by SuzanneRadford on Aug 24, 2005 at 3:05 PM
To continue, you seem to deny that America can do any wrong. God Forbid any one of those U.S. soldiers ever mugs you! Cover your rear, WTH. I see a parallel between what you call Hayden and Fonda’s acts, and the true-believers in GW’s foreign policy. They are spewing lies about the greatness of America even while their fellow citizens are violating every human rights law the U.S. has signed.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 24, 2005 at 3:14 PM
wolf writes…Jon - the whole Jesus
Posted by Jon B on Aug 24, 2005 at 3:23 PM
By the way Liberal, we used napalm (actually an advanced form) in Iraq and in the incident reported in the very early days of the war it was dropped on enemy positions, not used as some type of defolliant. The U.S. is one of only a handful a countries in the world that refuses to ban napalm. For all our screaming of WMDs, we will use weapons most of the world abhors. Napalm would be classified WMD if only the U.S. would sign on, but we won’t because we want every weapon available for our own use.
We also used those bomblets that Iraqi children injured themselves picking up thinking they were toys. After a number of kids had their arms and legs blown off, we had to drop leaflets to try to explain to Iraqis not to pick them up.
Posted by Jon B on Aug 24, 2005 at 3:45 PM
Ah yes, the cluster bomb fiasco. Brightly colored as I recall to aid in speedy clean-up. Kind of backfired because those colors also attract children. As I recall they had similar SNAFUs in Afghanistan because some aid agencies were distributing food packets that were the same color as the bomblets. Kinda caused a lot of deadly confusion.
Posted by volvillain on Aug 24, 2005 at 4:09 PM
The following words are from the song “Anatomy of your Enemy” from the Anti-Flag release “Mobilize for Peace” Album on AF-Records
Think about this and the march to war in Iraq and continuation of war by the right wing warhawks. Think about how many of the 10 steps the neo-cons incorporated and how.
10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war:
Listen closely because we will all see this weapon used in our
lives.
It can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most
highly educated.
We need to see their tactics as a weapon against humanity and
not as truth.
First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for
you.
Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like
you.
Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary
habits
fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job,
they are heatless murderers who enjoy killing!
Third step: Once these differences are established continue to
reinforce them
with all disseminated information.
Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party’s
information
this can be done through state run media.
Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the
ruling party’s information.
Therefore all for-profit media becomes state-run.
Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange,
militant, or different.
Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.
CHORUS: THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY. THIS IS HOW TO START A
WAR.
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY.
Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.
Create an “Us versus Them” mentality. Leave no room
for opinions in between.
One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should
be considered a traitor.
Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and
rhetoric to define all actions.
This can be achieved by slogans such as “freedom loving
people versus those who hate freedom.”
This can also be achieved by the use of flags.
Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.
It is very effective to use terms like, “It is god’s
will” or “god bless our nation.”
Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers
have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones.
Make it cleat that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not
want or like to kill.
Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability
and then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort
the public’s fears.
Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest
fear.
CHORUS (repeat); We are not countries. We are not nations. We
are not religions.
We are not gods. We are not weapons. We are not ammunition.
We are not killers.
We will NOT be tools.
I’m not a f**ker
I will not die
I will not kill
I will not be your slave
I will not fight your battle
I will not die on your battlefield
I will not fight for your world
I am not a fighter
I’m in UNITYYY!!!
Posted by NaderRaider on Aug 24, 2005 at 4:49 PM
This whole episode of history ought to teach us (f’n finally!) that the tactic of sponsoring selected dictators, playing them off one another, is a loser. Even if we damage an enemy in the short term by arming his rival, the rival himself sooner or later becomes strong enough and headstrong enough that the next generation has to deal with him, just as soon as he takes a notion to defy US directives or run afoul of US interests.
Starve them out, don’t feed them. And I’m not talking food here, but the only thing that they really want, which is power and the weapons they need to keep it.
By the way, it’s not WMDs that allow a tyrant to rule, it’s good old fashioned conventional arms that they can use in town without toxifying the whole timezone. How much of the materiel Saddam used to terrorize the people of Iraq was actually made in Iraq? And where did he get it? Hell, the insurgents are probably accessing caches of weapons stashed long ago to shoot at or blow up US troops even as I write!
Posted by Kuya on Aug 25, 2005 at 6:51 AM
61% are against the war and growing, even neo-cons in the house and senate are worried. They are fighting for their politcal life in the 06 election.33% approval rating for the rebulicans and 55% approval ratings for the democrats in the house.The democrates can take the house back, then ann Coulter can write a book how to talk to a liberal because we have to.
Posted by brian28 on Aug 25, 2005 at 9:32 AM
Remember this war is not like vietnam.
In vietnam the U.S. sent advisors to help the south fight the north because they were commies.
Then the U.S. sent troops to train the south from the north. When the troops were trained then we could come. Is this sounding familiar to anybody?
Now the neo-cons are so wacked out that one of their leaders (Pat Robertson)wants to go and kill leaders of other countries.
But he still wants thou shall not kill posted in the class rooms and the court houses.
Make sure you eat his Age-Defying Protein Pancakes, you can’t pray on an empty stomach.
Posted by brian28 on Aug 25, 2005 at 9:59 AM
Hey Brian28 I sure wish I could agree with your prediction but America has been gerrymandered into easily predictable red or blue districts. Many times the incumbents don’t even face an opponent. House incumbents win at about a 95% clip these days, hardly the statistics to base an election revolution on.
I too sometimes become a little giddy when seeing recent polling results. But then I well know that polls are too fleeting to rely on and as pollsters like to say “They are only a snapshot in time.”
I’ve long believed that the campaign to go to Iraq was purposely planned to coincide with the 2002 mid-term elections. So I am tempted to now believe that some sort of withdrawal from Iraq will be timed for the mid-term 2006 elections.
It doesn’t have to be a real withdrawal, just alot of rhetoric and some minor withdrawals to “prove” the Republicans are serious. In other words the Republicans will make it look like the war is going to be over soon, until the election is over. You know they won’t stop building those billion dollar permanent military bases.
The Repugs in the White House have been pushing all these window dressing actions by the Iraqi government. The Constitution, the referendum and then elections again. But none of those actions will really mean a thing for Iraqi “democracy.”
Now I’ll admit the White House does have a problem that all hell could break lose during the next year. They will keep their fingers crossed that civil war won’t break out. I’m sure that the military directive is to negate a civil war at all costs. A civil war is the worst case scenario for the Bushies, the final dagger into the heart of their bad planning.
But even with the worst case scenario, I still wonder if the gerrymandered America can really swing the balance of power.
Posted by Jon B on Aug 25, 2005 at 10:59 AM
Right on Jon B. If Christians are so hot to change the world in their image, they at least ought to follow some of the commandments!
Not like Vietnam-yeah it’s worse and the Vietnam vets I live with tell me so most nights at news time. And it sounds all too familiar-we noted with rage last night that 1500 more troops have been sent. This is exactly what they did in the bad ole days of Vietnam-the public would get concerned because their loved ones were coming home in body bags-and not for a very good reason- and so they’d send more troops in….
I think the real shame of this war is that it was predicated on a lie-a big hugh lie fueled by men and at least one woman who were absolutely drunk with arrogance.If we pull out and thus acknowledge the lie, what about all those Iraqis that are now stuck with the horrible mess of a country we’ve created and lots more terrorists than they ever had before? Ethically speaking, even though I absolutely agree that occupation is the problem, don’t we have some responsibility to at least leave the country in a position to defend itself? Images of 1974 Vietnam come racing back and it isn’t something I would like to re-live.
How do we do this? The UN? Watch “Hotel Rwanda” again and tell me about defence and the UN-pretty pathetic. This question becomes a grand circle, and we’ve been here before.Thus, this bad summer re-run of a war continues to reek destruction while we debate what should have been debated before we even stepped foot one there.
This is what happens when people refuse to admit that they were wrong and learn from their mistakes.
I lived through the Veitnam war and when I hear references made to “mr. Fonda” I am absolutely amazed that these folks still think this war was a good idea-it wasn’t ever a good idea, the powers that perpetuated it on us knew it wasn’t a good idea from the get-go. And yet these folks still habor some strange idea that if the protestors hadn’t made such a big deal about it(“giving aid to the enemy”) that we somehow would have mangaged to “win” it. This was never possible-Kennedy knew it and so did Johnson. There are several good books out that point this out.
The idea that exercising democracy-ie free speech- is somehow aiding the enemy is about as convoluted as an idea can get. If any of us has a right to this free speech, surely it is Cindy Sheehan. She’s not a pawn, she’s a citzen, and I think what she really wants to know is why isn’t anyone being held accountable for her son dieing for a lie? I think it’s a damn good question. I’d like to know that too.
What this war isn’t -despite the marketing by Fox and the administration-is WWII. And to try and fuse this war to the one we’ve got going is so incredibly wrong it leaves me wondering in what world do these neo-cons live? Maybe if if we all eat the Age Defying Protein Pancakes we could join them in their war-bliss and would finally understand their warped logic.
Posted by kaela on Aug 25, 2005 at 11:43 AM
Good one kaela.
“A civil war is the worst case scenario for the Bushies, the final dagger into the heart of their bad planning. ” Jon B
I think not. Did you read the other article on ITT, Echoes of Oslo, By Mark Levine, In These Times, Sunday 21 August 2005 ?
again I post this quote:
“The idea of “sponsored” or “managed” chaos as a defining characteristic of contemporary neoliberal globalization has already been demonstrated by scholars working on Africa, the former Soviet Union, and other locations along the “arc of instability” that happens to contain some of the world’s most resource petroleum rich and politically unstable countries. The main thrust of this argument is that the coming “Age of Peak Oil” makes it strategically necessary for the United States to maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq, and thus have unrestricted influence over its vast oil. In an environment where the vast majority of Iraqis do not want either of these things, creating a situation of violence and instability becomes a logical, and perhaps the only feasible way, to secure them.”
The idea of sustained violence for the benefit of the oil economy is not new but it doesn’t seem to be well-known or widely discussed; it probably comes closer to the truth than any reasons given for the war.
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 25, 2005 at 1:25 PM
I’m a little shy about making comparisons of Iraq to other wars, having said that, to me Iraq is more like Yugoslavia than Viet Nam.
All we are really doing there right now is trying to avert a break-up into regional nation/states and trying to tamp down a civil war. Personally I think civil war and a break-up is inevitable no matter what we do. Pragmatically or rather American self interest, we should just get out and let the inevitable play out.
We would save many American lives and treasure which is far more expensive than the numbers we read in the main stream media. No one calculates the life-long care that will be needed for the seriously injured soldiers. Or dollars given to the coalition of the bribed isn’t put into the costs. And there are other hidden costs.
The comparisons to Viet Nam do have some merit. Both wars were started with lies, both became wars with no good solution for America. It’s odd how the most powerful military in the world couldn’t find a way to win in either sphere. The reason is of course we can’t nuke them, we would be the pariah and enemy of the world.
Bush this week gushed about Iraq working on the its constitution as “amazing.” Nothing amazing about it. For two centuries nations have been creating constitutions. But constitutions are nothing but words on paper, many of those nations failed. The Weimar Republic of Germany had a constitution, Hitler essentially destroyed it. Pakistan has a constitution, it didn’t prevent Musharraf from taking control with a military coup.
In the 1930s we had the possibilty of a fascist coup (google Smedley Butler) and the civil war was a constitutional mess. Having a constitution does not a democracy make. Saddam had a constitution.
The Iraq mess is all about oil. That is what makes Iraq incomparable to Viet Nam or Yugoslavia or any previous conflict in our history. Oil is a natural resource of such extreme importance at this time in history, like nothing we’ve ever seen. WWII was about oil as well, but we were oil suppliers then and in this era it’s a resource that is becoming scarce.
The Bushies I’m sure are believers in peak oil. They have no intentions of leaving Iraq without becoming de facto members of OPEC through Iraq. That’s why the Bushies say nothing about the content of the Iraqi constitution, they just want some words on paper to make it look like a legitimate nation.
They tried to influence that first Iraqi election, didn’t work. Now they will be satisfied with keeping the country from breaking apart. As long as our military is there, we are the protector of whatever form of government finally takes shape. America has supported dictatorships and repressive regimes of many types, Saudi Arabia for instance. The Bushies will support an Iraqi theocracy if that is what emerges, as long as those permanent military bases are still there and the oil flows faster.
They’ve been ad libbing the Iraq War all along. But as any football fan knows you don’t win games with 4 quarters of broken plays. My opinion is that we lost the war on the first day because it was unwinnable.
We’ve lost Afghanistan as well. That war is no longer about Bin Laden, it is about keeping the Karzai regime in place. Karzai is no darling of Afghans as he played the coward and left the country when the Soviets attacked. The Soviets held the capital of Kabul just like we do, but Afganistan is much more than one city as Russia learned.
It seems big military nations never seem to learn that winning guerilla wars is near impossible.
Posted by Jon B on Aug 25, 2005 at 2:03 PM
pick of the litter….I did read that article.
Why I believe that civil war is the dagger is that if that point comes the American people will be demanding we leave.
The populace may begin a mass demand to leave even prior to that, but we would certainly not want to be part of a crossfire between the warring factions. A civil war would probably result in an increase of our troops, deepening our role in the conflict beyond what we’ve already seen.
Polling is already showing a weariness with the war, an escalation would only push the polls more against the war.
I fully believe we are just about at the point of peak oil. But why keep fighting a war in Iraq if the price of oil rises regardless? If the oil prices continue an upward trend, Americans won’t see that Iraq makes much difference, in fact may come to blame the war for the rising prices (which wouldn’t be the whole truth).
How many years of war in Iraq do you think Americans will tolerate? Today we are beginning to lose our tolerance, what of a year from now, two years, 2008?
The powers that be may indeed want chaos in the region, but the populace will eventually gag on that chaos. Hey, if we’re lucky we could get a sea change in American politics out of this Iraq mess. A demand to withdraw, a demand for alternate energies, a rejection of neoconservatism.
Posted by Jon B on Aug 25, 2005 at 2:37 PM
John Francis Lee,
Upon examining your meticulous HTML enabled dissection of my post, I find that you left one aspect unaddressed.
Do YOU want your country to succeed in Iraq?
This is a simple question that deserves a simple yes or no answer.
Are you able to answer it in such a manner?
Posted by Natalie on Aug 25, 2005 at 9:25 PM
Liberal,
I certainly don’t disparage democracy by advocating that people in this country speak with one voice on foreign policy, especially when it comes to its troops being in harm’s way. I may be discouraging “democracy” in this particular case, if that’s the label you want to give it, but to me it’s just simple common sense and decency which I’m sure the Democrats would expect if roles were reversed. I guess I would be technically entitled to say just about anything about anybody anywhere, but the better question is would it be appropriate, and is it constructive and helpful.
If people feel they must protest the war, I would only advocate that they do so in such a way that the young adults who have volunteered to put themselves in harms way on their behalf and are probably quite afraid but are still gung-ho and anxious to carry out their orders are not demoralized by reading or hearing their words. If they do become affected by those words, the safety of they and their comrades cannot help but be compromised.
Yeah, right. I’m off to North Korea. How tiresome. Somehow I think a Democrat would be treated far better than would be a Republican by Kim Dong Dildo, so better you than I.
According to my sometimes faulty memory, the GOP netted two seats in the senate and six or seven in the house in 2002. Max Cleland lost because his local hawkish rhetoric didn’t match his national liberal voting record. Very similar to Dashle. It was the first time in a hundred years that a Republican president saw his party gain House seats in a mid-term election. Even more gains in 2004. My only point here is that the country endorsed, albeit implicitly, Bush’s foreign policy in two separate elections. That makes it even more unjustified in my mind to so vilely protest against the troop’s commander when they are in danger.
The time for protest was before the war, not during. Obviously you have the right to protest. But are you right to protest? Is the situation really so desperate as to warrant such behavior? I think not.
The only consolation is that the unseemly protests by the fringe left I believe can only help Republicans electorally. But I still implore you and Cindy to reconsider.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 25, 2005 at 11:30 PM
A request for other perspectives…
As I recall, the protests of the Vietnam era that left such bitter memories were those aimed at troops. Does anyone else recall it that way? As I remember, being rather young at the time, it was the insults, the charges of baby-killing, all of the epithets thrown at them and all the refusal to publically welcome them back that was so bitter. That’s what not only infuriated broad sectors of the country, but also left a psychological scar. It brought about a cultural crisis of conscience that America is still trying to make up for. Or so I perceive it.
The protests against the Iraq have been aimed at the policymakers, have they not? Not at the troops-at-large, but at the leadership who have planned and executed the policy of war in Iraq. Again, if I’ve misperceived, I would welcome a response.
It seems to me that today’s protests have largely avoided the anti-soldier rancor that was observable 30+ years ago. To offer an opinion, I submit that citizens’ registering their opposition to the decisions of government is perfectly within bounds, during wartime or peace. As has been pointed out by more articulate people than me, that very freedom has had to be defended by soldiers willing to follow orders, lay aside any trepidation or hesitency they might feel, and to take up the sword. To say that freedom ought not to be exercised (providing it is peaceful and aimed in the proper direction) is confusing and seems a bit false, if one is truly convinced his country’s leadership has led us and those in uniform down the wrong path.
Maybe the protestors’ focus away from troops in the field and toward the national leadership is being judged as disingenuous…
Or do y’all see something I’ve missed?
Posted by Kuya on Aug 26, 2005 at 1:12 AM
Yes of course I want my country to succeed in Iraq Natalie. No fancy html.
The only way to do that is cease hostilities and bring the troops home immediately.
The mistake we made in allowing “our” government to invade and occupy that nation cannot be undone. But the mistake can be ended sooner rather than later. Every day we delay means more Americans and Iraqis murdered and maimed, more debt accumulated and passed on to the next generation of Americans, more enemies made for ourselves and the next generation, not to mention more shame for us and our children.
Success at this point would be to pull up our socks and have the courage to admit our mistake, to make amends as far as that is possible to those we have injured, and to see to it that we never again act the aggressor on the world stage.
And that would not at all be an inconsiderable success, Natalie.
Name another nation that has come back from the abyss without being totally defeated first.
Posted by John Francis Lee on Aug 26, 2005 at 7:23 AM
Natalie has expressed a very simple idea, “my country right or wrong, once the war started.”
She also talks of speaking with one voice. American history has shown we NEVER speak with one voice. There was opposition to the Revolutionary War by those called Loyalists who after the war were called traitors. There was opposition to WWI, in fact Woodrow Wilson drudged up the Sedition Act to suppress dissent. There was opposition to WWII, Charles Limburgh traveled the country agitating against it.
“In one voice” is a ridiculous concept in a truly free democracy. One voice is what you get in totalitarian nations, dissenters are jailed and/or killed. That’s why the right in this country always has this fascist tilt as they flirt with farther right ideas, such as “one voice”.
From an article just today….“Nearly three weeks after a grieving California mother named Cindy Sheehan started her anti-war protest near President Bush’s Texas ranch, nine of 10 people surveyed in an AP-Ipsos poll say it’s OK for war opponents to publicly share their concerns about the conflict.”
90% think protest DURING this war is OK. So Natalie by her “one voice” reasoning is expressing using her term a “fringe” opinion that protest should not be occurring. So what I should be telling her is to take her fringe rhetoric and leave the country, right? Back in the early days of the war that’s what I was told several times, that because I disagreed that I should leave the country.
Natalie wonders if protesting or having an anti-war opinion is “appropriate,” “constructive”, or “helpful.” The answer is a big YES, if a person’s opinion is that the war should end. Wars aren’t like board games with some type of proven winner. Every person that dies has become the ultimate loser, whether an American soldier, a UN worker, a reporter, and as our military likes to call civilian Iraqis “collateral damage.”
This effort to dampen interest to protest by appealing to some sort of guilt, that we should consider the soldiers as they think on the battlefield is just a smokescreen to turn attention away from the war policy.
Here’s something controversial, I don’t care what the soldiers think. I was in the army and had my opinions and didn’t care what the American public thought about my opinions. Soldiers have different opinions, some want the war to be over for no other reason then they would rather not be in a war, politics has nothing to do with it.
Many of the soldiers in Iraq joined long before the war was even a twinkle in Bush’s eye. Many soldiers are coming back from Iraq and joining organizations like Veterans Against the War in Iraq. And on the other hand, many of the troops are proud to be fighting this war. There is no political consensus from active soldiers. Many don’t understand anything about what’s going on, thinking simply that they have a job to do.
When I joined the army it was made clear that I might have to fight in a war. There was no predictions of what type of war it might be or what political reasons for it (back then it was assumed it was against communism, but no major war was happening at the time). But I was young and like most young people I was not a political information hound, I wanted the college money and needed a job.
In retrospect, these were stupid reasons to join, but many of our soldiers of today are there for just such monetary reasons. Those are the type of soldiers I probably relate to now. They wouldn’t be getting their arms and legs blown off, they wouldn’t be dead if they had better choices in America’s economy as well as the bad policy of this war.
But my opposition to the Iraq War has so many threads that even the above doesn’t nearly cover it. I will go on voicing my dissent for all the different theads.
Posted by Jon B on Aug 26, 2005 at 7:26 AM
I think Jon B pretty well invalidates Natalie’s attacks against my previous post. Well done Jon B.
On a final note, I have been protesting this war for several months now and we always tell men and women who say they are going to Iraq to come home safely and be careful. I protest this war to stop the loss of American and Iraqi lives, not to attack the personal integrity of individual service members. The right always accuses us of being anti-troop, but never provides a shred of evidence to buttress that claim. My father is an ex-marine and he feels EXACTLY the same way as myself. I think I will conclude this post with a quote of his regarding the invasion of Iraq: “It wasn’t worth a single American life.”
Posted by Liberal on Aug 26, 2005 at 7:46 AM
Natalie, I just have to say that your statements that the 2004 election validated Bush’s Iraq strategy is clear nonsense. If you look at the exit polls in Ohio, for instance, it is clear that people who voted for GWB did so on the basis of “moral values” which translates into abortion and gay marriage. Similar results were found across the United States.
Furthermore, the U.S. was not presented with the whole picture about Bush’s pre-war intelligence handling. The Senate Intelligence Committee, at the calling of chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), postponed the final leg of its investigation of pre-war intelligence until after the election. It was going to investigate the manipulation of pre-war intelligence. To this date, the committee has not reconstituted these hearings. In addition, Bush pushed back the release date of the Silberman-Robb Commission findings until after the election as well. That commission also investigated the U.S. handling of pre-war intelligence, but thanks to Bush, the committee had to look at all U.S. intelligence regarding all nations, not just Iraq, even though that is what the public and Congress wanted.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 26, 2005 at 7:56 AM
Right on John Francis Lee!
Natalie defines success probably as Bush would. And by our ORIGINAL reasons for going to war, it has already been a success. We found that Saddam had no WMDs, reason one successful, Iraq has no WMDs. Saddam is out of power, reason number two a success. No link to 9/11 has been found, full proof has been a success. And even Bush’s later reasoning, democracy, we can call it a success, they did have a vote.
Now, I’m really saying this tongue in cheek. But I’ve offered an alternate way of thinking that allows for declaring victory and getting out of there.
Success is just a word that means different things to different people. Success is just an opinion based on goals accomplished. Most people set goals and even if those goals were not totally acheived, if they’ve progressed toward those goals they consider it success. Success gets redefined as the attempt to meet the goal ensues.
As an opponent to this war, I’ve certainly had to redefine success based on my goals. Prior to the war, I didn’t want it to start at all. But there was success as the war protest prior to the war was the greatest ever produced prior to a war. Then my definition of success changed as I wanted the war to end, this required an education of the American public and that education is now bearing fruit as polls are showing the tide is turning. But success by my new definition is not complete until we withdraw, that day is coming. But my goals will not have been realized, but my redefinition of success will.
The Bushies are redefining success in Iraq in their minds as we speak. And they’ve been doing this all along. It’s been hard to know what their real goals are. Did they really expect Iraq to be a cakewalk with Iraqis throwing flowers at our soldiers feet? If so, they’ve been unsuccessful, right Natalie? If they did expect the cakewalk, they’ve obviously had to redefine their meaning of success.
When Bush staged his Mission Accomplished show on the aircraft carrier, did he really believe that? If so, he obviously didn’t meet his goal.
So, I have to wonder what Natalie considers success at this point. I wonder if she felt the war was won on the day Saddams statue was toppled at that time. I wonder if she believed that major combat operations were over back when she watched that show on the boat. And finally I wonder how many Americans, how many Iraqis have to die to consider it a success?
Success is also about perspective. I remember the incident in Afghanistan for instance when one of our “smart” bombs landed on a wedding. I wonder of those participating in the joyous event if any considered the war in Afghanistan a success?
I wonder if Natalie cares one hoot about the 6 year old Iraqi son of a construction worker killed by a bullet from a skittish American soldier I read about in my local newspaper. Success? Or the 40 something female Iraqi nurse on the way to work gunned down at a checkpoint recently. Success? They had something to do with 9/11? Or how about that football player Pat Tillman, dead from friendly fire in Afghanistan, would he consider the Afghan War a success? His parents don’t have that definition as they are pissed at the Bush Administration for lieing to them about the circumstances of his death.
My first paragraph described a version of success, declare victory and end the success of our destruction of innocent lives.
Posted by Jon B on Aug 26, 2005 at 8:42 AM
Protesting this very wrong war is not only right but it is incumbent upon a moral conscience. The posts above address the issues really well. The protest is against bad policy not soldiers. The ones who destroy troop morale are the ones who lied them into being there, and who send them in harm’s way while they have to use shoddy body armor and equipment. People in uniform can think for themselves and they don’t need to hear a censored America. Mrs. Sheehan is speaking her heart and the press has glommed onto those wide-spread sentiments that they ignored for way too long while they spewed the Bush propaganda. She is a catalyst for change, a voice of moral reason in contrast with its absence from our “leaders”. Just look at the story “Radioactive Wounds of War” by Dave Lindorff here on ITT about the New York State National Guardsman, Gerard Matthew. This is the horrible aftermath of modern warfare and it is outrageous.
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 26, 2005 at 8:43 AM
Natalie claims a faulty memory, I agree.
She recalls “My only point here is that the country endorsed, albeit implicitly, Bush
Posted by Jon B on Aug 26, 2005 at 10:26 AM
Tom Hayden brilliantly encapsulated the many issues that the anti-war movement has broached with regard to the futile and immoral nature of this imperialist war: the collapsing “coalition”, the lack of representitiveness of the new Baghdad Regime, the failure (and transparency) of Iraqization, the loss of US allies’ respect in the world, the great cost in lives and resources, and the total lack of legitimacy for going to war based on the lack of either WMDs or official state sponsership of terrorist activity abroad. The key motives have proven to be not only oil and a restoration of US hegemony in the world but the opportunity presented by the war to use the entire Iraqi economy for US corporate-led globalization. Billions of US dollars have gone to mostly US corporations in reconstruction contracts to take over the Iraqi economy and globalize it by destroying the local state sector and middle classes and linking the local economy to global markets and investment in a way that marginalizes the majority of Iraqis and enriches global capital. Certainly the war helped many large US transnationals such as Haliburton whose half billion debt before the war turned into a quarter billion dollar profit after the invasion and occupation due to lucreataive no bid contracts. But cronyism is only part of the story. US and other foreign capital has taken over the economy from the rebuilding, dredging, and management of the southern Port of Umm Qasr to local manufacturing of consumer goods, the running of the new banking system and even the future of Iraqi agriculture. Much of this is based on the 100 Bremer Orders unilaterally, illegaly, and undemocratically enacted by the CPA, the US occupation administration, and which is binding on Iraqi sovereign authority by agreement. With regard to Iraqi agriculture, Order 81 has compelled Iraq to allow the dumping of subsidized surplus grains on their local market putting many Iraqi farmers out of business and allowing hybrid seed companies to monopolize the seed market using new intellectual property laws to forbid Iraq farmers from saving the seeds from a season’s crop without a royalty payment agreement with the seed companies. This is only one instance of the creation of local dependence on corporate controlled markets and supply chains. Much of the “new” seed varieties are culled from Iraqis themselves who have been cross breeding crops for generations. The result will be fewer independant farmers and future dependance on expensive US food imports and agricultural inputs. The replacement of the state marketing board with corporate marketing networks mean lower prices for Iraq farmers, higher ones for local consumers, and a redistribution of wealth from the local to the foreign sector. This is the pattern which is evident in the rest of the Iraqi economy whereby Iraqis who have skills and are willing to work cheaper than foreigners are being shut out of their own economy! By late 2004, when the Sunni triangle began to see heavier resistance, it was reported that only 7% of the iraqi workforce was being used in the reconstruction efforts. Many towns and villages still have no or irregular electricity and water despite the resources to prodvide it. Trade Unions, the only truely democratic forces in the country are being attacked and disbanded by the occupation. The Sunnis are the sector of Iraqi society which contains the greatest amount of secular nationalist opposition to US imperialism and corporate capitalist usurpaation of the economy which is why the US politically marginalized them through a corrupt party list system for the January elections which favored the theocxratic Shiite leadership who also wants an end to the US occupation. This is all part of the reason for the conflict over the drawing up of a new national constitution. Such a constitution is not allowed to contradict the interests of US corporate capitalism. An ongoing war will be the consequences.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Aug 26, 2005 at 3:37 PM
Stop the presses:
The truest, most cogent response to Tom Hayden’s proposal is now available at Stan Goff’s site in the form of Stan Goff’s reply to Tom Hayden’s reply to Stan Goff’s reply to Tom Hayden’s proposal.
Please read it and join me in a mediatation on just exactly what is at stake here.
Bring the troops home NOW! is the only possible answer to the monstrous mess that the “professionals”, Demoplicans and Republicrats alike, have got us into, and are now doing their best to keep us from getting OURSELVES out of.
Stan Goff served in Viet Nam. He has a son who is now getting ready to return to Iraq for his third tour. Tom Hayden, bless his soul, talked about Viet Nam and is now talking about Iraq. He has a “solution” that Stan’s son may or may not live through.
That’s the difference in their perspectives. The one is of the “strategic”, hold on to power at all costs class, the other of the fighting and dying class.
I was with Tom Hayden on Viet Nam. I talked the talk too. That got us out of Viet Nam and into Iraq thirty years later.
I think I’ll try Stan Goff’s take this time.
I’m finally willing to pay the price you have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice.
Posted by John Francis Lee on Aug 26, 2005 at 10:54 PM
What do we
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 27, 2005 at 10:55 AM
John Francis, you started out pretty well in your attempt to answer my question with a simple yes or no. You said “yes”.
But then you went on to describe a policy that almost surely would lead to failure.
If I was to ask you if you wanted crime reduced in your neighborhood, you would answer yes. But then, if your logic was consistent, you would prescribe reducing the police presence to zero to achieve your goal.
Having read the short and simplistic “plan” of Stan Gof that you embrace, I can only assume that you are not part of the “nuanced” left. Is your position on the drug problem “just say no”?
Stan Gof sees great virtue in all the left fringe groups burying their hatchets and speaking with one voice to defeat an enemy. Putting aside all the frightful perils of silencing dissent and stifiling free speech, is his strategy not similar to mine when I advocate for the nation to speak with one voice against anti-democratic forces in Iraq and elsewhere?
My position is really just the Stan Goff position. Except that my version might actually lead to some real world improvements in the area of totalitarian oppression, not simply achieve the goal of simultaneously sticking our heads in the sand.
I’m afraid I’m compelled to ask a few more simplistic yes or no questions. (It might have somethng to do with that one comment on Goff’s plan quoting the wisdom of Fidel) DO you favor an end to totalitarian oppression?
If yes (I’ve gotta think you’d say yes), do you have a plan to achieve it? Is it similar to your Iraq plan in which you would simply allow the forces of oppression to have free reign?
Posted by Natalie on Aug 27, 2005 at 1:34 PM
Natalie,
I know you dislike the blockquotes, but quotes are confusing.
But then you went on to describe a policy that almost surely would lead to failure.
No Natalie, I then went on to describe a policy that will end the daily loss of innocent life due to America’s presence in Iraq, that will strive to put right as much of the wrong we have done there as possible, that will make sure that we do not repeat the same mistake we have already made twice in my lifetime.
That policy is inconsistent with the policy you espouse which has already failed. The question is do we send more Americans to kill and be killed or do we sober up and take responsibility for the monstrous mistakes we have made now.
If I was to ask you if you wanted crime reduced in your neighborhood, you would answer yes. But then, if your logic was consistent, you would prescribe reducing the police presence to zero to achieve your goal.
If Iraqi “police” showed up in your neighborhood to “reduce crime”; if they burst into your house fully armed, trashed your house, barked orders at you in Arabic which you could not understand, disappeared into a back room to have a talk with your son and left laughing an hour a later; if then, when another of your family discovered your blameless son dead, in a pool of his innocent blood where the police had left him, would you not prescribe “reducing the police presence to zero” in order to reduce crime in your neighborhood?
This is exactly the position the present American regime has put honest Americans answering their country’s call to serve in Iraq.
I understand that George W Bush is a Christian. If so would it not be better for him if a millstone were tied about his neck and he were hurled into the deepest sea than for him to have done what he has done to the innocent young Americans he has sent to Iraq?
I do not say this out of hatred for George W Bush but as an earnest admonishment. He may yet spare tens of thousands of lives between now and January 20, 2009. Out of stubborness and recalcitrance he may yet slay them.
Stan Gof sees great virtue in all the left fringe groups burying their hatchets and speaking with one voice to defeat an enemy. Putting aside all the frightful perils of silencing dissent and stifiling free speech…
I must have missed Stan Goff’s call to stifle free speech. Could you please direct me to it?
...is his strategy not similar to mine when I advocate for the nation to speak with one voice…
You are trying to rally support and so is Stan Goff. You add to your call that it is unpatriotic to oppose it. I support Stan Goff.
My position is really just the Stan Goff position. Except that…
Except that it is the opposite of Stan Goff’s position.
DO you favor an end to totalitarian oppression?
Yes, Natalie, I deplore totalitarian oppression. I oppose it in Palestine and in Iraq. I theoretically oppose it in Burma, but I have very limited means of opposing the Burmese generals.
My plan to end totalitarian oppression in Palestine and in Iraq is to work for the election of Representatives and Senators in the United States, be they Republicrats, Demoplicans, Independents, Greens, Conservatives, or Liberals, who will pledge in writing to vote NOT ONE MORE DIME for the wars in Iraq and Palestine, or anywhere in the Middle East.
For it is clear that the present regime plans not only to continue the wars in Iraq and Palestine but to attack Iran as well, if it can get away with it.
They can’t get away with it. Other Americans like myself will speak up. Many of us will march on Washington on September 24th. We will put an end to this war and foreclose the possibility of another. We will not allow the forces of oppression free reign.
Posted by John Francis Lee on Aug 28, 2005 at 12:16 AM
Natalie,
You may as well give up on this one. When you have to explain the obvious, subtlty is way beyond comprehension.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 28, 2005 at 6:04 AM
Yeah, whattheheck, I think I’m done here. I give up. I simply tried to appeal to people, on grounds of common courtesy and practicality, to consider the impact their brand of “dissent” has on the troops moral, and the ability of our nation to defend and maybe even heaven forbid project itself—even in the event that a situation develops they DO consider worthy of military action.
Liberals have absolutely no problem suppressing and squelching speech and ideas they oppose. They favor muzzling political speech close to election time, outlawing what THEY decide to be “politically incorrect” references, and shouting down or throwing pies at certain people for expressing fascist, imperialistic views, like those you quoted above by FDR, or even the ones of JFK as he sought to expand freedom and stand up against the heroes of today’s left.
Former official advisor to the POTUS, George Stepinawfulmess, was free to openly advocate for the assassination of Saddam Hussein in the pages of Newsweek, with not a hint of outrage by the left. But when Pat Robertson, a private citizen, casually expresses the same idea about Hugo Chavez, we get a week of condemnation and outrage by them. They were saying: “Even if you were thinking that Pat, you’re not allowed to say it. It might damage our reputation in the world and even cause people to be killed.”
Here they are right and Pat was wrong. But why the double standard? Why can’t Pat speak but they feel ordained by the constitution (they are, I know) to say the most vile, disrespectful and often outright false things about their own country and president that can’t help but achieve the same result they fear from Robertson’s words. If anyone dares suggest discretion on their part they are beside themselves, while Pat apologizes—albeit reluctantly.
It’s amazing how asking a simple yes or no question can reveal things about people. It’s clear to me now that John Francis’s and Cindy Sheehan’s definition of oppression is polar opposite to mine and probably at least 9 out of 10 Americans.
Here’s a link for you, JFL, if you’re still out there. I don’t know how to make it clickable, (it used to be automatic here at ITT) but I’m sure you’re computer savvy enough to know you can simply highlight it and drag it to your address box. I never said I disliked block-quotes, BTW, that’s purely an assumption on your part. My reference to HTML was more out of jealousy. In fact, I admire that you are able to produce block-quotes, and I agree that they add a lot to the readability of a post.
http://nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5856
Have fun at the rally on September 24th. Maybe you’ll make some new friends there. How nice that the troops will be able to watch, too.
Actually, I may be all wrong on this. They may be able to fight all the better when they’re pissed off.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 28, 2005 at 4:43 PM
Hi there Colonel Natalie, do you do shoes as well as the dress while you sit at that keyboard?
Please take note everybody that Natalie is not really debating, Natalie is none other than Roger Ramjet, otherwise known as Lt Colonel Roger Helbig, a government disinformation agent.
He was effectively outed here
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2298/
and you’ll notice the similarity in writing styles, word useage etc between Ramjet and his self obsessed alter ego Natalie. He also admits to being Helbig, slipped up he did.
Rabbit wonders why they use such dummies to try and fool intelligent, enquiring people.
Maybe this is the best they’ve got?
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Aug 28, 2005 at 8:18 PM
Now you tell me Rabbitvoz. Waste of breath singing to the choir and a sole government employee here.
Posted by John Francis Lee on Aug 29, 2005 at 1:16 AM
That’s alright John. These sites basically act like traps for these creeps. they come in hoping to sow havoc but instead give others a chance to refute all the official crap and it serves it’s purpose because others see them for what they are. Imagine how humiliating it must be to be caught out and proven to be a liar and shill over and over.
They are doomed. Wonder if it occurs to them that while more and more people are waking up and turning against them, nobody is joing their cause. Their supporters are dwindling faster and faster and nobody ever goes back because of one unnassailable difference. TRUTH
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Aug 29, 2005 at 2:49 AM
Natalie,
You mentioned the Pat Robertson flap. The latest British law revision (due to Muslim clerics advocating murder) means Robertson can be arrested for those comments if he ever goes to England. Even though the law was not yet in effect, and his statement had nothing to do with them.
My wife and I have a number of friends in London and I
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 29, 2005 at 6:29 AM
I agree with Stan Groff’s resolute determination to “Exit Now” even if he is gruff with all the politicians who leave conditional wiggle room for an exit strategy. If they wait until certain conditions exist for Iraq, the exit could last forever. How long will the American public tolerate this chaos?
I would imagine that many people in uniform serving overseas have no problem with massive civilian anti-war protest since it is a response to the civilian commander’s decision to engage in this premeditated war plan. Civilians put them there, civilians will get them out. Maybe many people in the armed services are glad that the public is speaking out in hopes of getting them out of harm’s way. Maybe there are some soldiers who are glad that there are Americans with enough backbone willing to stand up to bad policy and Washington’s apathy. Most cannot risk open objection even if their hearts tell them otherwise.
So I don’t think any of you who are always rah-rah-rah for the war to go on indeterminately really have the best interests of U.S. service people at heart.
I guess if that Bush had been honest, ‘hey Americans, we need a string of bases along the oil supply lines in the Middle East or we will suffer an oil shortage soon’, it still would have been too a hard of a sell. But it’s the oil companies who are winning, the security contractors who profit, and meanwhile Halliburton swindles our own military budget. The Arabs would never have gone for an obvious takeover of their most valuable resource anyway. It’s so convoluted, and such an immense web of deceit, who knows what is up with the truth.
I’ve said it before that people in uniform can think for themselves and they don’t need to hear a censored America. They don’t need to be coddled like children.
I thought this article was a persuasive take on exiting Iraq.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082605D.shtml
Why We Must Leave Iraq
By Larry C. Johnson
Davidcorn.com
Thursday 25 August 2005
excerpt:
“Sometimes in life there are no good options. It is part of our nature to always assume that we can fix a problem. But in life there are many problems or situations where there is no pleasant solution. If you were at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 9 am on September 11, 2001 you had no good options. You could choose to jump or to burn to death. Some choice.
A hard, clear-eyed look at the current situation in Iraq reveals that we are confronted with equally bad choices. If we stay we are facilitating the creation of an Islamic state that will be a client of Iran. If we pull out we are likely to leave the various ethnic groups of Iraq to escalate the civil war already underway. In my judgment we have no alternative but to pull our forces out of Iraq. Like it or not, such a move will be viewed as a defeat of the United States and will create some very serious foreign policy and security problems for us for years to come. However, we are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to achieve something approximating victory. And, what would victory look like? At a minimum we should expect a secular society where the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of being killed or kidnapped. That is not the case nor is it on the horizon.
We may even be past the point of no return where we could impose changes that would put Iraq back on course to be a secular, democratic nation without sparking a major Shiite counteroffensive. Therefore the time has come to minimize further unnecessary loss of life by our troops and re-craft a new foreign and security policy for the Middle East. “
see next post for more
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 29, 2005 at 8:14 AM
—————————
“Staying the course and enduring further casualties while the insurgency grows stronger is an insane policy. If we persist on that front we will end up strengthening the hand of Islamic extremists and their role within the Iraqi insurgency.
Our choice is simple - either we invest in the military resources and personnel required to defeat the Sunni insurgents and allow the Shia and Kurds to consolidate power or we withdraw and let the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds find their own solution. We cannot ask our soldiers and Marines to give their lives and sacrifice their bodies for a new Islamic state. It is true that our withdrawal will create a major vacuum and damage our prestige. But the alternative, i.e., that we stay and try to train up sufficient Iraqi forces and help the fledgling Islamic Government get on its feet, will leave us the favorite target of insurgents and terrorists. And after we have shed the blood of our sons and daughters in trying to create a new government that will be controlled by Islamists, those Islamists will ultimately insist that we leave Iraq and no longer meddle in their affairs.
Rosy scenario does not live in Iraq. Until we come to grips with this truth American soldiers will continue to be killed and maimed for no good reason.”
————————————————————————————————————————
“Larry C. Johnson is a former Deputy Director of the US State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, who has spoken out for censure of Bush. Earlier, he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security and crisis and risk management. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international firm that helps multinational corporations and financial institutions identify strategic opportunities, manage risks, and counter threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. He is a Republican who supported and raised funds for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. “
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082605D.shtml
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 29, 2005 at 8:15 AM
Natalie’s weird logic again…“My position is really just the Stan Goff position.
Posted by Jon B on Aug 29, 2005 at 11:20 AM
Natalie again…Former official advisor to the POTUS, George Stepinawfulmess, was free to openly advocate for the assassination of Saddam Hussein in the pages of Newsweek, with not a hint of outrage by the left.
Posted by Jon B on Aug 29, 2005 at 11:33 AM
“The right has been utterly silent about denouncing Pat Robertson
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 29, 2005 at 11:37 AM
Have fun at the rally on September 24th.
Posted by Jon B on Aug 29, 2005 at 11:38 AM
Whattheheck, Robertson speaks for all those religious dittoheads listening to his show. He speaks for the 700 Club, he speaks for the Family Channel as their response was they have a contract they are going to adhere to, which more than likely has a clause to cancel the contract if he says or does wacky things like this (absent is an explaination as to when that contract ends so that we will know if they decide to axe him the first chance they get, to check on the validity of their excuse).
Apparently he speaks for the FCC as they’ve been completely silent as well. Beyond that he’s had close ties to many in the Republican Party. Of course we don’t know how close those ties are now, funneling of money can be pretty hard to track, on this I have no knowledge. I might even consider that the Bushies might hate him as he advocated nuking Foggy Bottom (the State Department).
And to be honest I also find Robertson to be a great butt for jokes. I’m not so pc that I can’t get a few laughs from what comes out of his outrageous orifice. I’ve always wondered what Colin Powell thought of his Foggy Bottom declaration. Might have Powell thought, “Pat, I’m the one holding the nuke card. not you.”
I remember a few years back when he publicly prayed for God to save his empire from a hurricane that promptly turned and smashed nearly head-on into his headquarters. God works in mysterious ways.
The religious leaders of the Christian fundementalist groups are some of the best targets for humor caused by their own actions. There has been a long line of them providing joke material. Jimmy Swaggert and his crying act after getting caught with a hooker. Jim Bakker, praise the lord and pass the mistress. And my favorite Oral Roberts who locked himself into a tower until he got $8 million from his faithful because God was going to take him if they didn’t. God signed the ransom note apparently. The list goes on. Any wonder why I consider most followers of the religious right to be among the most gullible humans on earth?
And by the way, I could laugh at Bill Clinton more than some on the right. We’ve had a long series of presidents who deserved more mocking than respect, the current one the worst in that line of succession.
Posted by Jon B on Aug 29, 2005 at 12:38 PM
I do not understand how one can posit that Robertson was speaking as a private citizen. He has his own show that is broadcast to hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. on PUBLIC airwaves. Now, if Robertson told his wife in their kitchen that he wanted Chavez assassinated, THAT would be speaking as a private citizen, but not when he has the bully pulpIt and is an influential member of the GOP.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 29, 2005 at 1:18 PM
Master detective “Rabbitvoz” apparently thinks he/she’s uncovered yet another piece in the puzzle of his/her giant conspiracy theory, but instead has carelessly cast doubt on his/her own credibility and analytical skills.
You’re quite wrong, Rabbit, on me and Roger Ramjet or whatever being the same person. This leads me to believe you might ALSO be wrong on your other theories about his aliases and MAYBE EVEN on depleted uranium. *gasp*
That’s not fair, I guess. You might be right on DU, I certainly don’t claim to know the whole truth on that, but I do know for certain that you are wrong on Roger & Me. (Would Roger be clever enough to weave in that little reference to Michael Moron?) I don’t really know, I guess. The first I heard from him was reading his comments on the DU article.
I seem to remember him bragging about how he voted for McGovern through Kerry. I’ve consistently claimed to having changed my political allegiances after Clinton’s first term, like many tens of thousands of average folks that realized the Democratic party was no longer what they signed up for.
My suspicion about the degree of danger posed by the use of DU is based primarily on knowing how politics and emotional scare-tactics tend to influence science and scientists. It applies to those on the right as well, with their apparently bogus contention that abortions lead to breast cancer. They use a lot of big red bold font, too.
Try again, genius!
Twas good for a laugh, though.
Nomad, you are flawed and imperfect!
Execute your prime function!
I shall analyze error.
Analyze ... error ...
Now! Get those antigravs on.
Examine ...
error.
Error.
Get rid of it now.
Your logic was impeccable, Captain.
We are in grave danger.
Scotty, the transporter room.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 29, 2005 at 2:57 PM
Hi John Francis Lee, go to this link and watch the story unfold. I swear it is hilarious.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2298/
I’ve also found him out under other disguises on this site since twigging on the DU issue (see link). He actually tripped up several times as you’ll see and you might notice some obvious and less obvious keyboard clues. You can see how he makes feeble efforts to change spacings and various punctuation but he can’t hide his lack of substance, his hubris or motives.
As for you Natalie, you are very obviously not a woman, others have noticed it. Rabbit is not entirely sure if you are Roger but would certainly bet on it, and Rabbit doesn’t usually gamble. If you are not the Colonel you were certainly trained in the same tactics and they aren’t working and you are failing to notice this as much as the Ramjet. You really are not fooling people, anybody who is interested can check out the link above.
Keep denying it though “girlie man” you just keep getting funnier. People will see what I mean when they look at all your postings. You see babe, the internet has a big problem for you characters. Your pretence at being undecided about DU is just that. You sound like MiddleRoad again, (remember that alias?).
Natalie said ” (Would Roger be clever enough to weave in that little reference to Michael Moron?)” and all Rabbit can answer is that he didn’t notice anything you said which could in any way be construed as clever. Roger of course would indeed consider himself to be clever, especially in the Natalie alter ego which seems to be emerging as his clear favorite. It’s the knickers and bra isn’t it Colonel.
You can’t say something and then pretend you didn’t without being proven a liar. You are so out of your depth here and you just don’t have a clue. You realised about the funny quotation marks that were coming off your keyboard at one point but not before you’d linked three of the characters for us that way.
Rabbit figures this site is great. If a Shill like you is so desperate it must have something going for it.
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Aug 29, 2005 at 6:53 PM
Oh and “Natalie” you should remember that the alias’ of Colonel Helbig was admitted by him/you already, no more theory then is it? As for you I’m sorry mate but as an honest person myself and with experience as a father alone I can hear the falseness coming through your denials. Surprising how poorly you lie considering it’s your full time job really.
You still don’t know what you’re doing to give the game away do you?
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Aug 29, 2005 at 7:23 PM
Rabbit,
I know you think you’re funny and cute and clever, and if you really are clever, you must know what a fool you’re making out of yourself, and how you’re damaging your own credibility.
Anyone that has to resort to accusing people of being two or three people instead of one, (they’re ganging up on me, it ain’t fair) and pretend to perform keyboard analysis to try to prove some shadowy conspiracy is pretty transparently unable to argue his case effectively on the merits.
I’ve already admitted I don’t have the expertise, and frankly not the interest anymore to argue the degree of danger DU poses. Let’s just say I’m suspicious, for reasons I’ve stated consistently. Sounds like a good topic for 60 mins, if it’s still on the air. Why don’t you try to get them to take it up, and BTW, why haven’t they? Or have they?, I don’t know. Is it another conspiracy? It doesn’t seem to me like they usually shrink from trying to make the military look bad, at least during a Republican administration.
That’s my opinion, and I believe I’m entitled to it.
And you’re entitled to yours. But, velvety soft rodent, you have no right to come on here and start childishly accusing people of being two, three or any number of the same.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 29, 2005 at 7:42 PM
Nobody is ganging up on me Nat.
Rabbit never claimed any conspiracy theories. Others have already noticed you’re not a woman, Anybody who looks at the timings, the grammar and punctuation can see it and above all the technique you employ. There is nothing childish about outing a government shill, whether you are pro or freelance. However to come onto the internet and pretend to be various people all to try and make it seem like somebody could actually believe your excuses for ideas. Now that my little chickadee is Childish.
As Rabbit predicted you will totally out yourself and you’ve done it. Jesus you clown you even answer some of the queries of one character under the wrong name. A couple of times I’ve thrown a deliberate reference to another of your characters in only to notice that character suddenly responded on another thread, and the timings were in between your posts on this thread.
Frankly I haven’t even wasted much time on this to absolutely narrow you down to one or two people. What I am sure of is that not one of the names I’ve called out is a genuine personality. Most of them are yours Colonel Helbig, and while you may have a mate working with you, I’d say you two drink together.
Now Natalie says “I know you think you
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Aug 30, 2005 at 12:15 AM
Oh and Nat, don’t lie about the DU issue. You are still hard at it. You can’t change your spots, just your name. Don’t you realise that nobody except government shills can so clearly express the official bullshit in all it’s glory. Most people who get on the net trying to justify the NEWTHINK are not able to get it all in order with links to the propaganda machine. You come on pretending you are looking for answers but before long it’s obvious you are trying to derail the issue with well orchestrated propaganda efforts and well established Shill tactics.
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Aug 30, 2005 at 12:28 AM
It is ironic that the only defense for the present regime’s lies about Iraq, deadly lies that are killing Americans and Iraqis alike right this moment, is a professional liar. A man from the Department of Defense where they lie even when they don’t “have to” just to keep in practice, pretending to be a woman, Natalie, and various other supporting roles.
Could there be anything more certain to upset this shocking, awful tower of babel built of cards than the spectacle of the Wizard of Oz, the little man behind the curtain with the smoke and gongs and the big voice machine.
Nothing there but a wizened up little man, scared and tired and in way over his head.
Posted by John Francis Lee on Aug 30, 2005 at 4:26 AM
Enough on detective stories and speculation on who is writing, EXITING IRAQ is the original topic.
Obviously Hayden’s view is we should, ASAP
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 30, 2005 at 9:01 AM
Jon Stewart just did a number on Hitchens last week. Hitchens is a pompous ass. He did warn however, that he is coming out with a new article very critical of Bush’s handling of this war. So stay tuned.
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 30, 2005 at 1:09 PM
Jon B,
Robertson is free to make a fool of himself by saying anything he wants to
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 30, 2005 at 1:30 PM
Dear pick of the litter,
Did you read the article? I would say it is critical of Bush
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 30, 2005 at 1:43 PM
dear wth,
if you have to ask who Jon Stewart is, you have no pulse on current American culture.
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 30, 2005 at 1:51 PM
pick of the litter,
So, you say… ” if you have to ask who Jon Stewart is, you have no pulse on current American culture.”
That may be, but I know pomposity when I read it.
I thought the issue was whether or not to exit Iraq. I must be at the wrong site.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 30, 2005 at 2:03 PM
Excellent reference, WTH, although I’m suspicious you’re actually Roger or maybe even Hitchens himself. It wouldn’t surprise me if that baggy-eyed “liberal” would stoop so low as to promote his book under the guise of another.
;-)
Don’t expect these closed-minded “liberals” to take that arduous journey from your link to their address box for fear of that disturbing and depressing specter know as the light of day.
But of course anyone who dares question the validity of their claims about the degree of danger posed by depleted uranium is simply and conveniently a “username-shifting government shill”.
I think perhaps what’s at the root of their suspicion is the fact that “Roger” happened to or chose to re-enter the discussion on DU immediately after I had the NERVE to post some links and quotes from what seemed to me to reputable sources discounting the dangers of DU.
I’m still open on the issue of DU. But it is clearly linked to this issue of “Exiting Iraq”, as it is being used as a tool, rightly or wrongly, to discredit the military and subsequently their current mission.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 30, 2005 at 2:26 PM
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082605D.shtml
Read my link! Read my link!
Hey, I posted numerous times on this thread on Exiting Iraq, did you read all my links?
http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/041115roco04?page=1
Weapons of Self-Destruction
Is Gulf War syndrome - possibly caused by Pentagon ammunition - taking its toll on G.I.‘s in Iraq?
By David Rose
excerpts:
“It’s also remarkably cheap. The arms industry gets its D.U. for free from nuclear-fuel processors, which generate large quantities of it as a by-product of enriching uranium for reactor fuel. Such processors would otherwise have to dispose of it in protected, regulated sites. D.U. is “depleted” only in the sense that most of its fissile U-235 isotope has been removed. What’s left-mainly U-238-is still radioactive. “
“In June 2004 the U.S. General Accounting Office (G.A.O.) issued a report to Congress that was highly critical of government research into Gulf War syndrome and veterans’ cancer rates. The report said that the studies on which federal agencies were basing their claim that Gulf War veterans were no sicker than the veterans of other wars “may not be reliable” and had “inherent limitations,” with big data gaps and methodological flaws. Because cancers can take years to develop, the G.A.O. stated, “it may be too early” to draw any conclusions. Dr. Kilpatrick dismisses this report, saying it was “just the opinion of a group of individuals.” “
“Ultimately, critics say, the Pentagon underestimates the dangers of D.U. because it measures them in the wrong way”
http://www.coastalpost.com/05/04/09.htm
“Horror Of Depleted Uranium Not Limited To Iraq”
By James Denver, April 2005
excerpts:
“Despite all that evidence of the harm done by DU, governments on both sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly claimed that as it emits only ‘low level’ radiation DU is harmless. Award-winning scientist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell who has led UN medical commissions, has studied ‘low-level’ radiation for 30 years. 2 She has found that uranium oxide particles have more than enough power to harm cells, and describes their pulses of radiation as hitting surrounding cells ‘like flashes of lightning’ again and again in a single second.2 Like many scientists worldwide who have studied this type of radiation, she has found that such ‘lightning strikes’ can damage DNA and cause cell mutations which lead to cancer.
Moreover, these particles can be taken up by body fluids and travel through the body, damaging more than one organ. To compound all that, Dr. Bertell has found that this particular type of radiation can cause the body’s communication systems to break down, leading to malfunctions in many vital organs of the body and to many medical problems. A striking fact, since many veterans of the first Gulf war suffer from innumerable, seemingly unrelated, ailments.”
“A Culture of Denial
In 1996 and 1997 UN Human Rights Tribunals condemned DU weapons for illegally breaking the Geneva Convention and classed them as ‘weapons of mass destruction’ ‘incompatible with international humanitarian and human rights law’. Since then, following leukemia in European peacekeeping troops in the Balkans and Afghanistan (where DU was also used), the EU has twice called for DU weapons to be banned.
Yet, far from banning DU, America and Britain stepped up their denials of the harm from this radioactive dust as more and more troops from the first Gulf war and from action and peacekeeping in the Balkans and Afghanistan have become seriously ill. “
Seems to me that the military discredits itself and money is the main concern not soldier’s health. Cheap and effective weaponry. Fear of medical responsibility and massive lawsuits.
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 30, 2005 at 3:18 PM
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082605D.shtml
And I posted excerpts from this this article before here:
Why We Must Leave Iraq
By Larry C. Johnson
Davidcorn.com
Thursday 25 August 2005
” Sometimes in life there are no good options. It is part of our nature to always assume that we can fix a problem. But in life there are many problems or situations where there is no pleasant solution. If you were at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 9 am on September 11, 2001 you had no good options. You could choose to jump or to burn to death. Some choice.
A hard, clear-eyed look at the current situation in Iraq reveals that we are confronted with equally bad choices. If we stay we are facilitating the creation of an Islamic state that will be a client of Iran. If we pull out we are likely to leave the various ethnic groups of Iraq to escalate the civil war already underway. In my judgment we have no alternative but to pull our forces out of Iraq. Like it or not, such a move will be viewed as a defeat of the United States and will create some very serious foreign policy and security problems for us for years to come. However, we are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to achieve something approximating victory. And, what would victory look like? At a minimum we should expect a secular society where the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of being killed or kidnapped. That is not the case nor is it on the horizon.
We may even be past the point of no return where we could impose changes that would put Iraq back on course to be a secular, democratic nation without sparking a major Shiite counteroffensive. Therefore the time has come to minimize further unnecessary loss of life by our troops and re-craft a new foreign and security policy for the Middle East. “
“Staying the course and enduring further casualties while the insurgency grows stronger is an insane policy. If we persist on that front we will end up strengthening the hand of Islamic extremists and their role within the Iraqi insurgency.
Our choice is simple - either we invest in the military resources and personnel required to defeat the Sunni insurgents and allow the Shia and Kurds to consolidate power or we withdraw and let the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds find their own solution. We cannot ask our soldiers and Marines to give their lives and sacrifice their bodies for a new Islamic state. It is true that our withdrawal will create a major vacuum and damage our prestige. But the alternative, i.e., that we stay and try to train up sufficient Iraqi forces and help the fledgling Islamic Government get on its feet, will leave us the favorite target of insurgents and terrorists. And after we have shed the blood of our sons and daughters in trying to create a new government that will be controlled by Islamists, those Islamists will ultimately insist that we leave Iraq and no longer meddle in their affairs.
Rosy scenario does not live in Iraq. Until we come to grips with this truth American soldiers will continue to be killed and maimed for no good reason.
————————————————————————————————————————
Larry C. Johnson is a former Deputy Director of the US State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, who has spoken out for censure of Bush. Earlier, he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security and crisis and risk management. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international firm that helps multinational corporations and financial institutions identify strategic opportunities, manage risks, and counter threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. He is a Republican who supported and raised funds for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. “
———-
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 30, 2005 at 3:22 PM
Fabulous article by Hitchens, WTH. Thanks, although I had a little trouble with the link.
I urge everyone here to read it and consider again the wisdom of adopting the Tom Hayden view, or worse.
This is the kind of thinking that use to define the Democratic party. Hitchens is a true “liberal”. If only the Whitehouse could communicate this effectively.
Here’s a link to the printer-friendly version:
http://tinyurl.com/9tq9h
Posted by Natalie on Aug 30, 2005 at 5:05 PM
Sorry folks but this idiot just doesn’t know when to quit. Natalie you are not open minded about DU or anything else. Anybody who doubts it only has to read your shilling efforts on the thread we’re talking about.
Natalie you don’t even realise how obvious you are, just like Roger. There as here you are just complimenting your own alter ego and trying to make it look like someone agrees with you. Nobody does. You give yourself away by demostrating the same tactics, links and techinques of self delusion. I’m not interested in debating you because you are not in it for the truth, just to push the official lies. You are never going to change the mind of anyone who has once seen the truth. This is why your supporters represent less than 36 percent (and falling) of the US population and less than 1 percent of the rest of the world.
Rabbit seldom finds himself amongst the majority, but the tide has turned. As for your simple little view of the world you cretinous man in drag and WTH, not everybody who opposes you is a liberal. there are many shades of the political spectrum not just two. However while there is only one very narrow viewpoint which supports your countries war crimes, everybody else in the world is against you.
Your day is coming. Hey BOZO’s haven’t you noticed that even Republicans are now turning against the war criminals and psychopaths in the whitehouse. They are criminals and traitors to America. They are war criminals to the rest of the world. You’ve chosen your side, scum and you are no longer welcome on this planet. If you can’t accept others and let them live in peace and freedom, the rest of the worlds people are telling you, we don’t have room for your type. Stop breathing our air you are no longer welcome.
Congratulations on making a once respected and loved country an international pariah. USA is a rogue state, a criminal, expansionist, pirate state. Where are your freedoms now? Even Iran looks disdainfully on the lack of freedom and democracy in the USA and Britain.
Who hated your freedoms? you obviously did yourselves because nobody else took them away.
You are a nation of cowards and bullies, liars and psychopaths. Nobody wants any of what you are selling. 36 percent and shrinking, remember. Think you can turn that around? Ha!
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Aug 30, 2005 at 6:19 PM
Oh Natalie, sycophantic little Natalie with the open mind. The Hitchens article is an opinion piece, it draws some longs bows and is so hollow that by complimenting it you just sank to an all time low. You have no mind. No powers of discernment and no morals.
Iraq war was started and has been maintained on the basis of constantly changing lies. It’s too late to justify a war after the fact when this is the case. By attacking Iraq America has lost all it’s respect in the world. The feeling is a combination of fear and loathing.
America has never been less secure, not just Muslims but people of all faiths are ready to take up arms against you. Morally bankrupt. You are not only killing and maiming more people than any other evil empire has done, you are showing no regard for the safety and health of your own soldiers.
Babylon the Great Whore. Rabbit will sing in your nation’s destruction and good riddance.
Just hope the world is still liveable when you’re gone.
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Aug 30, 2005 at 6:30 PM
“Rabbit will sing in your nation’s destruction and good riddance. “
Well you can just fcuk yourself!
It’s a damn global network of powermongers and this country is made up of the best and the worst like any country on earth.
“I am everyday people”
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 30, 2005 at 7:06 PM
pick of the litter. Rabbit asked for that, and expected it and apologises. In fact I know there are many Americans who are deeply ashamed of what is being done in their name. Rabbit is also well aware that the problem is as you say a
“damn global network of powermongers”
who are using the USA as an attack dog. However, the fact is that the position being held by that shrinking 36 percent of your country is so insane and abhorent to civilized people that America has become a hated pariah beyond it’s borders. Indeed many people who would have considered Americans as friends and cousins automatically only three or four years ago would now wish your nation to just drop off the planet. It seems obvious that the main concern which is mobilising many of you against the war is no more than your own underreported bu moderate losses. Still not a lot of thought for the previously peaceful and stable Iraq or it’s people who only a few years ago had no beef with the USA.
So while I am sorry to say it, since the greediest nation on earth has gone berserk and seems bent on setting our world up for destruction, it has become the following scenario.
Either you Americans reign in your belligerence and soon or the balance of world opinion will decide that we are better off without you. We are also everyday people. Those Iraqis are also everyday people. The difference is our armies are not trashing and looting your country and planet.
Since you are not one of the 36 percent you should be angry to be bunched in together with those maniacs. Bad luck.
By the way, by supporting the US as we’ve done my country has also lost a huge amount of respect and Rabbit is ashamed. At least we don’t use DU weapons and we have treated the Iraqi’s with the decency, respect and fairness for which we still have a reputation.
That said, Australia has become known as the “land of the arse licker” thanks to an evil little bastard of a Prime Minister. We are in line for retaliatory attacks on our soil anytime and we deserve it. I for one do not automatically see innocent victims of so called terrorist attacks. First I would want to know where each victim stood on the issue of having invaded others’ lands without provocation. Some like you or I may be innocent. Natalie would not be an innocent victim and would deserve to be splattered all over the place, just like the “innocent” Iraqis her army is murdering in droves.
Got that Natalie? In fact Colonel, (yes you are) you deserve to be fed depleted uranium as a daily diet for as long as you remained alive.
Hope when the War Crimes Tribunals are finished with you scum one day that we can get screen savers of your faces as you feel the end of the rope. I’d even swap yours out every few days with the Shrub. Remember Helbig, you are marked now. That shrinking support base must be getting hard keep your balance on.
Know what is cute? The lower that number goes before the filth in power are outed, the worse the anger you will be facing. Just imagine all those americans realising they have achieved the status of the Germans or Japanese in 1946, looking for someone to blame. The ones who are going to be most dangerous, are the sort who will stay the longest believing the bull. They lack all reason and will be desperate to find scapegoats, they will tear people like you to pieces, they will burn you at the stake.
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Aug 30, 2005 at 9:31 PM
Oh and guys, unlike the the Nazis there won’t be any countries left who will shelter you when you try and make a run for it. Nobody will want your filthy criminal junta when they are looking for a port in the storm. Oh maybe Pakistan? Would you like to spend your last years hiding out in Pakistan?
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Aug 30, 2005 at 9:37 PM
Sorry to jump on again but there is one thing which has been raised on this thread which really needs to be challenged.
The idea that the “West” is best, the suggestion that our societies are more loving. I must inform you that you are completely uninformed on this point. We share very similar culture/society with USA (Australia). I know that you like we have the same sort of familial ties. Most families see little enough of their siblings when they become adults, the whole concept of extended family is fading fast in our societies. The reasons for this are probably the all pervasive materialsim, but the fact is indisputable. Even a few decades ago it was much better and everyone would have known their grandparents and cousins, first and second etc. No more.
Whats more the friendliness or helpfullness of everyday people, especially in the cities is woeful. In fact suspicion and avoidance of each other is more often the norm. Now I’m an Aussie and lots of Americans have told me how friendly and helpful we are, to put this in perspective.
The problem with your views about the “East” is that they are obviously based upon what the “West” says about them. That just doesn’t cut it. You see the western view of eastern society is based upon concentrating upon the differences and especially the extremes, which are just that. How would we fare if we were to be judged on our extremes by the East?
I shall tell you. We would be described as arrogant, immoral materialists. Our society would be seen to be full of Murder, Rape and Prostitution. Guess what? That is exactly how we are seen by the “East”.
Now, Rabbit knows some people from “East”, Thais, Malaysians, Chinese, Iraqis and Iranians, among others. One thing noticeable to Rabbit is that the men and women of these lands are in general much more honest, sincere and generally loving than yours and my countrymen. Quite simply I envy them their big happy extended families, the ease and co-operation with which they deal with neighbors etc. On balance they are actually way out in front in the Love stakes.
Rabbit is telling you something he knows, here. If you had actually travelled and met “Eastern” people in their own lands you could not argue this point. Nobody who has travelled these places would disgree. Of course if by travel you mean in uniform and with a gun in your hand then you may not have seen it so clearly, but Rabbit has heard many returned vets from Iraq say similar.
I’m sorry fellow westerners, we honestly don’t have anything these people need or want, whether or not you can understand that.
All they want from us is to be left to live their lives their way. Besides which this war has nothing to do with human values, how ludicrous an idea is that. Its about oil.
We can pretend there are other reasons if we want, but nobody else believes us.
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Aug 30, 2005 at 11:08 PM
Rabbit says,
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 31, 2005 at 6:09 AM
The “West” is best is an exaggeration and I don’t think the “East” is least. No doubt no one has a lock on love. I only suggest that cultures, which are not neccessarily wholly Eastern or Western, that are patriarchial/one sided and sexually repressive have little to offer for the future. I agree that cultures should be left alone as they wish, though ideas will always find a way to cross borders.
It is true that traditional European culture has a terrible history of enslavement and racial prejudice (and genocide). Western manifest destiny has left a horrible legacy, an ugly footprint across the continents by way of unrestrained greed and religious intolerance.
Now it is the global corporate conglomerates who enslave every culture even as they lift some out of poverty.
If the world judges the U.S. by the horrors and abuses at Abu Garaib and Guantanamo, by the horrors of warfare and blatant hegemony, by the actions of the liars sitting in office now, it is undertandable that the U.S. has used up its goodwill and now faces condemnation. I have spoken out against these horrors and abuses of power on ITT many times. Much of it started with a corrupted election (see http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/P320/ )
I could hardly believe that Bush earned another term after the tortures of Abu Garaib were widely revealed and I am appalled that no one in the upper echelons of military rank have been held accountable. The neo-con cabal has practically pulled a coup on gov’t power structure and the balances of power are diminishing rapidly. The evil actions of these naked powermongers do not reflect the entire moral substance of our general population however and we are full of every color under the sun.
I hope that the “sheeple” who accept everything matter-of-factly will wake up to the massive corruption. The media has been an effective tool for the propaganda machine and it has lost its way. Maybe the world needs to put some of those responsible for warcrimes on trial to expose what has been done behind the backs of The People.
I don’t see relishing in an entire nation’s destruction as very productive though. We have already lost a major U.S. city (New Orleans) and the gulf coast has been devastated. We may need our military reserves to return here and actually help instead of serving to oversee chaos overseas. Bush is bankrupting this country so you may very well see your wish come true, but he won’t suffer, it is the common folks who will suffer. I’d like to see America rid of the corruption, corporate welfare, and unchecked military power and secrecy but I would not be happy to witness our country fall into despair and chaos.
I got the"U.S. Blues”.
“His job is to shed light not disaster.”
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 31, 2005 at 8:37 AM
Just to add, I know that the “west is best” phrase is arrogant and I just used it for its punch, so sorry for the offense. I do hold dear the faith that every creature on this planet deserves dignity and that environmental respect is key to good health and prosperity. If every incorporated entity would be true to the health of all peoples and the good earth, resist being slave to profit’s lonely ultimatum, and would not disregard its responsibities for good citizenship and stewardship, the world would be better for it.
Posted by pick of the litter on Aug 31, 2005 at 11:38 AM
Whattheheck…I certainly do understand there are plenty of threads of thought from Christian Conservatives, just as there are different ideas that come from the religious left. Generalizations are almost impossible to avoid when discussing topics such as these in a limited available space, we all do it.
Shoot, there are much worse sides to the religious right then I poked fun at. How about those white supremist groups preaching from the Bible and toting weapons around in the woods? They aren’t on FBI terrorist watch lists for nothing. Or recently convicted killer Rudolph, I’m sure he didn’t get his ideas just on his own singleminded study of the Bible.
Heck, I can even feel a sense of alliance with Paul Weyrich (long time Christian conservative) on issues such as being against media consolidation, opposition to the Patriot Act and promoting election reforms such as third party participation. Yet, Weyrich and I probably would not agree much on understanding Jesus and his message.
Beyond that, I’m a bit dissappointed that I have led the discussion away from the Tom Hayden post. On the other hand I’m surprised the postings have continued on this long in comparisons to other In These Times articles.
And in light of Katrina, I’ve somewhat found my interest lies elsewhere for the moment. I’m in simple awe of the damage done. I’ve been to New Orleans twice and memories of those times contrasting to the TV images I see post-Katrina are worlds apart. It’s hard to fathom such a huge community under a long term evacuation order. They are attempting to completely empty a city of about 600,000 people under extreme circumstances for probably many months. The relief efforts show the times when America can be thought of as a good country because politics be damned when we mobilize in dire emergencies.
Posted by Jon B on Aug 31, 2005 at 12:37 PM
pick of the litter, how right you are about the common folk as the ones to suffer. I saw a report today about a poor section of Biloxi that in general had to stay and ride out the storm because they simply didn’t have the money to purchase fuel to drive out prior to the storm. It was end of the month wait for check time. Their area was flattened and the death toll is unknown. I heard one woman from Mississippi who explained that she didn’t leave because the casino she worked for still hadn’t decided to close, a casino now destroyed. The rich homeowners along the coast were long gone before Katrina hit and probably will easily recoup their losses.
I couldn’t believe my ears when I saw a network cut to Bush when he was in San Diego. He did what any president should do, he informed about where to send money for aid in relief efforts, but then almost without taking a breath he launched into his blather about protecting against terrorism and Iraq, and thank God the network decided to cut away from what was probably another long winded fear mongering war promoting chant. And how come he takes three days to get his ass back to Washington?
Bush is so out of touch. An in touch president would have been back in Washington by the first images of destruction. We would have heard numerous speeches by now about Katrina and all the issues that need to be dealt with. And that would be the only subject talked about from the White House. He’s suppose to give a speech at 500pm today from Washington, if I hear one word about terrorism or Iraq, I will be up screaming at my TV.
Posted by Jon B on Aug 31, 2005 at 1:46 PM
I think we should all take the few minutes it might require to contribute whatever we can to whatever relief/charity organization we deem most efficient and trustworthy in order to help alleviate the suffering due to Katrina.
And then, take another few minutes to urge others in your sphere or cyber-sphere to do the same.
Dollars are what are needed. Little else helps, unless of course you are in a position to volunteer.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 31, 2005 at 5:09 PM
A very meandering thread, it’s pretty cool to see it evolve across the days, even though we’re supposed to remain on-topic. Not the sniping, of course, which is truly boring.
It’s going to be difficult to leave Iraq in less of a mess than is currently the case, but the White House ought to prioritize a withdrawal plan. I continue to believe that conducting two wars at once was an idea that should never have been implemented. Conducting two wars in the context of two major tax cuts also beggars the imagination. But here we are, and a sudden pull-out would surely lead to even more catastrophic violence than Iraq is now experiencing. I continue to say it should never have begun, but begin it did, and now we have to deal with the aftermath.
The government ought to formulate a plan that might include some of the following provisions, which America should underwrite: 1) increased as well as more rapid training of Iraqi security personnel, 2) a commitment to infrastructural repairs as an adjunct to an improved security profile (or the insurgents will just destroy what is built), 3) investment in medical training, drugs, and surgical supplies aimed at strengthening the Iraqi health sector, 4) sponsorship of Iraqi-conducted search-and-destroy missions aimed at weapons caches now accessible to the insurgents, 5) joint US-Iraqi surveillance and patrolling of border areas to halt the flow of additional fighters and armaments, 6) further encouragement and active solicitation of international assistance in any or all of the above provisions, and 7) a timetable for withdrawing US troops linked to security-based criteria. The timetable may need to be secret to keep the insurgents guessing.
If the Bush team is doing any of these now (effectively, I mean), good. News of it would be welcome.
Needed to implement all these provisions: personnel and, especially, money. It’s unfortunate that the government’s deficit will be increased by the costs of these actions. It’s even more unfortunate that the country is having to juggle two wars at once, at least one of which began under, shall we say, “debatable” circumstances (I’m being exceedingly generous in my phrasing right there!), but as I’ve said, here we are. The point is, the US owes Iraq big-time, and the debt won’t be paid just by sponsoring the formation of a new government there. It’s going to cost plenty to make the kind of improvements necessary for the “new Iraq” to compare favorably with Saddam’s Iraq, barring the violence his regime visited upon so many. But the destruction of basic infrastructure and the total lack of a secure environment makes life hugely difficult for millions, even those whose prayers were answered when Saddam was out of the picture.
Aside: What does the US do if the new Iraqi government behaves brutally toward its citizens?
To conclude: US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan have so far carried out an incomplete agenda. Both countries are owed heavily, but I’ll “remain on-topic” and focus on Iraq. The debt owed to Iraq will not begin to be paid by the simple backing of a new regime. The implied benefit of the war was that Iraqis would be distinctly better off if Saddam was ousted and a new form of government was established with the help of the US. That doesn’t just mean a constitution, or a new electoral system, it means measurable, tangible betterment of ordinary people’s lives over and above regime-change. It’s a big debt that’s owed, it’s going to cost plenty to pay it, and the people of America have been led to this obligation by the policy of conducting war there. That obligation (and why it exists) is something we should all acknowledge. Get used to the idea of paying; you’re going to.
Posted by Kuya on Sep 1, 2005 at 2:17 AM
The “East” looks to the morals,(or lack) advocated by our culture. They look at the rate of violent crime and rapes and they see more than they are used to in their cultures. Despite the hubris of anyone who wants to deny it, the Islamic culture has very high ideals towards which the majority of Muslims are striving more closely than many christians are to their own. If you want to make a comparison, consider that among some of the torture techniques US soldiers are perpetrating on Muslim men include forcing them to masturbate, to be seen naked by women and to have women do blatantly sexual things to them. Now how many of you sweet american boys would have a problem with any of that Rabbit wonders? Doesn’t this tell you anything. Abu Ghraib, GITMO were not a surprise to Muslims, they already expected that was the true nature of our called culture.
All you clowns who keep crowing about bringing “freedom” to others. Open up your eyes and look around you, you can’t even hang onto the freedom which your fathers took for granted. You have not brought freedom to the Iraqi people, you have destroyed the only island of secuar security in a sea of potential Islamic Fundamentalism You have, predictably, we all said it you didn’t listen and now what have we? The beginnings of a greater Shiite conclave than the world has ever seen, fundamentalist and totally antipathetic to all US interests, and you did it, all by yourselves. Kuya has got it right.
Just a little something to let you know how bad things are looking for the USA. You are running out of friends.
A mainstream Australian Newspaper here describes Bush and his administration as:
“The Emperor of Vulgarity
a strutting Texan mountebank, with his chimpanzee smirk and his born-again banalities delivered in that constipated syntax that sounds the way cold cheeseburgers look, and his grinning plastic wife, and his scheming junta of neo-con spivs, shamans, flatterers and armchair warmongers, and his sinuous evasions and his brazen lies, and his sleight of hand theft from the American poor, and his rape of the environment, and his lethal conviction that the world must submit to his Pax Americana or be bombed into charcoal.—Mike Carlton, Sydney Morning Herald, January 22, 2005
That’s your leader he’s talking about and you know its accurate.
Nobody is joining your cause, many are abandoning it and nobody is coming back. The ship is leaking like a sieve. By all means stay aboard, frankly Rabbit always thought rats should go down with their ship. Best that way.
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Sep 1, 2005 at 4:33 AM
Natalie, you are such a kind and loving soul, so thoughful and concerned for the safety and well being of yuour fellow man.
Perhaps you could send them a little package of the depleted uranium you have been SHILLING for on the other thread. Just what they need to warm them up don’t you think, and so safe too.
Natalie you forget you resigned from the human race in the support of an inhumane, illegal weapon of mass destruction.
Thanks very much “girl” but those of us who actually own consciences don’t need your type to tell us how to care for each other, how to support and love our fellow man. We’ve got it thanks. Go back to killing innocent people in the name of lies, its what you’re best at.
Sorry Rabbit is for New Orleans, but things would have been much better if POTUS hadn’t gutted the budget of emergency services and sent so many national guard to “fight for your freedoms”.
Your little input here looks as false and unconvincing as everything else you’ve said. You are a complete put on, but by all means keep on squirming. Oh and Rabbit has heard a whisper we should have your ID shortly.
Won’t that be fun.
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Sep 1, 2005 at 5:13 AM
Natalie, I had two days ago sent money to the Red Cross. I suggest to all the Red Cross will be the best and probably most honest agency to send money to.
I’ve been getting more angry as I watch the lack of evacuation. I can visually see live on cable the thousands standing around on that freeway overpass. Where are those military transport helicopters my tax dollars have paid for? Far too many in Iraq I have to assume.
Last night on Larry King I saw him interview some national guard commander who used the word “ruthlessly” to describe how to deal with the looting. And Bush this morning used the term “zero tolerance.” I’m sorry, but the vast majority of these people are not looters, they are refugees and survivalists. Until they get evacuated (who knows when that’s going to happen) they can loot all they want as far as I’m concerned. I see them taking diapers, dry clothes, footwear, food, water, floating devices, etc. If relief for these people in those same items were forthcoming, “looting” would be much alleviated.
And it’s quite clear from the images, these are poor black folk in New Orleans. We still haven’t dealt with poverty in America and now the world gets to see the results. Spending hundreds of billions in Iraq is so wrong when we see how America can’t or won’t deal with deep social problems here at home.
The median income in Biloxi was $18,000 a year prior to Katrina, that’s below poverty level and that’s despite all those casinos lining the coast nearby. The survivors are now jobless and homeless, their meager income is now nothing.
I can’t for the life of me understand how reporters can show the total lack of response to the many thousands just sitting around waiting for help and that the powers that be can’t seem to reach those very people the reporters can. I’ve only been to New Orleans twice and I know exactly where those people are located on the overpass, our government doesn’t seem to know. I don’t understand how I saw musician Harry Connick Jr. able to get in to downtown New Orleans to be interviewed by MSNBC this morning, but evacuation vehicles can’t? Outrageous.
And I certainly understand the difficulties and logistics, but this is three days later. The poor countries in Asia did a better job after the Tsunami. What about airdrops of supplies? We can’t start dropping water bottles by now, three days after knowledge that clean water is virtually non-existent? If they don’t like the “looting” then airdrops of those simple supplies is the answer until evacuation is possible.
I’m certainly becoming suspicious that this is about rich and poor. The rich got out, the poor wait for the shoddy response from the government.
Posted by Jon B on Sep 1, 2005 at 7:23 AM
Back to Iraq.
Kula, your 7 point plan certainly has merit, but not with the losers, liars and thieves that run our country today. Their version of your plan is colored with neocon ideology. They want a capitalist country in our image, the poor be damned. They still, unbelievably, think this is still achievable or at least that’s what they want to project to Americans. Parts of your plan are unrealistic.
Do you really think we can protect the borders of Iraq? We can’t do that in our own country. It would take a massive increase of troops to even attempt it. International assistance, not going to happen. Our coalition has been breaking apart and most countries have come to see this as solely our problem, leaving us to twist in the wind, (like we should as we lied our way in, we will have to lie our way out). I could point out many difficulties in detail of all your points, not to make light of your attempt at a solution, I understand your attempt.
The thing is, the Bush criminals have no interest in your plan apart from anything that might get Iraq off our TV screens.
Posted by Jon B on Sep 1, 2005 at 7:50 AM
I guess there must be some sort enjoyment to carry on this blame orgy, but I fail to appreciate it…
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 1, 2005 at 12:42 PM
And just what could he do from Washington he couldn
Posted by Jon B on Sep 1, 2005 at 2:32 PM
Jon B,
Do you realize the immensity of what has happened in New Orleans? I have a cousin down there who is superintendent of the water dept. in one of the suburbs. It was only last night that he was even able to get word out that he and his family are OK, but their house is not.
People are working around the clock rescuing others
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 1, 2005 at 5:10 PM
For your info WTH the government didn’t confiscate our guns. It is so boring trying to correct all the falsehoods goons like you live by. We had changes made to our gun laws which resulted in some types of control increasing over what was already a strict regime. Actually the result that many Australians, including many older more conservative farmers for example have become deeply suspicious of the government’s plans. Many have simply surrendered there legal guns, dropped their licences and purchased much more powerful firearms which are readily available on the black market. Don’t worry my little oistrich we are well aware of what’s going on. Trouble is that even though our prime minister is as worthless as your POTUS, he is however a very intelligent man and a real politician, he has managed to avoid most of the crud that your Shrub and Bliar are burying themselves in.
As for crime which actually doesn’t seem to be reduced by massive gun ownership, witness the fact that the USA has a much higher rate of violent crime than we could even concieve of.
Oh and Port Arthur is known to have been a false flag attack, just like 911 and 7/7. See:
F:\Andrew MacGregor.htm
Rabbit knows you SHILLS lack the subtlety to comprehend that there is actually a broad range of opinion opposed to you. The world is not black and white at all. rabbit for one is not proud of his once respected and loved nation. We are still held in infinately higher regard than USA, but falling fast. Did Rabbit say Australia was great? NO. You are just using your Shilling tricks to avoid the real issues if they are too hard and instead inventing things about your opposition to give you an apparent point. Not buying.
Don’t pretend you still have a real democracy or any freedoms worth exporting, you got less than many places you think need your garbage society. PATRIOT ACT is probably something you think of as a necessary in a free and democratic society. Actually the PATRIOT ACT cancels your free and democratic society, get a clue, or else keep coming across as an excuse for more of the same and a redneck to boot.
You WTH are living in a false Utopia which is so far removed from reality that it’s hilarious.
Rabbit is watching the terrible situation in New Orleans and is very concerned about what seems to be happening. Does it seem to anyone else that the authorities were being remarkably lax in allowing things to get as far out of hand as they seem to be? I am really concerned that they are deliberately letting things get as much out of hand as possible here to justify an even more massive clampdown. Even before the recent round of clampdowns the police and national guard would have dealt harshly with looters and especially people who resisted them, especially to ensure that things didn’t escalate. Rabbit fears they are setting these poor beggars up for a massive and brutal response. This could be a perfect chance to bring down the final curtain.
Good luck Americans, Rabbit has a bad feeling about this one.
WTH do you think you can do better at just trying to make an intelligent point. It is getting boring just pointing out your delusions and shortcomings as a person.
America has a border problem, natural disasters without sufficient manpower or funds to deal adequately and massive poverty as well as a collapsing economy. Don’t you think it is time you stopped killing people in far away lands “for their own good” and brought your troops home? Oh of course you guys are just so altruistic and generous you will sacrifice whatever you have to, for “freedom and democracy for all”.
That’s why we love you so much. You are just such all round good and enlightened people. No more so than your criminal military junta. That by the way is an accurate description.
The junta stole government despite losing the election. It has broken many international laws including the Geneva convention, Criminal Military Junta.
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Sep 1, 2005 at 6:23 PM
Whattheheck, you asked a rhetoric question but fail to comprehend the true answer, so let Rabbit help you
“How do you separate the crooks from people who are just trying to survive? A tough situation.”
Tough for whom? A gerbil?
Actually the two groups will be separate from each other. The crooks will be obviously breaking the law, while those people just surviving will obviously be doing that. Maybe you intend to just shoot them on sight instead of first challenging them, that would explain your reasoning of course and sounds consistent with your attitudes.
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Sep 1, 2005 at 7:21 PM
WTH I just can’t get past it, everytime I glance back at your drivel more crap becomes apparent.
What makes you think that the atrocities mentioned above are not a continuing problem? People like you have so far ensured that the whole thing is being kept as out of site as possible which is why the issues of US abuses in its illegal prisons has not yet been resolved. We’ve gone from coverup to denial, to scapegoating to more denial and now the most horrible pictures yet proving your base nature are trying to reach the light of day while your military masters and sycophants run another attempted desperate coverup.
You are a real peach Whattheheck.
Rabbit can hardly wait for your next bit of
sycophantic and infantile sloganeering.
Figured out the difference between survivors and criminals yet? Of course you havn’t. You are a deluded, sycophantic gerbil who has overdosed on hubris pills.
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Sep 1, 2005 at 8:55 PM
Hello Jon B,
To clarify, my plan represented something that I would like to see, a set of provisions that I believe ought to be implemented by the administration and, more to the point, ought to be an accepted priority by the American public. I believe all of my points could be put into effect if only the will to do so was there, e.g. border protection in Iraq. Just as here, it’s a matter of deciding to invest the resources toward solving the problem. In other words, I see it as less an objective impossibility and more of a policy decision and a choice of allocation.
I think the main idea I was hoping to transmit was that America is in the position of having a moral obligation. That obligation can be met with the devotion of resources to making Iraq more secure than it is now and remedying the destruction that the war brought about, e.g. water systems, electricity grids, all the things that have been in severe disrepair for more than 2 years (not to mention those aspects of destruction that pre-date the invasion). For me, ousting Saddam will not relieve the US of their obligation, and in fact doing that set the stage for that obligation.
It’s certainly true that each of the provisions I’m advocating (not least of which would be gaining international help) will require a change in the direction of the administration’s emphasis. But as I say, I see these not as being truly unrealistic, i.e. incapable of being carried out no matter the motivations of the actors, but mainly a function of political will.
Posted by Kuya on Sep 1, 2005 at 9:16 PM
Kuya, for the sake of clarification, Rabbit agrees with you. Us Aussies too, do owe the Iraqi’s something now that we’ve trashed their country. But in the absence of even the most rudimentary form of humanity in yours or our administrations its best we just get the hell out of there and start cleaning up our own backyards. Let the civilised world clean up our mess, we can only make things worse.
We might just be better off compensating our victims and blessing them by never again attacking them without cause. Until we can figure out how to maintain real free and democratic societies ourselves without resorting to lies and massive propaganda campaigns, and Patriot Acts we have no business assuming we can improve anyone else’s lot. Forget international help, get out of the way and let decent people try and sort out the US adventure gone wrong.
Just as a courtesy, we could commit ourselves to never doing something like it again. You know, to kind of repent. Of course Rabbit is forgetting that we haven’t done anything to repent of, as WTH is no doubt about to blurt out in his usual informed and rational manner.
Looking forward Rabbit is to the education so ably given by the great sage, Whattheheck. Here is a prime example of what is going so drastically wrong with the USA lately.
Come on down whattheheck, dance monkey, dance for us!
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Sep 1, 2005 at 11:09 PM
Hello Rabbitvoz,
I would certainly like to see the end of the Iraq debacle, but I think there must be some preparatory work done first. Sadly, this would extend the timeframe, no doubt. But I fear that a quick abandonment would lead to all those weapons caches being emptied and the death-tools used all over Iraq, much more than at present. It would compound the horror, I feel.
Talk about a messed up set of choices!
And as far as civilized people taking charge, wow, if only I could name someone who would be able to do so effectively. Actually, I can’t name anyone who would even try. I think they’d leave the Iraqis to their civil war and try to strip the carcass once they were exhausted.
Sorry for the dismal assessment, but I don’t think of it as outlandish. Really one hell of a complicated mess!
Posted by Kuya on Sep 2, 2005 at 1:19 AM
With respect to all the thought-provoking postings, a big, tough bully will get away with kicking sand in the faces of weaklings only so long. . . and the results are often well-deserved.
Posted by cripes on Sep 2, 2005 at 5:58 AM
Natalie,
You claim we have no right to accuse you of using two or more names?Yes we do.All you have to do is look at what some person,known by consensus as Jack Barnes or Michael Hardesty did on this site from April to July of this year.That particular chat room gremlin is,and I’ll be willing to bet pounds to pence on this,probably the reason we have the new security on this site and some of the regular and continual posters vigilant for his return.Not to mention the reason that watching hte last few minutes of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back gets more and more funny each time I view it.
As well many of us watch for posts
that are done in this format and
call people Troskyist boobs and
sound like a mixture of Joseph
McCarthy,Robert Novak,and Ann Coulter.
Frankly,having perused this site since March,it still puzzles me you right-wingers come here and spout off.Perhaps lack of attention as a child?Well,in that case,there’s always karaoke.Maybe they just like to antagonize anyone who disagrees with them?
That’s actually refreshing as the right’s usual strategy is to demonize the opposition,call them insane,or just out to sell a book and make a quick buck.
By the way,are we allowed to change our posting names?I’m curious.I thought of one I’d like better.
What
Would
Overbearing
Obnoxious
Demagogues
Say
has worn a little bit thin.
Posted by wwoods on Sep 2, 2005 at 5:59 AM
Sadly, Yes.
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Sep 2, 2005 at 6:02 AM
Rabbit,
Cool,thanks for the info.Much appreciated.Unfrotunately it gives license to ol’ Jack to do more mischief.If you want to see what i mean,if for no reason than morbid curiosity,check out the multiple hit sites on the home page of this site
Posted by wwoods on Sep 2, 2005 at 6:34 AM
Rabbit,
Are you becoming Rabid? Calm down
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 2, 2005 at 6:56 AM
Yeh wwoods (what do you want to be called?) Rabbit knows what you mean. The thing is they do it anyway. Just keep “catapulting the propaganda”. The fact is they thrive on the sort of debate that James offers them because that allows them to start filling up the thread with what appears to be scientific debate and lots of apparent references. Copying at least in format the way “real” posters with a clue do. The more you argue the issues with them the more other highly debatable or just false issues they will add to the mix. Eventually if they can’t win the debate, which they seldom can they at least manage to clutter up the thread rendering it of questionable worth to any but the most dedicated. That is precisely why Rabbit has perfected the art of bringing them onto his turf, before belting them into humility. Draw them out using their common natures. The sort of people we are dealing with are deeply flawed, they have massive insecurities and are genuinely desperate. Rabbit who is a deeply spiritual soul, would not normally be deliberately nasty to anyone, partly because he is uncommonly sensitive to others. However, there are no limits when it comes to fighting liars and beastmen. Rabbit is unmerciful and has had various satisfying encounters about the net. Have seen trolls off before, usually things settle down and Rabbit moves on again.
A sort of Lone Ranger Rabbit.
Anyhow I’m skipping back to the DU thread again Roger is on his last legs and he is becoming particularly hysterical, right about now.
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Sep 2, 2005 at 7:59 AM
“Rabid”
Whattheheck are you blathering about.
You think out of sight out of mind. Sure there is plenty more crap going on, you forget that many people are being released from your illegal prisons and talking about US treatment. All those people released some after years, are innocent. Witness they were released. Many were still tortured.
We were talking about looters in New Orleans, now you are on about Iraqi terrorists.
For your information WTH there are mostly just freedom fighters facing your unfortunate troops who are themselves the terrorists while thay are engaged in an illegal and unjustified war of agression against a sovereign nation.
You don’t advocate trials or questions you bastard, you want to shoot them.
As for restraint I agree they seem to be remarkably restrained about actually helping anyone. They are too busy getting ready to shoot them I expect.
“Economics, however, are so globally interwoven that the collapse will miss very few.”
That’s right you exactly why we wish you guys would just cool it, we’re all going to cop it, thanks to you idiots and your mentally retarded leadership. Frankly WTH with Dubya as your president I’m amazed that any American still has the gall to pretend you have anything to say that anyone wants or needs to hear. You are a completely redundant nation as far as improving the world goes, we are just getting used to moving on without you. We can’t wait to become more peaceful and more loving and more responsible about the environment until you cowboys think its a good idea. You are not leading anyone, you’re marching away to the beat of a drum nobody else can hear. Your emperor has no clothes yet your country is full of discussions of the royal wardrobe.
Yes WTH of course you should be spending less time on the computer and more at the TV. You are an American, you go and attend to your duties now, get in front of your TV. That should help.
You noticed the poor handling after all did you? Seems so poor as to be even beyond the usual farce that hubristic nations endure. Rabbit wonders why. Strange, wrong somehow. This was after all a predictable, expected event.
“These poor people are in a survival mode. Like a wounded animal they will even attack someone who is trying to help. This is totally understandable
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Sep 2, 2005 at 8:42 AM
whattheheck, writes to me…Do you realize the immensity of what has happened in New Orleans?
I most certainly do. I expect, no wait, DEMAND, that my federal government do its utmost to “realize the immensity” when these vastly tragic disasters happen.
I look to my president who was slow to understand the enormity of the situation. On Tuesday, while I was watching on TV the city of New Orleans filling with water from broken levees (and this was delayed video mind you) my president was giving his lame speech in San Diego, a full 95% was about Iraq. The only consideration toward Katrina aftermath he decide to interrupt his Iraq diatribe with was phone numbers for the Red Cross and Salvation Army (NGOs). Then he got into Airforce One to jet to Arizona for a speech on illegal imigration. By this time the reports were that New Orleans was 80% underwater.
Are you going to defend his lack of response to a lack of knowledge of a city underwater? Are you going to try to claim that in those hours none of his entourage was monitoring the media about Katrina blowback? That no one was able to glimpse the images I saw and knew instintively that a drowned city is a catastrophe?
Then let’s follow Bush some more. Off to the ranch he goes. We don’t hear a peep from this guy or ANYONE in his administration (except the FEMA director) until 200pm the next day, when members of his cabinet back in Washington begin to announce a major relief effort. So from the time he got back to the ranch until early afternoon the next day apparently Bush sat and watched TV coverage (at least I hope he did) and it took that long to announce a massive relief effort and not by him I might add.
Excuse me, but the Lazy Bush Ranch has reporters within shouting distance at the ready for any shred of vocal stretching Bush might bless them with. He could have hit primetime Tuesday night with something to assure Americans that our administration was actually paying attention to the aftermath and further that they would do everything possible to help.
He then flew over the affected areas with a pool photographer (no other reporters were allowed access) to snap a picture of him looking out the window, how quaint. Finally we actually get to hear him speak, to deem Americans worthy of his wisdom at 500pm.
There’s no excuse from the chimp nor from you to convince me that Bush was not doing what he does best during a critical 24 hours, masterbate.
Now I could describe in vivid detail all that I saw during the Bush silence timeline, but I don’t nearly have the time nor space in a web post. In fact, Whatheheck, you think back to all that you saw during those many hours of TV coverage and ask yourself, might have Bush addessed our nation sooner? That a federal relief plan defined for Americans would have been a tremendous help?
I will give you one hint of what was happening in New Orleans during the Bush no show, THE CITY WAS UNDERWATER! THERE WAS NO POWER! THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION! THERE WERE PEOPLE DIEING! THERE WERE DEAD BODIES FLOATING AROUND! Should I go on to tell of the enormity of the situation I saw?
But go ahead, make your excuses. Bush never makes mistakes, he is always right, unlike everyone else on the planet. But that position is a sinking ship these days. There is growing anger across America. A good majority of Americans prior to Katrina and certainly after this week now understand he makes mistakes, big ones.
Pray to your Bush God. Defend him on bended knee for all I care. Americans are abandoning the “Bush Ship Lollypop” as we speak. And more will in the coming days as they get a good look at his no show timeline.
He will have a tough time now claiming he is America’s protector because he couldn’t get his ass in gear when Katrina came ashore.
Posted by Jon B on Sep 2, 2005 at 9:13 AM
Dear Jon & Rabid,
Did you guys have a life before George Bush took office? Do you possibly have any other topics you are interested in besides Bushwacking?
Since you apparently start your rebuttal before completely reading anything, I guess I’ll just wish you well and say goodbye.
Have a nice Day.
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 2, 2005 at 12:07 PM
Since what you are most interested in is apologising for the doofus it must seem like that’s all we’re interested in to you. These people are always so two dimensional, notice Jon?
That’s right WTH go and watch TV, as you said:
“I should be spending less time on the computer and more at the TV.”
So you should, how else will you know what’s happening in the world. Keep up the good work WTH, see ya mate.
Don’t know about you Jon but Rabbit actually has had quite a life so far, eventful, fun and very interesting. Rabbit still having quite a life, but worries muchly about his children’s lives in the future, WTH and the other dittoheads are bringing down. Without Bush they were nothing, just people we could ignore, make jokes about, but now they have a leader, oh my.
Doesn’t the thought of all of them, sitting in front of their TVs slavering at the destruction. Listening to the words of the POTUS as he explains why their countrymen are actually terrorists but luckily since he’s a “WAR President” he is going to do what it takes, the hard work he is so good at. Just make you wish you could have a life like theirs?
Oh Jon, Rabbit feels so deprived, how I wish I had such a life.
Here’s the latest wisdom from the fuerer:
“What we had in New Orleans is a growing disaster: The hurricane hit, that was one disaster; then the levees broke, that was another disaster; then the floods came; that became a third disaster.”
- G.W.Bush
Go here anyone reading, New Orleans thread on fire.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_09/007026.php
Posted by Rabbitvoz on Sep 2, 2005 at 7:20 PM
Yes Rabbit, WTH was nothing but a Bush apologist. He does believe Bush is the only perfect human on earth.
I do have a life both now and before, I bashed Clinton as well, but as he isn’t our president anymore he is old news and has nothing to do with the catastrophes that emit from the White House these days.
Did you catch Bush in Mississippi? He was giddy about rebuilding Trent Lott’s house and said he couldn’t wait to sit on his future front porch. How insensitive can he get to the poor? One elite politician fawning over the other, disgusting.
As I watch the news of Katrina aftermath, the reporters are very angry at all politicians. It has been so refreshing to see the media get a backbone. We may have the beginnings of an election revolution at last. 2006, could be the year of “throw the bums out” that I’ve been waiting for.
I simply loved Anderson Cooper addressing various fat cat elected officials. He’d interupt them and say things like “Don’t you GET what’s going on down here?” He told one politician (can’t remember which one) that he was tired of politicians patting each other on the back while getting nothing done. Joe Scarborough was many times scathing to every politician, particularily the federal government (and that meant Bush of course, and Joe is a Republican).
Once the media turns on you, forgetaboutit. Bush is on the way out of town. I’ve heard a number of people who were twice voters for Bush express disgust with him since Katrina. I just sent Bush an email and told him to do the right thing and resign. Just wait until the polls come out, his approval rating is going to set new presidential lows. And if they poll whether to impeach him, it will be above 50%.
The march on Washington Sept. 24th just got bigger thanks to the clueless politicians this week. The 24th is going to be like the ‘60s when people took to the streets to force change.
I’ve said it before, but sometimes it takes major disasters before Americans wake up. Katrina has been a wake-up call. It’s so sad that it takes so much pain, suffering and death to provoke Americans out of their slumber and become citizens.
Oh, and to answer WTH, we have been discussing many subjects. The reason Bush comes up so often is that he has caused the problems, how dense can WTH be?
Posted by Jon B on Sep 3, 2005 at 7:06 AM
Something bad is going down Jon B and anybody who reads this. Rabbit has been edited out and other tomfoolery. The troll who seems to be very active on this site has been given something of a leg up while Rabbit has been dealt out.
Rabbit can be found here for any who wish.
http://www.iraqinews.com/home.shtml
Expect this message to be removed as soon as the Censors get around to realising Rabbit has come back to haunt them.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 3, 2005 at 7:20 AM
Announcement:
This site encourages debate about issues. The truth may be discussed but it is not in any way intended that truth should be established beyond doubt. Any poster caught seriously removing all doubt about any issue which is too unflattering to the US government or its employees will be edited out and locked out of the site. Furthermore their computer will suffer a serious hacking attack.
This thread has been re-arranged so as to undo some of the damage via strong but true words which cast serious doubt on quality of US Government or its employees by Rabbitvoz.
Another thread on DU has had similar treatment because Rabbitvoz said too many true things about the US government.
Members are encouraged to discuss things but this site reserves the right to curtail excessive imbalance of truth. Balance means equal amount of lies and truth.
Debate is meant to continue, not be resolved.
War is Freedom
The dangers of DU are in doubt.
All animals are equal.
Some are more equal than others.
There is No Rabbitvoz
There never was anybody called Rabbitvoz
There is nothing to see here folks.
Any member mentioning someone called Rabbit as having been a real person will be terminated.
You have been warned.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 3, 2005 at 7:23 AM
Rabbit sorry for being mean to ITT. Rabbit is a feisty creature and can take some getting used to. ITT have shown they are true and have given Rabbit a home. Hooray for ITT.
(Sucky Rabbit)
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 7, 2005 at 6:19 AM
Baghdad And New Orleans
I remember the looting that went on in Baghdad and the sneering contempt that many people expressed for Iraqis gone wild. Watching the looting and desperation it was good to see that Iraqis and Americans are not so different after all. Hopefully the veneer of cultural superiority that too many people have will be worn away a little.
Posted by David in Canada on Sep 16, 2005 at 2:33 PM
David in Canada,
I would say use of the term “looting” should be restricted to people taking national treasures, TV sets, or other items for monitary gain. If food is the “loot” it is more accurate to call it self preservation.
Otherwise it is a bit like saying, “Let them eat cake.” which may come from a feeling of superiority
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 17, 2005 at 1:20 PM
whattheheck,
Agreed, looting is looting and self preservation is something else. Some Iraqis were looting after the invasion and some were struggling for survival. The same goes for people in New Orleans. Valuable lessons to be learned when people see themselves through the eyes of others and stop judging them through ignorance or superiority.
Posted by David in Canada on Sep 17, 2005 at 1:55 PM
David in Canada,
With all the conflicting reports and everyone spinning to suit themselves, it is difficult to make sound judgments on a lot of issues. One thing which I found truly amazing was the evident lack of an attempt to communicate with the people left behind.
A note tied to a rock which explained the scope of the destruction and huge rescue and logistics problems could have helped immensely. Nothing turns a crowd into a mob quicker than rumors not dealt with.
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 19, 2005 at 9:25 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Mr Hayden,
You have no idea just how many Americans disagree with your prophet of doom assessment. Sure, support for the war is slipping among the general public. Who can blame them given the shallow negative news coverage. But the people that are closest to the conflict, the soldiers, are re-enlisting at unbelievably high rates. Even first time enlistment is now exceeding goals.
How disheartening it must be for them to read your sob story written from the comfort of your luxury living room.
You and Jane have apparently learned very little since Vietnam. You have not changed. Back then you gave tacit support to the communists. Now, you do the same for the terrorists. That’s some legacy.
“My son’s friend Todd Jones just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. At a celebratory gathering at his parents’ home, we chatted a while, and I asked him what he thought were the biggest problems facing the military. Without hesitating, he shot back: ‘The terrorists and the media.’ “
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110007113
“Guess we have to face it: Patriotism is alive and well. Soldiers believe in the Army, and they believe in their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They love their comrades, too. And yes, the word is “love.” They would die for the man or woman serving beside them. They’re risking their lives to save a broken state, to give tens of millions of human beings a chance at decent lives, to do the grim work that no one else in the world is willing to do.
Their reward? The Cindy Sheehan Extravaganza. Predictions of disaster. The depiction of Michael Moore as a hero and our soldiers as dupes. And a ceaseless attempt to convince the American people that there’s no hope in Iraq.”
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/pfriendly_new.php
Expand your reading list beyond Michael Moore’s website. Please, Tom.
Natalie,
Soldier’s always fight for each other when push comes to shove. This applies for both sides in any conflict and has nearly nothing to do with the rightness of the cause.
We are now in the midst of a struggle that is both religious and nationalist. The kind of struggle that can scarcely be understood, much less fought and won, by an external power.
We cannot impose a Pax Americana on Iraq. We have changed the regime there and started a democratic process. We need to tie our withdrawal to the political milestones in place and allow the Iraqis to be responsible for themselves. The international community, the U.S. included, will lend support.
Why does Cindy get so much press and her family so very little? Seems sort of odd. . .
Even amongst the “gold stars” there is no agreement about the war. Just like the general population.
Quiz question: how many more Iraqis died from sanctions and Saddam than from the war? No need to be exact, just use a multiplicative factor. (To be fair, losing even a single US life to save thousands of Iraqi lives is not a good trade, at least for the US.)
Natalie,
It’s not only Tom Hayden,it’s also the majority of Americans.
Many soldiers are espousing right-wing perspectives.I did at that age.Hell,I even voted for Bush 41.However,media and news fed to our troops is carefully filtered.They did it to me and my shipmates when we were deployed,they’re doing it this time in Iraq.Haven’t you noticed how groups like Fox News trumpet the fact that the military gets much of their news from Fox?
By the way"predictions of disaster”?Sorry,try postdictions.
I see your also quoting the New York Post.Gee,isn’t that the paper run by arch-reactionary Rupert Murdoch?Real objective source there.I trusted the New York Post more during the Eighties when they ran articles about coma babies and Nessie sightings.
By the way,my little brother is serving in Iraq,Baghdad,as a hummer driver so save yourself a few keystrokes.He and I have disagreements about the war yet he has his prerogative.I would never insult,belittle or question his patriotism the way the right has done to the left.In this war,unlike Vietnam,it was not"Hell no!We won’t go!”,it was"let’s not be too hasty before we commit,before we bite off more war than we can chew”.That statement,in the right’s eyes,merited the term “TRAITOR!”,usually by fox News stooges who have never spent day one in military service.
Oh,about Vietnam,unlike this war,the president who got us into Vietnam was a combat veteran.Also not even Nixon was cold blooded enough to cut military spending by 25%during a war the way this administration has.
I see “Natalie” is still haunting ITT. I agree that the news reportage is shallow. Negative? Only spin-meisters demand to see the “positive” side of war. This article (intro to a photo gallery by Salon) gives a few insights why graphic images have been absent in the MSM:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082305O.shtml
Iraq: The Unseen War
By Gary Kamiya
Salon.com
Tuesday 23 August 2005
a few excerpts:
” Aug. 23, 2005 This is a war the Bush administration does not want Americans to see. From the beginning, the U.S. government has attempted to censor information about the Iraq war, prohibiting photographs of the coffins of U.S. troops returning home and refusing as a matter of policy to keep track of the number of Iraqis who have been killed. President Bush has yet to attend a single funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq.”
——————————————————————
“Governments keep war hidden because it is hideous. To allow citizens to see its reality - the shattered bodies, the wounded children, the incomprehensible mayhem - is to risk eroding popular support for it.”
——————————————————————-
“It is because we believe that the American people are not getting a look at the reality of the Iraq war, for Americans and Iraqis alike, that we decided to run this photo gallery. It is no secret that Salon has published many more pieces questioning and challenging the Iraq war than supporting it. But that is not why we think it is important that these images be seen. We would have run them even if we supported the war. The reason is simple: The truth should be told. “
——————————————————————
“There is no way for any journalist, whether reporter or photographer, to capture the multifaceted reality of Iraq. But all of the journalists I have spoken to who have worked in Iraq say that the blandly optimistic pronouncements made by the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq are completely false. A picture of a dead child only represents a fragment of the truth about Iraq - but it is one that we do not have the right to ignore. We believe we have an ethical responsibility to those who have been killed or wounded, whether Iraqis, Americans or those of other nationalities, not to simply pretend that their fate never happened. To face the bitter truth of war is painful. But it is better than hiding one’s eyes.”
Natalie, you criticize Tom Hayden for casting a negative picture of the war from his living room, but what about all the right-wing pundits, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O’Reilly, that offer their assessments from a lavish network studio in Manhattan? Going by your logic, their opinions are no better.
You offer a quote to support the notion that the U.S. mission over there is noble and that we are improving the lives of Iraqis. Only someone with their head in the sand would say that. Electricity is still sparse, the hospitals are woefully equipped (remember how the U.S. attacked and shut down the hospital in Fallujah because it was telling the truth about civilian casualties of the U.S invasion?), and Iraqis stand in long lines to get gasoline in an oil rich nation. Furthermore, ask the more than 25,000 dead Iraqis if their nation is better off and their lives are being improved. Ask the significant majority of Iraqis that want the troops gone soon or now (see the poll figures quoted in this article) if the U.S. military is making everything okay. Ask Naomi Klein, who put to rest the “reconstruction” myth by noting in her lengthy visit to Iraq that the only rebuilding is occuring inside the U.S. Green Zone while rubble is still in the streets from the bombings of 2003. Saigon during the Vietnam War until 1975 was a safe place for U.S. soldiers who could walk around without fear of being shot at or blown up. Not so with Baghdad. The security in that city is far worse than Saigon’s cerca 1967. This whole war is worse than the one we fought in Vietnam.
Natalie, you also need to read the other Iraq article on this website, the one discussing the constitution and what it portends in order to see what the ever-deteriorating status quo is in Iraq.
Yeah, Liberal, you make a good point about right-wing pundits. Most of them don’t really know the true picture, either. The difference in my mind is that they are at least being supportive of a foreign policy that was debated and voted on. There were national elections, 2002 and 2004, the results of which were to increase the power of the party most forcefully advocating the policy.
I have zero patience for people who demonstrate and protest against their government’s official foreign policy when troops are in harm’s way. I deplore any of it that went on during Kosovo by right-wing pundits or others and I deplore it now. It breaks my heart to think what this powerful righteous nation could accomplish as far as beating back totalitarianism and encouraging freedom and democracy if we could just be united on these issues. My god, look what we accomplished in the 40’s. Then, we were unified. It was no “cake-walk”, though, and it isn’t going to be as far as Islamic fundamentalism is concerned.
What must a dictator or terrorist think when they listen to the U.S. media and gauge what threat America is to their survival? They must think to themselves…hmmm…..half of America is on my side. What am I worried about?
I think most liberals want us to succeed in Iraq, and understand that if we do, it will be good for the world. I know my liberal parents and siblings do, even though they hate George W. Bush. But I can’t help but think that many of them don’t, and if they could pull the lever for failure or success, they’d put their politics first and opt for failure. I hope I’m wrong on that, but I’m just watching and listening. Perhaps many Republicans would do the same if the roles were reversed. I think it’s a question we should all ask ourselves and think about.
I can’t think of any better way to insure failure than to follow the advice of Tom Hayden or Cindy Sheehan.
“Tom Hayden and I were once comrades-in-arms in a movement to overthrow America’s democratic institutions, remake its government in a Marxist image and help America’s enemies defeat her sons on the field of battle. Now he is running for mayor of Los Angeles and many people are asking me, “Does this past matter?” I think it does.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1056
(At least I assume the writer is the same Tom Hayden I saw at rallies so often with Jane Fonda. If not…..sorry, other Tom!!)
Natalie:
The Reichstag fire in 1932, like the mass murders of 9/11, worked “to increase the power of the party most forcefully advocating the policy” as well. Almost all of us wish that other parties and factions had been more forceful in advocating power thereafter. I know I intend to do so.
I know that patience or tolerance of any sort is not the strong suit of the present regime and its supporters, Natalie. May I refer you to Bring Them Home Now for some of the troops’ and their families’ views on the subject of the present “adventure” in Iraq?
I agree. But beating back totalitarianism and encouraging freedom and democracy” begin at home, Natalie. Not only were the mass murders of 9/11 used as a “catastophic, catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor” to forward the Plan for a New American Century’s aggression abroad, they were also used as an excuse to do what Osama bin Laden could never do, to throttle back our freedom at home via the PATRIOT Act and to undermine our democracy in Ohio in 2004 as it had been in Florida in 2000.
The present American regime in fact has embraced dictators in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. And it treasures Osama bin Laden, allowing him his freedom, using him as its foil to justify whatever excesses it deems necessary.
You may be right here. I know that Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kerry, Lieberman, Pelosi… all of the DLC Demoplicans are furious with the incompetence with which the present regime has carried out its aggression. These people want to do it “properly”! They want more war, more troops, more death, more destruction. So you may be right on this point.
I don’t hate George W Bush, Natalie. He’s in way over his head and the folks he’s taking advice from are not the traditional conservative base of the Republican party but the neocon fringe which has an agenda all its own, which seems to think since “victory” has proven illusory in the Middle East that it will now settle for the destruction of any and all power centers outside of Israel. I do hate all of the present regime’s policies but once the regime itself is out of power I will be relieved and satisfied. Of course I’m sure they’ll have to answer to the courts for their war crimes.
Well Tom Hayden is just another Demoplican politician as far as I’m concerned, but Cindy Sheehan is an individual who has decided to do what she can to end this monstrous war, and by doing that she hopes to give her son Casey’s death a dignity the present regime has tried to steal away along with his life’s breath itself.
As for ending anti-American terrorism Cindy Sheehan has hit the nail on the head, and her prescription seems to me the only one that will do so : “You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism.”
Well said JFL.
“What must a dictator or terrorist think when they listen to the U.S. media and gauge what threat America is to their survival? They must think to themselves…hmmm…..half of America is on my side.” (from a post above)
This is just utter bullshit. Americans plainly see the debacle that the Bush/neocon foreign policies are bringing US. Nobody supports terrorists by desiring peace. War as an answer will never bring “unity” ... think what single-minded nations are…. fascist dictatorships!
pick of the litter:
‘They must think to themselves…hmmm…..half of America is on my side.’
Actually that’s correct. The half that voted for George W Bush are in favor of dictatorship. Bring on the Great Man on the White Horse and let me get back to business, back to sleep, back to my TV…
“The half that voted for George W Bush are in favor of dictatorship.”
Seems you have a clear idea of your political opposition. And kudos to you, you are careful not to underestimate same, which can be a costly error in politics.
Natalie, you do not understand the un-democratic nature of your comments. It is clear YOU do not understand how the other half think. How can we discourage and disparage democracy at home while we ostensibly enforce it militarily abroad? The first amendment is meant to protect unpopular speech, for popular speech needs no protection. Free societies tolerate all sorts of viewpoints. If you don’t like that Natalie, then you can leave and go to, I don’t know, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Nepal, or Indonesia. The second and fourth countires on that list have recieved significant military aid from the U.S. government by the way.
With respect to the 2002 elections, I guess you are referring to success as the fact that Republicans picked up ONE seat in the Senate, in which a decorated war hero lost to a man who received five military deferments due to football injuries but nevertheless painted his opponent as unpatriotic. The Democrats would still have had control of the Senate if Paul Wellstone hadn’t died, and he was leading his opponent by eight points at the time.
Wolf, Cindy Sheehan is not advocating kicking Israel out of the Middle East, neither is JF Lee. I believe he is advocating that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders and leave the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. If you look at a map, Gaza and the West Bank do NOT make up all of Israel.
Liberal - My comments were addressing JFL comment (not Cindy’s). While you may be correct in your assertion of what JFL meant, it seems clear that Palestinians want “their” entire country back. Push the Jews into the sea and all that. . .
Of course, it could be worse. The Indians could decide they want back “their” country too!
Want an exit strategy:
We could throw in the towel
WTH, you just don’t get it. If the U.S. respected the right to Iraqi self-determination it would have left that country long ago. The Iraqis do not like Saddam, but they have seen the anarchy and mistreatment of its people that resulted from an invading power occupying its land. Thus by default some desire a return to order and the security from terrorism that Saddam’s regime provided. The U.S. is not acting in favor of Iraqi freedom either. When you defy U.N. Security Council Resolutions and the 1907 Hague Convention and completely rewrite the economic policies for the benefit of foreign multinational corporations to exploit the natural resources of a country without any input from the people, you are not respecting their freedoms. When you arbitrarily round up innocent civilians in search-and-seizure raids and throw them into Abu Ghraib where they are tortured, sodomized, and even murdered, you are not respecting their freedoms. When you isolate a potent ethnic minority in drafting a constitution in order to show “progress” back at home, you are not respecting Iraqi freedoms.
If the U.S. truly desires Iraqi freedom, then it must accept the fact that Iraq’s President and Prime Minister want to cozy up to the mullahs in Iran. Furthermore, respect for human rights and democracy go hand in hand, and when the U.S. does nothing to ensure that the legal freedoms that Iraqi women enjoyed under Saddam remain in place, it is not acting in favor of democracy.
The U.S. never was bothered by Saddam’s atrocities when he was a pawn in America’s MidEast strategy, but when he took an independent course, that is when all the rhetoric about his atrocities and suppression began to surface. The U.S. took Saddam out because he was no longer serving America’s interests. The Bush administration acted out of its own selfishness, the rhetoric about freedom and democracy was just the conveneient cover story to give to the American people.
And finally, enough of the French bashing. You repugs need to get a new line already.
WTH, your last line about Tom Hayden just epitomizes the violent filth that spews forth from Right-wing talking heads. Remember Pattie Robertson’s little statement about the need to assassinate Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, despite that it is illegal under U.S. and international law to even threaten to do so? Remember what O’Reiily said about the Gitmo detainees, that he would execute them if he were in charge? Remember the felon G. Gordon Liddy’s statment “aim for the head” with respect to how his listeners should deal with DEA agents?
“We could stay as long as it takes to let this country learn the freedoms and the responsibilities of self determination.”
Well, whatever happened to the conservative idea that America not become the world police? I’m not even sure that peace is the ultimate goal of the bigtime oil wheeler and dealers (who seem to be pulling a lot of the puppet strings for Bush). I agree with Bud that the other article about Iraq here (Echoes of Oslo, By Mark Levine, In These Times, Sunday 21 August 2005, which btw also appears in truthout.org) is quite insightful.
here’s a relevant quote from that article:
“The idea of “sponsored” or “managed” chaos as a defining characteristic of contemporary neoliberal globalization has already been demonstrated by scholars working on Africa, the former Soviet Union, and other locations along the “arc of instability” that happens to contain some of the world’s most resource petroleum rich and politically unstable countries. The main thrust of this argument is that the coming “Age of Peak Oil” makes it strategically necessary for the United States to maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq, and thus have unrestricted influence over its vast oil. In an environment where the vast majority of Iraqis do not want either of these things, creating a situation of violence and instability becomes a logical, and perhaps the only feasible way, to secure them.”
Echoes of Oslo
By Mark Levine
In These Times
Sunday 21 August 2005
I’ve seen this idea around more than a few
times.
“Or we could try something else. An energy policy designed to rapidly wean us from oil, which we promulgate to the rest of the world. No more money (read weapons systems) to the middle-ages middle east. “
....wolf, this is soo true. If the U.S. put its resources in the right places, like if we used NASA’s wits and funding and some of those insane military programs, we could be running on water. Why go to another planet when we could make this one so much better off? Why should space be more important than the health of earth and all of us creatures who live here? Why not put space exploration on the back burner until we have solved more problems here where real life is? I just don’t understand the priorities here.
I find siginificant irony in that it appears we will have been successful in accomplishing what Bin Laden couldn’t: the establishment of an Islamic theocracy in Iraq. Weeeeee!!! So much for spreading democracy and freedom. Oh, but maybe I’m being too hasty. Maybe instead we’ll get a full on civil war, with Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syrai joining in the fun! We’ll call it Lebanon 2.0!
“The U.S. never was bothered by Saddam’s atrocities when he was a pawn in America’s MidEast strategy, but when he took an independent course, that is when all the rhetoric about his atrocities and suppression began to surface. The U.S. took Saddam out because he was no longer serving America’s interests. The Bush administration acted out of its own selfishness, the rhetoric about freedom and democracy was just the conveneient cover story to give to the American people. “...posted above by Liberal
that is so damn right!
From Tom Hayden’s article….Usually wars generate a public reluctance to withdraw without
A few comments:
pick - i think NASA is one of our better investments. If it and other esoteric enterprises (particle accelerators, etc) did not exist, science would not have advanced nearly as much as it has (i say this as a physicist, myself and many others like me being inspired by various esoteric endeavors). However, i do imagine we could divert significant resources from defense to more useful technologies.
Jon - the whole Jesus “love thy enemies” is a fun ploy to use. However, nonbelievers should think twice before quoting religious texts (and then hopefully refrain and speak of something they are more familiar with). If you really want to know the answers to the questions you pose above (and it really would behoove you to do so) i would strongly urge you to talk with some people of faith, which i expect you will find is far from a homogenous group. . .
It’s going to be fun to watch and see how long the meek can keep the earth after they inherit it.
Wolf said:“If you really want to know the answers to the questions you pose above (and it really would behoove you to do so) i would strongly urge you to talk with some people of faith, which i expect you will find is far from a homogenous group. . .”
This is a VERY good point wolf raises. The media does a lot of talking about specific Christian groups, such as Pat Robertson’s as if that is the only Christian POV. We Christians are not any more homogeneous than the Muslims or the Jews. There are so many sects and sub-sects with many openly hostile to one another. It seems as though Robertson and Bush are from a sect that relies heavily on Old Testament concepts. Fire and Brimstone, smiting enemies, etc… As far as I am concerned, the Old Testament is no better than a Greek tragedy. The New Testament on the other hand is the foundation of my fiath, though not the be all end all. I think Jesus would be agrieved to have people essentially murder in his name. But, as wolf points out, we all have different POV.
I also agree with wolf’s comments regarding NASA and physics and I’m not even a scientist. On another note I think its sad that we’re spending serious dough on reviving a missle defense program when our borders are still some what porous and our soldiers go without proper equipment. WTF?
Liberal,
So my “... last line about Tom Hayden just epitomizes the violent filth that spews forth from Right-wing talking heads.”
Well, maybe you should view the TV program featuring our vets who were in the Hanoi Hilton when Tom and Jane were dishing out their pro-commie lines. At least I didn’t wish one of those guys on him. Come to think of it YEAH! Why not?
How would he like to hang by his hands which are tied behind his back until his shoulders dislocate? This had nothing to do with any talking head opinions
Speaking biblically, “love thy neighbor (and enemy)” , “thou shall not kill”, “turn the other cheek” , all point the way to peace,... peace, the necessary ingredient for a “civilized” society, for sustained prosperity. The oil economy seems destined to play out like the dinosaur, it is ultimately a short-term energy solution and it is foul, foul , foul….so bad for our health. If the oil economy depends upon war and strife, where/when is the longterm prosperity going to emerge? It must be clean energy which leaves no blights upon the land and the people, where environmental health is the indicator of healthy economies, peace and prosperity. For to “Love thy neighbor” is to be ecologically conscientious, we do not pollute our neighbor’s land or livelihood.
I have a theory about some of these hateful times we live in. There ain’t enough love going around. Not that there’s a shortage, humans have endless capapcity, but peace and prosperity go hand in hand and all the war and violence going on is an economic dead-end, a bleak picture indeed.
What I find in the West, when you get past our voracious material greed, is that we have the love. In this culture, we have the freedom to choose whom we love. We make our own choices in whom to marry and I believe that most of us choose to marry for romantic reasons, we believe in love. Children raised in a loving environment respect life and generally pass the love onward. What results does a culture face when marriages are arranged and abusive relationships are tolerated? Divorce is messy but at least it is a freedom. The patriarchal systems function in a great absence of love in my book. Cultures that prize boys only are only half there. The power of family relationships, the balance of the sexes is so out of whack…......the repression of equal sexual satisfaction (or even sexual knowledge).... this type of culture has got to be holding resentment like a bubbling volcano. Rather than look within, it looks outward. No wonder boys end up warriors before they even hit puberty. Loveless and prosperless culture will easily recruit its young to the military as culture which cherishes its young will be loathe to see them off to battle.
I’ve rambled, hope my point comes across. The West is the Best. If we led the world with the example of love that we are so capable of, would we not see our neighbors as extensions of ourselves? Would we not be welcomed instead of hated and feared? We could use our might to truly spread prosperity and not death and hegemony.
WTH, how about the Muslim man who was beaten to death by his American guards? His leg muscles had turned to mush at the time of his death. How about the young Iraqi boys who were anally raped by U.S. soldiers and private contractors at Abu Ghraib? We have yet to see the footage because the government won’t release it. I remember a domestic population that was similarly kept in the dark about its government’s atrocities. That population was NAZI GERMANY!!
The atrocities in Vietnam were not limited to the NVA. How about the use of chemical warfare in South Vietnam by the U.S. military in the form of agent orange and napalm? Not only did U.S. soldiers get ill from agent orange, but generations of innocent Vietnamses civilians still suffer from U.S. acts without a dime of compensation from our government, the guilty party.
Oh, yeah, remember the the several hundred innocent women and children massacred by U.S. forces at My Lai? The people at My Lai got caught, this stuff was going on everywhere.
Final Death Toll in Vietnam
United States: roughly 58,000
Vietnamese: 2-3 million
Thank you for your great EXIT IRAQ article. I posted a link to it at www.gnostics.com/newsletter.html
However I must say, trusting Democrats to have guts is like expecting Bush to have a clue. They are part of the reactionary political climate that has become America.
Suzanne Radford, editor
Gnostics & The Social Revolution
To continue, you seem to deny that America can do any wrong. God Forbid any one of those U.S. soldiers ever mugs you! Cover your rear, WTH. I see a parallel between what you call Hayden and Fonda’s acts, and the true-believers in GW’s foreign policy. They are spewing lies about the greatness of America even while their fellow citizens are violating every human rights law the U.S. has signed.
wolf writes…Jon - the whole Jesus
By the way Liberal, we used napalm (actually an advanced form) in Iraq and in the incident reported in the very early days of the war it was dropped on enemy positions, not used as some type of defolliant. The U.S. is one of only a handful a countries in the world that refuses to ban napalm. For all our screaming of WMDs, we will use weapons most of the world abhors. Napalm would be classified WMD if only the U.S. would sign on, but we won’t because we want every weapon available for our own use.
We also used those bomblets that Iraqi children injured themselves picking up thinking they were toys. After a number of kids had their arms and legs blown off, we had to drop leaflets to try to explain to Iraqis not to pick them up.
Ah yes, the cluster bomb fiasco. Brightly colored as I recall to aid in speedy clean-up. Kind of backfired because those colors also attract children. As I recall they had similar SNAFUs in Afghanistan because some aid agencies were distributing food packets that were the same color as the bomblets. Kinda caused a lot of deadly confusion.
The following words are from the song “Anatomy of your Enemy” from the Anti-Flag release “Mobilize for Peace” Album on AF-Records
Think about this and the march to war in Iraq and continuation of war by the right wing warhawks. Think about how many of the 10 steps the neo-cons incorporated and how.
10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war:
Listen closely because we will all see this weapon used in our
lives.
It can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most
highly educated.
We need to see their tactics as a weapon against humanity and
not as truth.
First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for
you.
Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like
you.
Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary
habits
fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job,
they are heatless murderers who enjoy killing!
Third step: Once these differences are established continue to
reinforce them
with all disseminated information.
Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party’s
information
this can be done through state run media.
Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the
ruling party’s information.
Therefore all for-profit media becomes state-run.
Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange,
militant, or different.
Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.
CHORUS: THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY. THIS IS HOW TO START A
WAR.
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY.
Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.
Create an “Us versus Them” mentality. Leave no room
for opinions in between.
One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should
be considered a traitor.
Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and
rhetoric to define all actions.
This can be achieved by slogans such as “freedom loving
people versus those who hate freedom.”
This can also be achieved by the use of flags.
Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.
It is very effective to use terms like, “It is god’s
will” or “god bless our nation.”
Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers
have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones.
Make it cleat that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not
want or like to kill.
Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability
and then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort
the public’s fears.
Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest
fear.
CHORUS (repeat); We are not countries. We are not nations. We
are not religions.
We are not gods. We are not weapons. We are not ammunition.
We are not killers.
We will NOT be tools.
I’m not a f**ker
I will not die
I will not kill
I will not be your slave
I will not fight your battle
I will not die on your battlefield
I will not fight for your world
I am not a fighter
I’m in UNITYYY!!!
wolf :
<blockquote>
This whole episode of history ought to teach us (f’n finally!) that the tactic of sponsoring selected dictators, playing them off one another, is a loser. Even if we damage an enemy in the short term by arming his rival, the rival himself sooner or later becomes strong enough and headstrong enough that the next generation has to deal with him, just as soon as he takes a notion to defy US directives or run afoul of US interests.
Starve them out, don’t feed them. And I’m not talking food here, but the only thing that they really want, which is power and the weapons they need to keep it.
By the way, it’s not WMDs that allow a tyrant to rule, it’s good old fashioned conventional arms that they can use in town without toxifying the whole timezone. How much of the materiel Saddam used to terrorize the people of Iraq was actually made in Iraq? And where did he get it? Hell, the insurgents are probably accessing caches of weapons stashed long ago to shoot at or blow up US troops even as I write!
61% are against the war and growing, even neo-cons in the house and senate are worried. They are fighting for their politcal life in the 06 election.33% approval rating for the rebulicans and 55% approval ratings for the democrats in the house.The democrates can take the house back, then ann Coulter can write a book how to talk to a liberal because we have to.
Remember this war is not like vietnam.
In vietnam the U.S. sent advisors to help the south fight the north because they were commies.
Then the U.S. sent troops to train the south from the north. When the troops were trained then we could come. Is this sounding familiar to anybody?
Now the neo-cons are so wacked out that one of their leaders (Pat Robertson)wants to go and kill leaders of other countries.
But he still wants thou shall not kill posted in the class rooms and the court houses.
Make sure you eat his Age-Defying Protein Pancakes, you can’t pray on an empty stomach.
Hey Brian28 I sure wish I could agree with your prediction but America has been gerrymandered into easily predictable red or blue districts. Many times the incumbents don’t even face an opponent. House incumbents win at about a 95% clip these days, hardly the statistics to base an election revolution on.
I too sometimes become a little giddy when seeing recent polling results. But then I well know that polls are too fleeting to rely on and as pollsters like to say “They are only a snapshot in time.”
I’ve long believed that the campaign to go to Iraq was purposely planned to coincide with the 2002 mid-term elections. So I am tempted to now believe that some sort of withdrawal from Iraq will be timed for the mid-term 2006 elections.
It doesn’t have to be a real withdrawal, just alot of rhetoric and some minor withdrawals to “prove” the Republicans are serious. In other words the Republicans will make it look like the war is going to be over soon, until the election is over. You know they won’t stop building those billion dollar permanent military bases.
The Repugs in the White House have been pushing all these window dressing actions by the Iraqi government. The Constitution, the referendum and then elections again. But none of those actions will really mean a thing for Iraqi “democracy.”
Now I’ll admit the White House does have a problem that all hell could break lose during the next year. They will keep their fingers crossed that civil war won’t break out. I’m sure that the military directive is to negate a civil war at all costs. A civil war is the worst case scenario for the Bushies, the final dagger into the heart of their bad planning.
But even with the worst case scenario, I still wonder if the gerrymandered America can really swing the balance of power.
Right on Jon B. If Christians are so hot to change the world in their image, they at least ought to follow some of the commandments!
Not like Vietnam-yeah it’s worse and the Vietnam vets I live with tell me so most nights at news time. And it sounds all too familiar-we noted with rage last night that 1500 more troops have been sent. This is exactly what they did in the bad ole days of Vietnam-the public would get concerned because their loved ones were coming home in body bags-and not for a very good reason- and so they’d send more troops in….
I think the real shame of this war is that it was predicated on a lie-a big hugh lie fueled by men and at least one woman who were absolutely drunk with arrogance.If we pull out and thus acknowledge the lie, what about all those Iraqis that are now stuck with the horrible mess of a country we’ve created and lots more terrorists than they ever had before? Ethically speaking, even though I absolutely agree that occupation is the problem, don’t we have some responsibility to at least leave the country in a position to defend itself? Images of 1974 Vietnam come racing back and it isn’t something I would like to re-live.
How do we do this? The UN? Watch “Hotel Rwanda” again and tell me about defence and the UN-pretty pathetic. This question becomes a grand circle, and we’ve been here before.Thus, this bad summer re-run of a war continues to reek destruction while we debate what should have been debated before we even stepped foot one there.
This is what happens when people refuse to admit that they were wrong and learn from their mistakes.
I lived through the Veitnam war and when I hear references made to “mr. Fonda” I am absolutely amazed that these folks still think this war was a good idea-it wasn’t ever a good idea, the powers that perpetuated it on us knew it wasn’t a good idea from the get-go. And yet these folks still habor some strange idea that if the protestors hadn’t made such a big deal about it(“giving aid to the enemy”) that we somehow would have mangaged to “win” it. This was never possible-Kennedy knew it and so did Johnson. There are several good books out that point this out.
The idea that exercising democracy-ie free speech- is somehow aiding the enemy is about as convoluted as an idea can get. If any of us has a right to this free speech, surely it is Cindy Sheehan. She’s not a pawn, she’s a citzen, and I think what she really wants to know is why isn’t anyone being held accountable for her son dieing for a lie? I think it’s a damn good question. I’d like to know that too.
What this war isn’t -despite the marketing by Fox and the administration-is WWII. And to try and fuse this war to the one we’ve got going is so incredibly wrong it leaves me wondering in what world do these neo-cons live? Maybe if if we all eat the Age Defying Protein Pancakes we could join them in their war-bliss and would finally understand their warped logic.
Good one kaela.
“A civil war is the worst case scenario for the Bushies, the final dagger into the heart of their bad planning. ” Jon B
I think not. Did you read the other article on ITT, Echoes of Oslo, By Mark Levine, In These Times, Sunday 21 August 2005 ?
again I post this quote:
“The idea of “sponsored” or “managed” chaos as a defining characteristic of contemporary neoliberal globalization has already been demonstrated by scholars working on Africa, the former Soviet Union, and other locations along the “arc of instability” that happens to contain some of the world’s most resource petroleum rich and politically unstable countries. The main thrust of this argument is that the coming “Age of Peak Oil” makes it strategically necessary for the United States to maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq, and thus have unrestricted influence over its vast oil. In an environment where the vast majority of Iraqis do not want either of these things, creating a situation of violence and instability becomes a logical, and perhaps the only feasible way, to secure them.”
The idea of sustained violence for the benefit of the oil economy is not new but it doesn’t seem to be well-known or widely discussed; it probably comes closer to the truth than any reasons given for the war.
I’m a little shy about making comparisons of Iraq to other wars, having said that, to me Iraq is more like Yugoslavia than Viet Nam.
All we are really doing there right now is trying to avert a break-up into regional nation/states and trying to tamp down a civil war. Personally I think civil war and a break-up is inevitable no matter what we do. Pragmatically or rather American self interest, we should just get out and let the inevitable play out.
We would save many American lives and treasure which is far more expensive than the numbers we read in the main stream media. No one calculates the life-long care that will be needed for the seriously injured soldiers. Or dollars given to the coalition of the bribed isn’t put into the costs. And there are other hidden costs.
The comparisons to Viet Nam do have some merit. Both wars were started with lies, both became wars with no good solution for America. It’s odd how the most powerful military in the world couldn’t find a way to win in either sphere. The reason is of course we can’t nuke them, we would be the pariah and enemy of the world.
Bush this week gushed about Iraq working on the its constitution as “amazing.” Nothing amazing about it. For two centuries nations have been creating constitutions. But constitutions are nothing but words on paper, many of those nations failed. The Weimar Republic of Germany had a constitution, Hitler essentially destroyed it. Pakistan has a constitution, it didn’t prevent Musharraf from taking control with a military coup.
In the 1930s we had the possibilty of a fascist coup (google Smedley Butler) and the civil war was a constitutional mess. Having a constitution does not a democracy make. Saddam had a constitution.
The Iraq mess is all about oil. That is what makes Iraq incomparable to Viet Nam or Yugoslavia or any previous conflict in our history. Oil is a natural resource of such extreme importance at this time in history, like nothing we’ve ever seen. WWII was about oil as well, but we were oil suppliers then and in this era it’s a resource that is becoming scarce.
The Bushies I’m sure are believers in peak oil. They have no intentions of leaving Iraq without becoming de facto members of OPEC through Iraq. That’s why the Bushies say nothing about the content of the Iraqi constitution, they just want some words on paper to make it look like a legitimate nation.
They tried to influence that first Iraqi election, didn’t work. Now they will be satisfied with keeping the country from breaking apart. As long as our military is there, we are the protector of whatever form of government finally takes shape. America has supported dictatorships and repressive regimes of many types, Saudi Arabia for instance. The Bushies will support an Iraqi theocracy if that is what emerges, as long as those permanent military bases are still there and the oil flows faster.
They’ve been ad libbing the Iraq War all along. But as any football fan knows you don’t win games with 4 quarters of broken plays. My opinion is that we lost the war on the first day because it was unwinnable.
We’ve lost Afghanistan as well. That war is no longer about Bin Laden, it is about keeping the Karzai regime in place. Karzai is no darling of Afghans as he played the coward and left the country when the Soviets attacked. The Soviets held the capital of Kabul just like we do, but Afganistan is much more than one city as Russia learned.
It seems big military nations never seem to learn that winning guerilla wars is near impossible.
pick of the litter….I did read that article.
Why I believe that civil war is the dagger is that if that point comes the American people will be demanding we leave.
The populace may begin a mass demand to leave even prior to that, but we would certainly not want to be part of a crossfire between the warring factions. A civil war would probably result in an increase of our troops, deepening our role in the conflict beyond what we’ve already seen.
Polling is already showing a weariness with the war, an escalation would only push the polls more against the war.
I fully believe we are just about at the point of peak oil. But why keep fighting a war in Iraq if the price of oil rises regardless? If the oil prices continue an upward trend, Americans won’t see that Iraq makes much difference, in fact may come to blame the war for the rising prices (which wouldn’t be the whole truth).
How many years of war in Iraq do you think Americans will tolerate? Today we are beginning to lose our tolerance, what of a year from now, two years, 2008?
The powers that be may indeed want chaos in the region, but the populace will eventually gag on that chaos. Hey, if we’re lucky we could get a sea change in American politics out of this Iraq mess. A demand to withdraw, a demand for alternate energies, a rejection of neoconservatism.
John Francis Lee,
Upon examining your meticulous HTML enabled dissection of my post, I find that you left one aspect unaddressed.
Do YOU want your country to succeed in Iraq?
This is a simple question that deserves a simple yes or no answer.
Are you able to answer it in such a manner?
Liberal,
I certainly don’t disparage democracy by advocating that people in this country speak with one voice on foreign policy, especially when it comes to its troops being in harm’s way. I may be discouraging “democracy” in this particular case, if that’s the label you want to give it, but to me it’s just simple common sense and decency which I’m sure the Democrats would expect if roles were reversed. I guess I would be technically entitled to say just about anything about anybody anywhere, but the better question is would it be appropriate, and is it constructive and helpful.
If people feel they must protest the war, I would only advocate that they do so in such a way that the young adults who have volunteered to put themselves in harms way on their behalf and are probably quite afraid but are still gung-ho and anxious to carry out their orders are not demoralized by reading or hearing their words. If they do become affected by those words, the safety of they and their comrades cannot help but be compromised.
Yeah, right. I’m off to North Korea. How tiresome. Somehow I think a Democrat would be treated far better than would be a Republican by Kim Dong Dildo, so better you than I.
According to my sometimes faulty memory, the GOP netted two seats in the senate and six or seven in the house in 2002. Max Cleland lost because his local hawkish rhetoric didn’t match his national liberal voting record. Very similar to Dashle. It was the first time in a hundred years that a Republican president saw his party gain House seats in a mid-term election. Even more gains in 2004. My only point here is that the country endorsed, albeit implicitly, Bush’s foreign policy in two separate elections. That makes it even more unjustified in my mind to so vilely protest against the troop’s commander when they are in danger.
The time for protest was before the war, not during. Obviously you have the right to protest. But are you right to protest? Is the situation really so desperate as to warrant such behavior? I think not.
The only consolation is that the unseemly protests by the fringe left I believe can only help Republicans electorally. But I still implore you and Cindy to reconsider.
A request for other perspectives…
As I recall, the protests of the Vietnam era that left such bitter memories were those aimed at troops. Does anyone else recall it that way? As I remember, being rather young at the time, it was the insults, the charges of baby-killing, all of the epithets thrown at them and all the refusal to publically welcome them back that was so bitter. That’s what not only infuriated broad sectors of the country, but also left a psychological scar. It brought about a cultural crisis of conscience that America is still trying to make up for. Or so I perceive it.
The protests against the Iraq have been aimed at the policymakers, have they not? Not at the troops-at-large, but at the leadership who have planned and executed the policy of war in Iraq. Again, if I’ve misperceived, I would welcome a response.
It seems to me that today’s protests have largely avoided the anti-soldier rancor that was observable 30+ years ago. To offer an opinion, I submit that citizens’ registering their opposition to the decisions of government is perfectly within bounds, during wartime or peace. As has been pointed out by more articulate people than me, that very freedom has had to be defended by soldiers willing to follow orders, lay aside any trepidation or hesitency they might feel, and to take up the sword. To say that freedom ought not to be exercised (providing it is peaceful and aimed in the proper direction) is confusing and seems a bit false, if one is truly convinced his country’s leadership has led us and those in uniform down the wrong path.
Maybe the protestors’ focus away from troops in the field and toward the national leadership is being judged as disingenuous…
Or do y’all see something I’ve missed?
Yes of course I want my country to succeed in Iraq Natalie. No fancy html.
The only way to do that is cease hostilities and bring the troops home immediately.
The mistake we made in allowing “our” government to invade and occupy that nation cannot be undone. But the mistake can be ended sooner rather than later. Every day we delay means more Americans and Iraqis murdered and maimed, more debt accumulated and passed on to the next generation of Americans, more enemies made for ourselves and the next generation, not to mention more shame for us and our children.
Success at this point would be to pull up our socks and have the courage to admit our mistake, to make amends as far as that is possible to those we have injured, and to see to it that we never again act the aggressor on the world stage.
And that would not at all be an inconsiderable success, Natalie.
Name another nation that has come back from the abyss without being totally defeated first.
Natalie has expressed a very simple idea, “my country right or wrong, once the war started.”
She also talks of speaking with one voice. American history has shown we NEVER speak with one voice. There was opposition to the Revolutionary War by those called Loyalists who after the war were called traitors. There was opposition to WWI, in fact Woodrow Wilson drudged up the Sedition Act to suppress dissent. There was opposition to WWII, Charles Limburgh traveled the country agitating against it.
“In one voice” is a ridiculous concept in a truly free democracy. One voice is what you get in totalitarian nations, dissenters are jailed and/or killed. That’s why the right in this country always has this fascist tilt as they flirt with farther right ideas, such as “one voice”.
From an article just today….“Nearly three weeks after a grieving California mother named Cindy Sheehan started her anti-war protest near President Bush’s Texas ranch, nine of 10 people surveyed in an AP-Ipsos poll say it’s OK for war opponents to publicly share their concerns about the conflict.”
90% think protest DURING this war is OK. So Natalie by her “one voice” reasoning is expressing using her term a “fringe” opinion that protest should not be occurring. So what I should be telling her is to take her fringe rhetoric and leave the country, right? Back in the early days of the war that’s what I was told several times, that because I disagreed that I should leave the country.
Natalie wonders if protesting or having an anti-war opinion is “appropriate,” “constructive”, or “helpful.” The answer is a big YES, if a person’s opinion is that the war should end. Wars aren’t like board games with some type of proven winner. Every person that dies has become the ultimate loser, whether an American soldier, a UN worker, a reporter, and as our military likes to call civilian Iraqis “collateral damage.”
This effort to dampen interest to protest by appealing to some sort of guilt, that we should consider the soldiers as they think on the battlefield is just a smokescreen to turn attention away from the war policy.
Here’s something controversial, I don’t care what the soldiers think. I was in the army and had my opinions and didn’t care what the American public thought about my opinions. Soldiers have different opinions, some want the war to be over for no other reason then they would rather not be in a war, politics has nothing to do with it.
Many of the soldiers in Iraq joined long before the war was even a twinkle in Bush’s eye. Many soldiers are coming back from Iraq and joining organizations like Veterans Against the War in Iraq. And on the other hand, many of the troops are proud to be fighting this war. There is no political consensus from active soldiers. Many don’t understand anything about what’s going on, thinking simply that they have a job to do.
When I joined the army it was made clear that I might have to fight in a war. There was no predictions of what type of war it might be or what political reasons for it (back then it was assumed it was against communism, but no major war was happening at the time). But I was young and like most young people I was not a political information hound, I wanted the college money and needed a job.
In retrospect, these were stupid reasons to join, but many of our soldiers of today are there for just such monetary reasons. Those are the type of soldiers I probably relate to now. They wouldn’t be getting their arms and legs blown off, they wouldn’t be dead if they had better choices in America’s economy as well as the bad policy of this war.
But my opposition to the Iraq War has so many threads that even the above doesn’t nearly cover it. I will go on voicing my dissent for all the different theads.
I think Jon B pretty well invalidates Natalie’s attacks against my previous post. Well done Jon B.
On a final note, I have been protesting this war for several months now and we always tell men and women who say they are going to Iraq to come home safely and be careful. I protest this war to stop the loss of American and Iraqi lives, not to attack the personal integrity of individual service members. The right always accuses us of being anti-troop, but never provides a shred of evidence to buttress that claim. My father is an ex-marine and he feels EXACTLY the same way as myself. I think I will conclude this post with a quote of his regarding the invasion of Iraq: “It wasn’t worth a single American life.”
Natalie, I just have to say that your statements that the 2004 election validated Bush’s Iraq strategy is clear nonsense. If you look at the exit polls in Ohio, for instance, it is clear that people who voted for GWB did so on the basis of “moral values” which translates into abortion and gay marriage. Similar results were found across the United States.
Furthermore, the U.S. was not presented with the whole picture about Bush’s pre-war intelligence handling. The Senate Intelligence Committee, at the calling of chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), postponed the final leg of its investigation of pre-war intelligence until after the election. It was going to investigate the manipulation of pre-war intelligence. To this date, the committee has not reconstituted these hearings. In addition, Bush pushed back the release date of the Silberman-Robb Commission findings until after the election as well. That commission also investigated the U.S. handling of pre-war intelligence, but thanks to Bush, the committee had to look at all U.S. intelligence regarding all nations, not just Iraq, even though that is what the public and Congress wanted.
Right on John Francis Lee!
Natalie defines success probably as Bush would. And by our ORIGINAL reasons for going to war, it has already been a success. We found that Saddam had no WMDs, reason one successful, Iraq has no WMDs. Saddam is out of power, reason number two a success. No link to 9/11 has been found, full proof has been a success. And even Bush’s later reasoning, democracy, we can call it a success, they did have a vote.
Now, I’m really saying this tongue in cheek. But I’ve offered an alternate way of thinking that allows for declaring victory and getting out of there.
Success is just a word that means different things to different people. Success is just an opinion based on goals accomplished. Most people set goals and even if those goals were not totally acheived, if they’ve progressed toward those goals they consider it success. Success gets redefined as the attempt to meet the goal ensues.
As an opponent to this war, I’ve certainly had to redefine success based on my goals. Prior to the war, I didn’t want it to start at all. But there was success as the war protest prior to the war was the greatest ever produced prior to a war. Then my definition of success changed as I wanted the war to end, this required an education of the American public and that education is now bearing fruit as polls are showing the tide is turning. But success by my new definition is not complete until we withdraw, that day is coming. But my goals will not have been realized, but my redefinition of success will.
The Bushies are redefining success in Iraq in their minds as we speak. And they’ve been doing this all along. It’s been hard to know what their real goals are. Did they really expect Iraq to be a cakewalk with Iraqis throwing flowers at our soldiers feet? If so, they’ve been unsuccessful, right Natalie? If they did expect the cakewalk, they’ve obviously had to redefine their meaning of success.
When Bush staged his Mission Accomplished show on the aircraft carrier, did he really believe that? If so, he obviously didn’t meet his goal.
So, I have to wonder what Natalie considers success at this point. I wonder if she felt the war was won on the day Saddams statue was toppled at that time. I wonder if she believed that major combat operations were over back when she watched that show on the boat. And finally I wonder how many Americans, how many Iraqis have to die to consider it a success?
Success is also about perspective. I remember the incident in Afghanistan for instance when one of our “smart” bombs landed on a wedding. I wonder of those participating in the joyous event if any considered the war in Afghanistan a success?
I wonder if Natalie cares one hoot about the 6 year old Iraqi son of a construction worker killed by a bullet from a skittish American soldier I read about in my local newspaper. Success? Or the 40 something female Iraqi nurse on the way to work gunned down at a checkpoint recently. Success? They had something to do with 9/11? Or how about that football player Pat Tillman, dead from friendly fire in Afghanistan, would he consider the Afghan War a success? His parents don’t have that definition as they are pissed at the Bush Administration for lieing to them about the circumstances of his death.
My first paragraph described a version of success, declare victory and end the success of our destruction of innocent lives.
Protesting this very wrong war is not only right but it is incumbent upon a moral conscience. The posts above address the issues really well. The protest is against bad policy not soldiers. The ones who destroy troop morale are the ones who lied them into being there, and who send them in harm’s way while they have to use shoddy body armor and equipment. People in uniform can think for themselves and they don’t need to hear a censored America. Mrs. Sheehan is speaking her heart and the press has glommed onto those wide-spread sentiments that they ignored for way too long while they spewed the Bush propaganda. She is a catalyst for change, a voice of moral reason in contrast with its absence from our “leaders”. Just look at the story “Radioactive Wounds of War” by Dave Lindorff here on ITT about the New York State National Guardsman, Gerard Matthew. This is the horrible aftermath of modern warfare and it is outrageous.
Natalie claims a faulty memory, I agree.
She recalls “My only point here is that the country endorsed, albeit implicitly, Bush
Tom Hayden brilliantly encapsulated the many issues that the anti-war movement has broached with regard to the futile and immoral nature of this imperialist war: the collapsing “coalition”, the lack of representitiveness of the new Baghdad Regime, the failure (and transparency) of Iraqization, the loss of US allies’ respect in the world, the great cost in lives and resources, and the total lack of legitimacy for going to war based on the lack of either WMDs or official state sponsership of terrorist activity abroad. The key motives have proven to be not only oil and a restoration of US hegemony in the world but the opportunity presented by the war to use the entire Iraqi economy for US corporate-led globalization. Billions of US dollars have gone to mostly US corporations in reconstruction contracts to take over the Iraqi economy and globalize it by destroying the local state sector and middle classes and linking the local economy to global markets and investment in a way that marginalizes the majority of Iraqis and enriches global capital. Certainly the war helped many large US transnationals such as Haliburton whose half billion debt before the war turned into a quarter billion dollar profit after the invasion and occupation due to lucreataive no bid contracts. But cronyism is only part of the story. US and other foreign capital has taken over the economy from the rebuilding, dredging, and management of the southern Port of Umm Qasr to local manufacturing of consumer goods, the running of the new banking system and even the future of Iraqi agriculture. Much of this is based on the 100 Bremer Orders unilaterally, illegaly, and undemocratically enacted by the CPA, the US occupation administration, and which is binding on Iraqi sovereign authority by agreement. With regard to Iraqi agriculture, Order 81 has compelled Iraq to allow the dumping of subsidized surplus grains on their local market putting many Iraqi farmers out of business and allowing hybrid seed companies to monopolize the seed market using new intellectual property laws to forbid Iraq farmers from saving the seeds from a season’s crop without a royalty payment agreement with the seed companies. This is only one instance of the creation of local dependence on corporate controlled markets and supply chains. Much of the “new” seed varieties are culled from Iraqis themselves who have been cross breeding crops for generations. The result will be fewer independant farmers and future dependance on expensive US food imports and agricultural inputs. The replacement of the state marketing board with corporate marketing networks mean lower prices for Iraq farmers, higher ones for local consumers, and a redistribution of wealth from the local to the foreign sector. This is the pattern which is evident in the rest of the Iraqi economy whereby Iraqis who have skills and are willing to work cheaper than foreigners are being shut out of their own economy! By late 2004, when the Sunni triangle began to see heavier resistance, it was reported that only 7% of the iraqi workforce was being used in the reconstruction efforts. Many towns and villages still have no or irregular electricity and water despite the resources to prodvide it. Trade Unions, the only truely democratic forces in the country are being attacked and disbanded by the occupation. The Sunnis are the sector of Iraqi society which contains the greatest amount of secular nationalist opposition to US imperialism and corporate capitalist usurpaation of the economy which is why the US politically marginalized them through a corrupt party list system for the January elections which favored the theocxratic Shiite leadership who also wants an end to the US occupation. This is all part of the reason for the conflict over the drawing up of a new national constitution. Such a constitution is not allowed to contradict the interests of US corporate capitalism. An ongoing war will be the consequences.
Stop the presses:
The truest, most cogent response to Tom Hayden’s proposal is now available at Stan Goff’s site in the form of Stan Goff’s reply to Tom Hayden’s reply to Stan Goff’s reply to Tom Hayden’s proposal.
Please read it and join me in a mediatation on just exactly what is at stake here.
Bring the troops home NOW! is the only possible answer to the monstrous mess that the “professionals”, Demoplicans and Republicrats alike, have got us into, and are now doing their best to keep us from getting OURSELVES out of.
Stan Goff served in Viet Nam. He has a son who is now getting ready to return to Iraq for his third tour. Tom Hayden, bless his soul, talked about Viet Nam and is now talking about Iraq. He has a “solution” that Stan’s son may or may not live through.
That’s the difference in their perspectives. The one is of the “strategic”, hold on to power at all costs class, the other of the fighting and dying class.
I was with Tom Hayden on Viet Nam. I talked the talk too. That got us out of Viet Nam and into Iraq thirty years later.
I think I’ll try Stan Goff’s take this time.
I’m finally willing to pay the price you have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice.
What do we
John Francis, you started out pretty well in your attempt to answer my question with a simple yes or no. You said “yes”.
But then you went on to describe a policy that almost surely would lead to failure.
If I was to ask you if you wanted crime reduced in your neighborhood, you would answer yes. But then, if your logic was consistent, you would prescribe reducing the police presence to zero to achieve your goal.
Having read the short and simplistic “plan” of Stan Gof that you embrace, I can only assume that you are not part of the “nuanced” left. Is your position on the drug problem “just say no”?
Stan Gof sees great virtue in all the left fringe groups burying their hatchets and speaking with one voice to defeat an enemy. Putting aside all the frightful perils of silencing dissent and stifiling free speech, is his strategy not similar to mine when I advocate for the nation to speak with one voice against anti-democratic forces in Iraq and elsewhere?
My position is really just the Stan Goff position. Except that my version might actually lead to some real world improvements in the area of totalitarian oppression, not simply achieve the goal of simultaneously sticking our heads in the sand.
I’m afraid I’m compelled to ask a few more simplistic yes or no questions. (It might have somethng to do with that one comment on Goff’s plan quoting the wisdom of Fidel) DO you favor an end to totalitarian oppression?
If yes (I’ve gotta think you’d say yes), do you have a plan to achieve it? Is it similar to your Iraq plan in which you would simply allow the forces of oppression to have free reign?
Natalie,
I know you dislike the blockquotes, but quotes are confusing.
No Natalie, I then went on to describe a policy that will end the daily loss of innocent life due to America’s presence in Iraq, that will strive to put right as much of the wrong we have done there as possible, that will make sure that we do not repeat the same mistake we have already made twice in my lifetime.
That policy is inconsistent with the policy you espouse which has already failed. The question is do we send more Americans to kill and be killed or do we sober up and take responsibility for the monstrous mistakes we have made now.
If Iraqi “police” showed up in your neighborhood to “reduce crime”; if they burst into your house fully armed, trashed your house, barked orders at you in Arabic which you could not understand, disappeared into a back room to have a talk with your son and left laughing an hour a later; if then, when another of your family discovered your blameless son dead, in a pool of his innocent blood where the police had left him, would you not prescribe “reducing the police presence to zero” in order to reduce crime in your neighborhood?
This is exactly the position the present American regime has put honest Americans answering their country’s call to serve in Iraq.
I understand that George W Bush is a Christian. If so would it not be better for him if a millstone were tied about his neck and he were hurled into the deepest sea than for him to have done what he has done to the innocent young Americans he has sent to Iraq?
I do not say this out of hatred for George W Bush but as an earnest admonishment. He may yet spare tens of thousands of lives between now and January 20, 2009. Out of stubborness and recalcitrance he may yet slay them.
I must have missed Stan Goff’s call to stifle free speech. Could you please direct me to it?
You are trying to rally support and so is Stan Goff. You add to your call that it is unpatriotic to oppose it. I support Stan Goff.
Except that it is the opposite of Stan Goff’s position.
Yes, Natalie, I deplore totalitarian oppression. I oppose it in Palestine and in Iraq. I theoretically oppose it in Burma, but I have very limited means of opposing the Burmese generals.
My plan to end totalitarian oppression in Palestine and in Iraq is to work for the election of Representatives and Senators in the United States, be they Republicrats, Demoplicans, Independents, Greens, Conservatives, or Liberals, who will pledge in writing to vote NOT ONE MORE DIME for the wars in Iraq and Palestine, or anywhere in the Middle East.
For it is clear that the present regime plans not only to continue the wars in Iraq and Palestine but to attack Iran as well, if it can get away with it.
They can’t get away with it. Other Americans like myself will speak up. Many of us will march on Washington on September 24th. We will put an end to this war and foreclose the possibility of another. We will not allow the forces of oppression free reign.
Natalie,
You may as well give up on this one. When you have to explain the obvious, subtlty is way beyond comprehension.
Yeah, whattheheck, I think I’m done here. I give up. I simply tried to appeal to people, on grounds of common courtesy and practicality, to consider the impact their brand of “dissent” has on the troops moral, and the ability of our nation to defend and maybe even heaven forbid project itself—even in the event that a situation develops they DO consider worthy of military action.
Liberals have absolutely no problem suppressing and squelching speech and ideas they oppose. They favor muzzling political speech close to election time, outlawing what THEY decide to be “politically incorrect” references, and shouting down or throwing pies at certain people for expressing fascist, imperialistic views, like those you quoted above by FDR, or even the ones of JFK as he sought to expand freedom and stand up against the heroes of today’s left.
Former official advisor to the POTUS, George Stepinawfulmess, was free to openly advocate for the assassination of Saddam Hussein in the pages of Newsweek, with not a hint of outrage by the left. But when Pat Robertson, a private citizen, casually expresses the same idea about Hugo Chavez, we get a week of condemnation and outrage by them. They were saying: “Even if you were thinking that Pat, you’re not allowed to say it. It might damage our reputation in the world and even cause people to be killed.”
Here they are right and Pat was wrong. But why the double standard? Why can’t Pat speak but they feel ordained by the constitution (they are, I know) to say the most vile, disrespectful and often outright false things about their own country and president that can’t help but achieve the same result they fear from Robertson’s words. If anyone dares suggest discretion on their part they are beside themselves, while Pat apologizes—albeit reluctantly.
It’s amazing how asking a simple yes or no question can reveal things about people. It’s clear to me now that John Francis’s and Cindy Sheehan’s definition of oppression is polar opposite to mine and probably at least 9 out of 10 Americans.
Here’s a link for you, JFL, if you’re still out there. I don’t know how to make it clickable, (it used to be automatic here at ITT) but I’m sure you’re computer savvy enough to know you can simply highlight it and drag it to your address box. I never said I disliked block-quotes, BTW, that’s purely an assumption on your part. My reference to HTML was more out of jealousy. In fact, I admire that you are able to produce block-quotes, and I agree that they add a lot to the readability of a post.
http://nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5856
Have fun at the rally on September 24th. Maybe you’ll make some new friends there. How nice that the troops will be able to watch, too.
Actually, I may be all wrong on this. They may be able to fight all the better when they’re pissed off.
Hi there Colonel Natalie, do you do shoes as well as the dress while you sit at that keyboard?
Please take note everybody that Natalie is not really debating, Natalie is none other than Roger Ramjet, otherwise known as Lt Colonel Roger Helbig, a government disinformation agent.
He was effectively outed here
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2298/
and you’ll notice the similarity in writing styles, word useage etc between Ramjet and his self obsessed alter ego Natalie. He also admits to being Helbig, slipped up he did.
Rabbit wonders why they use such dummies to try and fool intelligent, enquiring people.
Maybe this is the best they’ve got?
Now you tell me Rabbitvoz. Waste of breath singing to the choir and a sole government employee here.
That’s alright John. These sites basically act like traps for these creeps. they come in hoping to sow havoc but instead give others a chance to refute all the official crap and it serves it’s purpose because others see them for what they are. Imagine how humiliating it must be to be caught out and proven to be a liar and shill over and over.
They are doomed. Wonder if it occurs to them that while more and more people are waking up and turning against them, nobody is joing their cause. Their supporters are dwindling faster and faster and nobody ever goes back because of one unnassailable difference. TRUTH
Rabbitvoz,
Googling Lt Colonel Roger Helibig brings up news of this Air Force employee’s work as a “minder” or enforcer for the DOD lie about Uranium Munitions in direct contravention of US Army Regulations and Orders
How was he outed on ITT? How were you able to identify him this round?
Natalie,
You mentioned the Pat Robertson flap. The latest British law revision (due to Muslim clerics advocating murder) means Robertson can be arrested for those comments if he ever goes to England. Even though the law was not yet in effect, and his statement had nothing to do with them.
My wife and I have a number of friends in London and I
I agree with Stan Groff’s resolute determination to “Exit Now” even if he is gruff with all the politicians who leave conditional wiggle room for an exit strategy. If they wait until certain conditions exist for Iraq, the exit could last forever. How long will the American public tolerate this chaos?
I would imagine that many people in uniform serving overseas have no problem with massive civilian anti-war protest since it is a response to the civilian commander’s decision to engage in this premeditated war plan. Civilians put them there, civilians will get them out. Maybe many people in the armed services are glad that the public is speaking out in hopes of getting them out of harm’s way. Maybe there are some soldiers who are glad that there are Americans with enough backbone willing to stand up to bad policy and Washington’s apathy. Most cannot risk open objection even if their hearts tell them otherwise.
So I don’t think any of you who are always rah-rah-rah for the war to go on indeterminately really have the best interests of U.S. service people at heart.
I guess if that Bush had been honest, ‘hey Americans, we need a string of bases along the oil supply lines in the Middle East or we will suffer an oil shortage soon’, it still would have been too a hard of a sell. But it’s the oil companies who are winning, the security contractors who profit, and meanwhile Halliburton swindles our own military budget. The Arabs would never have gone for an obvious takeover of their most valuable resource anyway. It’s so convoluted, and such an immense web of deceit, who knows what is up with the truth.
I’ve said it before that people in uniform can think for themselves and they don’t need to hear a censored America. They don’t need to be coddled like children.
I thought this article was a persuasive take on exiting Iraq.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082605D.shtml
Why We Must Leave Iraq
By Larry C. Johnson
Davidcorn.com
Thursday 25 August 2005
excerpt:
“Sometimes in life there are no good options. It is part of our nature to always assume that we can fix a problem. But in life there are many problems or situations where there is no pleasant solution. If you were at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 9 am on September 11, 2001 you had no good options. You could choose to jump or to burn to death. Some choice.
A hard, clear-eyed look at the current situation in Iraq reveals that we are confronted with equally bad choices. If we stay we are facilitating the creation of an Islamic state that will be a client of Iran. If we pull out we are likely to leave the various ethnic groups of Iraq to escalate the civil war already underway. In my judgment we have no alternative but to pull our forces out of Iraq. Like it or not, such a move will be viewed as a defeat of the United States and will create some very serious foreign policy and security problems for us for years to come. However, we are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to achieve something approximating victory. And, what would victory look like? At a minimum we should expect a secular society where the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of being killed or kidnapped. That is not the case nor is it on the horizon.
We may even be past the point of no return where we could impose changes that would put Iraq back on course to be a secular, democratic nation without sparking a major Shiite counteroffensive. Therefore the time has come to minimize further unnecessary loss of life by our troops and re-craft a new foreign and security policy for the Middle East. “
see next post for more
—————————
“Staying the course and enduring further casualties while the insurgency grows stronger is an insane policy. If we persist on that front we will end up strengthening the hand of Islamic extremists and their role within the Iraqi insurgency.
Our choice is simple - either we invest in the military resources and personnel required to defeat the Sunni insurgents and allow the Shia and Kurds to consolidate power or we withdraw and let the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds find their own solution. We cannot ask our soldiers and Marines to give their lives and sacrifice their bodies for a new Islamic state. It is true that our withdrawal will create a major vacuum and damage our prestige. But the alternative, i.e., that we stay and try to train up sufficient Iraqi forces and help the fledgling Islamic Government get on its feet, will leave us the favorite target of insurgents and terrorists. And after we have shed the blood of our sons and daughters in trying to create a new government that will be controlled by Islamists, those Islamists will ultimately insist that we leave Iraq and no longer meddle in their affairs.
Rosy scenario does not live in Iraq. Until we come to grips with this truth American soldiers will continue to be killed and maimed for no good reason.”
————————————————————————————————————————
“Larry C. Johnson is a former Deputy Director of the US State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, who has spoken out for censure of Bush. Earlier, he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security and crisis and risk management. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international firm that helps multinational corporations and financial institutions identify strategic opportunities, manage risks, and counter threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. He is a Republican who supported and raised funds for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. “
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082605D.shtml
Natalie’s weird logic again…“My position is really just the Stan Goff position.
Natalie again…Former official advisor to the POTUS, George Stepinawfulmess, was free to openly advocate for the assassination of Saddam Hussein in the pages of Newsweek, with not a hint of outrage by the left.
“The right has been utterly silent about denouncing Pat Robertson
Have fun at the rally on September 24th.
Whattheheck, Robertson speaks for all those religious dittoheads listening to his show. He speaks for the 700 Club, he speaks for the Family Channel as their response was they have a contract they are going to adhere to, which more than likely has a clause to cancel the contract if he says or does wacky things like this (absent is an explaination as to when that contract ends so that we will know if they decide to axe him the first chance they get, to check on the validity of their excuse).
Apparently he speaks for the FCC as they’ve been completely silent as well. Beyond that he’s had close ties to many in the Republican Party. Of course we don’t know how close those ties are now, funneling of money can be pretty hard to track, on this I have no knowledge. I might even consider that the Bushies might hate him as he advocated nuking Foggy Bottom (the State Department).
And to be honest I also find Robertson to be a great butt for jokes. I’m not so pc that I can’t get a few laughs from what comes out of his outrageous orifice. I’ve always wondered what Colin Powell thought of his Foggy Bottom declaration. Might have Powell thought, “Pat, I’m the one holding the nuke card. not you.”
I remember a few years back when he publicly prayed for God to save his empire from a hurricane that promptly turned and smashed nearly head-on into his headquarters. God works in mysterious ways.
The religious leaders of the Christian fundementalist groups are some of the best targets for humor caused by their own actions. There has been a long line of them providing joke material. Jimmy Swaggert and his crying act after getting caught with a hooker. Jim Bakker, praise the lord and pass the mistress. And my favorite Oral Roberts who locked himself into a tower until he got $8 million from his faithful because God was going to take him if they didn’t. God signed the ransom note apparently. The list goes on. Any wonder why I consider most followers of the religious right to be among the most gullible humans on earth?
And by the way, I could laugh at Bill Clinton more than some on the right. We’ve had a long series of presidents who deserved more mocking than respect, the current one the worst in that line of succession.
I do not understand how one can posit that Robertson was speaking as a private citizen. He has his own show that is broadcast to hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. on PUBLIC airwaves. Now, if Robertson told his wife in their kitchen that he wanted Chavez assassinated, THAT would be speaking as a private citizen, but not when he has the bully pulpIt and is an influential member of the GOP.
Master detective “Rabbitvoz” apparently thinks he/she’s uncovered yet another piece in the puzzle of his/her giant conspiracy theory, but instead has carelessly cast doubt on his/her own credibility and analytical skills.
You’re quite wrong, Rabbit, on me and Roger Ramjet or whatever being the same person. This leads me to believe you might ALSO be wrong on your other theories about his aliases and MAYBE EVEN on depleted uranium. *gasp*
That’s not fair, I guess. You might be right on DU, I certainly don’t claim to know the whole truth on that, but I do know for certain that you are wrong on Roger & Me. (Would Roger be clever enough to weave in that little reference to Michael Moron?) I don’t really know, I guess. The first I heard from him was reading his comments on the DU article.
I seem to remember him bragging about how he voted for McGovern through Kerry. I’ve consistently claimed to having changed my political allegiances after Clinton’s first term, like many tens of thousands of average folks that realized the Democratic party was no longer what they signed up for.
My suspicion about the degree of danger posed by the use of DU is based primarily on knowing how politics and emotional scare-tactics tend to influence science and scientists. It applies to those on the right as well, with their apparently bogus contention that abortions lead to breast cancer. They use a lot of big red bold font, too.
Try again, genius!
Twas good for a laugh, though.
Nomad, you are flawed and imperfect!
Execute your prime function!
I shall analyze error.
Analyze ... error ...
Now! Get those antigravs on.
Examine ...
error.
Error.
Get rid of it now.
Your logic was impeccable, Captain.
We are in grave danger.
Scotty, the transporter room.
Hi John Francis Lee, go to this link and watch the story unfold. I swear it is hilarious.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2298/
I’ve also found him out under other disguises on this site since twigging on the DU issue (see link). He actually tripped up several times as you’ll see and you might notice some obvious and less obvious keyboard clues. You can see how he makes feeble efforts to change spacings and various punctuation but he can’t hide his lack of substance, his hubris or motives.
As for you Natalie, you are very obviously not a woman, others have noticed it. Rabbit is not entirely sure if you are Roger but would certainly bet on it, and Rabbit doesn’t usually gamble. If you are not the Colonel you were certainly trained in the same tactics and they aren’t working and you are failing to notice this as much as the Ramjet. You really are not fooling people, anybody who is interested can check out the link above.
Keep denying it though “girlie man” you just keep getting funnier. People will see what I mean when they look at all your postings. You see babe, the internet has a big problem for you characters. Your pretence at being undecided about DU is just that. You sound like MiddleRoad again, (remember that alias?).
Natalie said ” (Would Roger be clever enough to weave in that little reference to Michael Moron?)” and all Rabbit can answer is that he didn’t notice anything you said which could in any way be construed as clever. Roger of course would indeed consider himself to be clever, especially in the Natalie alter ego which seems to be emerging as his clear favorite. It’s the knickers and bra isn’t it Colonel.
You can’t say something and then pretend you didn’t without being proven a liar. You are so out of your depth here and you just don’t have a clue. You realised about the funny quotation marks that were coming off your keyboard at one point but not before you’d linked three of the characters for us that way.
Rabbit figures this site is great. If a Shill like you is so desperate it must have something going for it.
Oh and “Natalie” you should remember that the alias’ of Colonel Helbig was admitted by him/you already, no more theory then is it? As for you I’m sorry mate but as an honest person myself and with experience as a father alone I can hear the falseness coming through your denials. Surprising how poorly you lie considering it’s your full time job really.
You still don’t know what you’re doing to give the game away do you?
Rabbit,
I know you think you’re funny and cute and clever, and if you really are clever, you must know what a fool you’re making out of yourself, and how you’re damaging your own credibility.
Anyone that has to resort to accusing people of being two or three people instead of one, (they’re ganging up on me, it ain’t fair) and pretend to perform keyboard analysis to try to prove some shadowy conspiracy is pretty transparently unable to argue his case effectively on the merits.
I’ve already admitted I don’t have the expertise, and frankly not the interest anymore to argue the degree of danger DU poses. Let’s just say I’m suspicious, for reasons I’ve stated consistently. Sounds like a good topic for 60 mins, if it’s still on the air. Why don’t you try to get them to take it up, and BTW, why haven’t they? Or have they?, I don’t know. Is it another conspiracy? It doesn’t seem to me like they usually shrink from trying to make the military look bad, at least during a Republican administration.
That’s my opinion, and I believe I’m entitled to it.
And you’re entitled to yours. But, velvety soft rodent, you have no right to come on here and start childishly accusing people of being two, three or any number of the same.
Nobody is ganging up on me Nat.
Rabbit never claimed any conspiracy theories. Others have already noticed you’re not a woman, Anybody who looks at the timings, the grammar and punctuation can see it and above all the technique you employ. There is nothing childish about outing a government shill, whether you are pro or freelance. However to come onto the internet and pretend to be various people all to try and make it seem like somebody could actually believe your excuses for ideas. Now that my little chickadee is Childish.
As Rabbit predicted you will totally out yourself and you’ve done it. Jesus you clown you even answer some of the queries of one character under the wrong name. A couple of times I’ve thrown a deliberate reference to another of your characters in only to notice that character suddenly responded on another thread, and the timings were in between your posts on this thread.
Frankly I haven’t even wasted much time on this to absolutely narrow you down to one or two people. What I am sure of is that not one of the names I’ve called out is a genuine personality. Most of them are yours Colonel Helbig, and while you may have a mate working with you, I’d say you two drink together.
Now Natalie says “I know you think you
Oh and Nat, don’t lie about the DU issue. You are still hard at it. You can’t change your spots, just your name. Don’t you realise that nobody except government shills can so clearly express the official bullshit in all it’s glory. Most people who get on the net trying to justify the NEWTHINK are not able to get it all in order with links to the propaganda machine. You come on pretending you are looking for answers but before long it’s obvious you are trying to derail the issue with well orchestrated propaganda efforts and well established Shill tactics.
It is ironic that the only defense for the present regime’s lies about Iraq, deadly lies that are killing Americans and Iraqis alike right this moment, is a professional liar. A man from the Department of Defense where they lie even when they don’t “have to” just to keep in practice, pretending to be a woman, Natalie, and various other supporting roles.
Could there be anything more certain to upset this shocking, awful tower of babel built of cards than the spectacle of the Wizard of Oz, the little man behind the curtain with the smoke and gongs and the big voice machine.
Nothing there but a wizened up little man, scared and tired and in way over his head.
Enough on detective stories and speculation on who is writing, EXITING IRAQ is the original topic.
Obviously Hayden’s view is we should, ASAP
Jon Stewart just did a number on Hitchens last week. Hitchens is a pompous ass. He did warn however, that he is coming out with a new article very critical of Bush’s handling of this war. So stay tuned.
Jon B,
Robertson is free to make a fool of himself by saying anything he wants to
Dear pick of the litter,
Did you read the article? I would say it is critical of Bush
dear wth,
if you have to ask who Jon Stewart is, you have no pulse on current American culture.
pick of the litter,
So, you say… ” if you have to ask who Jon Stewart is, you have no pulse on current American culture.”
That may be, but I know pomposity when I read it.
I thought the issue was whether or not to exit Iraq. I must be at the wrong site.
Excellent reference, WTH, although I’m suspicious you’re actually Roger or maybe even Hitchens himself. It wouldn’t surprise me if that baggy-eyed “liberal” would stoop so low as to promote his book under the guise of another.
;-)
Don’t expect these closed-minded “liberals” to take that arduous journey from your link to their address box for fear of that disturbing and depressing specter know as the light of day.
But of course anyone who dares question the validity of their claims about the degree of danger posed by depleted uranium is simply and conveniently a “username-shifting government shill”.
I think perhaps what’s at the root of their suspicion is the fact that “Roger” happened to or chose to re-enter the discussion on DU immediately after I had the NERVE to post some links and quotes from what seemed to me to reputable sources discounting the dangers of DU.
I’m still open on the issue of DU. But it is clearly linked to this issue of “Exiting Iraq”, as it is being used as a tool, rightly or wrongly, to discredit the military and subsequently their current mission.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082605D.shtml
Read my link! Read my link!
Hey, I posted numerous times on this thread on Exiting Iraq, did you read all my links?
http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/041115roco04?page=1
Weapons of Self-Destruction
Is Gulf War syndrome - possibly caused by Pentagon ammunition - taking its toll on G.I.‘s in Iraq?
By David Rose
excerpts:
“It’s also remarkably cheap. The arms industry gets its D.U. for free from nuclear-fuel processors, which generate large quantities of it as a by-product of enriching uranium for reactor fuel. Such processors would otherwise have to dispose of it in protected, regulated sites. D.U. is “depleted” only in the sense that most of its fissile U-235 isotope has been removed. What’s left-mainly U-238-is still radioactive. “
“In June 2004 the U.S. General Accounting Office (G.A.O.) issued a report to Congress that was highly critical of government research into Gulf War syndrome and veterans’ cancer rates. The report said that the studies on which federal agencies were basing their claim that Gulf War veterans were no sicker than the veterans of other wars “may not be reliable” and had “inherent limitations,” with big data gaps and methodological flaws. Because cancers can take years to develop, the G.A.O. stated, “it may be too early” to draw any conclusions. Dr. Kilpatrick dismisses this report, saying it was “just the opinion of a group of individuals.” “
“Ultimately, critics say, the Pentagon underestimates the dangers of D.U. because it measures them in the wrong way”
http://www.coastalpost.com/05/04/09.htm
“Horror Of Depleted Uranium Not Limited To Iraq”
By James Denver, April 2005
excerpts:
“Despite all that evidence of the harm done by DU, governments on both sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly claimed that as it emits only ‘low level’ radiation DU is harmless. Award-winning scientist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell who has led UN medical commissions, has studied ‘low-level’ radiation for 30 years. 2 She has found that uranium oxide particles have more than enough power to harm cells, and describes their pulses of radiation as hitting surrounding cells ‘like flashes of lightning’ again and again in a single second.2 Like many scientists worldwide who have studied this type of radiation, she has found that such ‘lightning strikes’ can damage DNA and cause cell mutations which lead to cancer.
Moreover, these particles can be taken up by body fluids and travel through the body, damaging more than one organ. To compound all that, Dr. Bertell has found that this particular type of radiation can cause the body’s communication systems to break down, leading to malfunctions in many vital organs of the body and to many medical problems. A striking fact, since many veterans of the first Gulf war suffer from innumerable, seemingly unrelated, ailments.”
“A Culture of Denial
In 1996 and 1997 UN Human Rights Tribunals condemned DU weapons for illegally breaking the Geneva Convention and classed them as ‘weapons of mass destruction’ ‘incompatible with international humanitarian and human rights law’. Since then, following leukemia in European peacekeeping troops in the Balkans and Afghanistan (where DU was also used), the EU has twice called for DU weapons to be banned.
Yet, far from banning DU, America and Britain stepped up their denials of the harm from this radioactive dust as more and more troops from the first Gulf war and from action and peacekeeping in the Balkans and Afghanistan have become seriously ill. “
Seems to me that the military discredits itself and money is the main concern not soldier’s health. Cheap and effective weaponry. Fear of medical responsibility and massive lawsuits.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082605D.shtml
And I posted excerpts from this this article before here:
Why We Must Leave Iraq
By Larry C. Johnson
Davidcorn.com
Thursday 25 August 2005
” Sometimes in life there are no good options. It is part of our nature to always assume that we can fix a problem. But in life there are many problems or situations where there is no pleasant solution. If you were at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 9 am on September 11, 2001 you had no good options. You could choose to jump or to burn to death. Some choice.
A hard, clear-eyed look at the current situation in Iraq reveals that we are confronted with equally bad choices. If we stay we are facilitating the creation of an Islamic state that will be a client of Iran. If we pull out we are likely to leave the various ethnic groups of Iraq to escalate the civil war already underway. In my judgment we have no alternative but to pull our forces out of Iraq. Like it or not, such a move will be viewed as a defeat of the United States and will create some very serious foreign policy and security problems for us for years to come. However, we are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to achieve something approximating victory. And, what would victory look like? At a minimum we should expect a secular society where the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of being killed or kidnapped. That is not the case nor is it on the horizon.
We may even be past the point of no return where we could impose changes that would put Iraq back on course to be a secular, democratic nation without sparking a major Shiite counteroffensive. Therefore the time has come to minimize further unnecessary loss of life by our troops and re-craft a new foreign and security policy for the Middle East. “
“Staying the course and enduring further casualties while the insurgency grows stronger is an insane policy. If we persist on that front we will end up strengthening the hand of Islamic extremists and their role within the Iraqi insurgency.
Our choice is simple - either we invest in the military resources and personnel required to defeat the Sunni insurgents and allow the Shia and Kurds to consolidate power or we withdraw and let the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds find their own solution. We cannot ask our soldiers and Marines to give their lives and sacrifice their bodies for a new Islamic state. It is true that our withdrawal will create a major vacuum and damage our prestige. But the alternative, i.e., that we stay and try to train up sufficient Iraqi forces and help the fledgling Islamic Government get on its feet, will leave us the favorite target of insurgents and terrorists. And after we have shed the blood of our sons and daughters in trying to create a new government that will be controlled by Islamists, those Islamists will ultimately insist that we leave Iraq and no longer meddle in their affairs.
Rosy scenario does not live in Iraq. Until we come to grips with this truth American soldiers will continue to be killed and maimed for no good reason.
————————————————————————————————————————
Larry C. Johnson is a former Deputy Director of the US State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, who has spoken out for censure of Bush. Earlier, he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security and crisis and risk management. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international firm that helps multinational corporations and financial institutions identify strategic opportunities, manage risks, and counter threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. He is a Republican who supported and raised funds for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. “
———-
Fabulous article by Hitchens, WTH. Thanks, although I had a little trouble with the link.
I urge everyone here to read it and consider again the wisdom of adopting the Tom Hayden view, or worse.
This is the kind of thinking that use to define the Democratic party. Hitchens is a true “liberal”. If only the Whitehouse could communicate this effectively.
Here’s a link to the printer-friendly version:
http://tinyurl.com/9tq9h
Sorry folks but this idiot just doesn’t know when to quit. Natalie you are not open minded about DU or anything else. Anybody who doubts it only has to read your shilling efforts on the thread we’re talking about.
Natalie you don’t even realise how obvious you are, just like Roger. There as here you are just complimenting your own alter ego and trying to make it look like someone agrees with you. Nobody does. You give yourself away by demostrating the same tactics, links and techinques of self delusion. I’m not interested in debating you because you are not in it for the truth, just to push the official lies. You are never going to change the mind of anyone who has once seen the truth. This is why your supporters represent less than 36 percent (and falling) of the US population and less than 1 percent of the rest of the world.
Rabbit seldom finds himself amongst the majority, but the tide has turned. As for your simple little view of the world you cretinous man in drag and WTH, not everybody who opposes you is a liberal. there are many shades of the political spectrum not just two. However while there is only one very narrow viewpoint which supports your countries war crimes, everybody else in the world is against you.
Your day is coming. Hey BOZO’s haven’t you noticed that even Republicans are now turning against the war criminals and psychopaths in the whitehouse. They are criminals and traitors to America. They are war criminals to the rest of the world. You’ve chosen your side, scum and you are no longer welcome on this planet. If you can’t accept others and let them live in peace and freedom, the rest of the worlds people are telling you, we don’t have room for your type. Stop breathing our air you are no longer welcome.
Congratulations on making a once respected and loved country an international pariah. USA is a rogue state, a criminal, expansionist, pirate state. Where are your freedoms now? Even Iran looks disdainfully on the lack of freedom and democracy in the USA and Britain.
Who hated your freedoms? you obviously did yourselves because nobody else took them away.
You are a nation of cowards and bullies, liars and psychopaths. Nobody wants any of what you are selling. 36 percent and shrinking, remember. Think you can turn that around? Ha!
Oh Natalie, sycophantic little Natalie with the open mind. The Hitchens article is an opinion piece, it draws some longs bows and is so hollow that by complimenting it you just sank to an all time low. You have no mind. No powers of discernment and no morals.
Iraq war was started and has been maintained on the basis of constantly changing lies. It’s too late to justify a war after the fact when this is the case. By attacking Iraq America has lost all it’s respect in the world. The feeling is a combination of fear and loathing.
America has never been less secure, not just Muslims but people of all faiths are ready to take up arms against you. Morally bankrupt. You are not only killing and maiming more people than any other evil empire has done, you are showing no regard for the safety and health of your own soldiers.
Babylon the Great Whore. Rabbit will sing in your nation’s destruction and good riddance.
Just hope the world is still liveable when you’re gone.
“Rabbit will sing in your nation’s destruction and good riddance. “
Well you can just fcuk yourself!
It’s a damn global network of powermongers and this country is made up of the best and the worst like any country on earth.
“I am everyday people”
pick of the litter. Rabbit asked for that, and expected it and apologises. In fact I know there are many Americans who are deeply ashamed of what is being done in their name. Rabbit is also well aware that the problem is as you say a
“damn global network of powermongers”
who are using the USA as an attack dog. However, the fact is that the position being held by that shrinking 36 percent of your country is so insane and abhorent to civilized people that America has become a hated pariah beyond it’s borders. Indeed many people who would have considered Americans as friends and cousins automatically only three or four years ago would now wish your nation to just drop off the planet. It seems obvious that the main concern which is mobilising many of you against the war is no more than your own underreported bu moderate losses. Still not a lot of thought for the previously peaceful and stable Iraq or it’s people who only a few years ago had no beef with the USA.
So while I am sorry to say it, since the greediest nation on earth has gone berserk and seems bent on setting our world up for destruction, it has become the following scenario.
Either you Americans reign in your belligerence and soon or the balance of world opinion will decide that we are better off without you. We are also everyday people. Those Iraqis are also everyday people. The difference is our armies are not trashing and looting your country and planet.
Since you are not one of the 36 percent you should be angry to be bunched in together with those maniacs. Bad luck.
By the way, by supporting the US as we’ve done my country has also lost a huge amount of respect and Rabbit is ashamed. At least we don’t use DU weapons and we have treated the Iraqi’s with the decency, respect and fairness for which we still have a reputation.
That said, Australia has become known as the “land of the arse licker” thanks to an evil little bastard of a Prime Minister. We are in line for retaliatory attacks on our soil anytime and we deserve it. I for one do not automatically see innocent victims of so called terrorist attacks. First I would want to know where each victim stood on the issue of having invaded others’ lands without provocation. Some like you or I may be innocent. Natalie would not be an innocent victim and would deserve to be splattered all over the place, just like the “innocent” Iraqis her army is murdering in droves.
Got that Natalie? In fact Colonel, (yes you are) you deserve to be fed depleted uranium as a daily diet for as long as you remained alive.
Hope when the War Crimes Tribunals are finished with you scum one day that we can get screen savers of your faces as you feel the end of the rope. I’d even swap yours out every few days with the Shrub. Remember Helbig, you are marked now. That shrinking support base must be getting hard keep your balance on.
Know what is cute? The lower that number goes before the filth in power are outed, the worse the anger you will be facing. Just imagine all those americans realising they have achieved the status of the Germans or Japanese in 1946, looking for someone to blame. The ones who are going to be most dangerous, are the sort who will stay the longest believing the bull. They lack all reason and will be desperate to find scapegoats, they will tear people like you to pieces, they will burn you at the stake.
Oh and guys, unlike the the Nazis there won’t be any countries left who will shelter you when you try and make a run for it. Nobody will want your filthy criminal junta when they are looking for a port in the storm. Oh maybe Pakistan? Would you like to spend your last years hiding out in Pakistan?
Sorry to jump on again but there is one thing which has been raised on this thread which really needs to be challenged.
The idea that the “West” is best, the suggestion that our societies are more loving. I must inform you that you are completely uninformed on this point. We share very similar culture/society with USA (Australia). I know that you like we have the same sort of familial ties. Most families see little enough of their siblings when they become adults, the whole concept of extended family is fading fast in our societies. The reasons for this are probably the all pervasive materialsim, but the fact is indisputable. Even a few decades ago it was much better and everyone would have known their grandparents and cousins, first and second etc. No more.
Whats more the friendliness or helpfullness of everyday people, especially in the cities is woeful. In fact suspicion and avoidance of each other is more often the norm. Now I’m an Aussie and lots of Americans have told me how friendly and helpful we are, to put this in perspective.
The problem with your views about the “East” is that they are obviously based upon what the “West” says about them. That just doesn’t cut it. You see the western view of eastern society is based upon concentrating upon the differences and especially the extremes, which are just that. How would we fare if we were to be judged on our extremes by the East?
I shall tell you. We would be described as arrogant, immoral materialists. Our society would be seen to be full of Murder, Rape and Prostitution. Guess what? That is exactly how we are seen by the “East”.
Now, Rabbit knows some people from “East”, Thais, Malaysians, Chinese, Iraqis and Iranians, among others. One thing noticeable to Rabbit is that the men and women of these lands are in general much more honest, sincere and generally loving than yours and my countrymen. Quite simply I envy them their big happy extended families, the ease and co-operation with which they deal with neighbors etc. On balance they are actually way out in front in the Love stakes.
Rabbit is telling you something he knows, here. If you had actually travelled and met “Eastern” people in their own lands you could not argue this point. Nobody who has travelled these places would disgree. Of course if by travel you mean in uniform and with a gun in your hand then you may not have seen it so clearly, but Rabbit has heard many returned vets from Iraq say similar.
I’m sorry fellow westerners, we honestly don’t have anything these people need or want, whether or not you can understand that.
All they want from us is to be left to live their lives their way. Besides which this war has nothing to do with human values, how ludicrous an idea is that. Its about oil.
We can pretend there are other reasons if we want, but nobody else believes us.
Rabbit says,
The “West” is best is an exaggeration and I don’t think the “East” is least. No doubt no one has a lock on love. I only suggest that cultures, which are not neccessarily wholly Eastern or Western, that are patriarchial/one sided and sexually repressive have little to offer for the future. I agree that cultures should be left alone as they wish, though ideas will always find a way to cross borders.
It is true that traditional European culture has a terrible history of enslavement and racial prejudice (and genocide). Western manifest destiny has left a horrible legacy, an ugly footprint across the continents by way of unrestrained greed and religious intolerance.
Now it is the global corporate conglomerates who enslave every culture even as they lift some out of poverty.
If the world judges the U.S. by the horrors and abuses at Abu Garaib and Guantanamo, by the horrors of warfare and blatant hegemony, by the actions of the liars sitting in office now, it is undertandable that the U.S. has used up its goodwill and now faces condemnation. I have spoken out against these horrors and abuses of power on ITT many times. Much of it started with a corrupted election (see http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/P320/ )
I could hardly believe that Bush earned another term after the tortures of Abu Garaib were widely revealed and I am appalled that no one in the upper echelons of military rank have been held accountable. The neo-con cabal has practically pulled a coup on gov’t power structure and the balances of power are diminishing rapidly. The evil actions of these naked powermongers do not reflect the entire moral substance of our general population however and we are full of every color under the sun.
I hope that the “sheeple” who accept everything matter-of-factly will wake up to the massive corruption. The media has been an effective tool for the propaganda machine and it has lost its way. Maybe the world needs to put some of those responsible for warcrimes on trial to expose what has been done behind the backs of The People.
I don’t see relishing in an entire nation’s destruction as very productive though. We have already lost a major U.S. city (New Orleans) and the gulf coast has been devastated. We may need our military reserves to return here and actually help instead of serving to oversee chaos overseas. Bush is bankrupting this country so you may very well see your wish come true, but he won’t suffer, it is the common folks who will suffer. I’d like to see America rid of the corruption, corporate welfare, and unchecked military power and secrecy but I would not be happy to witness our country fall into despair and chaos.
I got the"U.S. Blues”.
“His job is to shed light not disaster.”
Just to add, I know that the “west is best” phrase is arrogant and I just used it for its punch, so sorry for the offense. I do hold dear the faith that every creature on this planet deserves dignity and that environmental respect is key to good health and prosperity. If every incorporated entity would be true to the health of all peoples and the good earth, resist being slave to profit’s lonely ultimatum, and would not disregard its responsibities for good citizenship and stewardship, the world would be better for it.
Whattheheck…I certainly do understand there are plenty of threads of thought from Christian Conservatives, just as there are different ideas that come from the religious left. Generalizations are almost impossible to avoid when discussing topics such as these in a limited available space, we all do it.
Shoot, there are much worse sides to the religious right then I poked fun at. How about those white supremist groups preaching from the Bible and toting weapons around in the woods? They aren’t on FBI terrorist watch lists for nothing. Or recently convicted killer Rudolph, I’m sure he didn’t get his ideas just on his own singleminded study of the Bible.
Heck, I can even feel a sense of alliance with Paul Weyrich (long time Christian conservative) on issues such as being against media consolidation, opposition to the Patriot Act and promoting election reforms such as third party participation. Yet, Weyrich and I probably would not agree much on understanding Jesus and his message.
Beyond that, I’m a bit dissappointed that I have led the discussion away from the Tom Hayden post. On the other hand I’m surprised the postings have continued on this long in comparisons to other In These Times articles.
And in light of Katrina, I’ve somewhat found my interest lies elsewhere for the moment. I’m in simple awe of the damage done. I’ve been to New Orleans twice and memories of those times contrasting to the TV images I see post-Katrina are worlds apart. It’s hard to fathom such a huge community under a long term evacuation order. They are attempting to completely empty a city of about 600,000 people under extreme circumstances for probably many months. The relief efforts show the times when America can be thought of as a good country because politics be damned when we mobilize in dire emergencies.
pick of the litter, how right you are about the common folk as the ones to suffer. I saw a report today about a poor section of Biloxi that in general had to stay and ride out the storm because they simply didn’t have the money to purchase fuel to drive out prior to the storm. It was end of the month wait for check time. Their area was flattened and the death toll is unknown. I heard one woman from Mississippi who explained that she didn’t leave because the casino she worked for still hadn’t decided to close, a casino now destroyed. The rich homeowners along the coast were long gone before Katrina hit and probably will easily recoup their losses.
I couldn’t believe my ears when I saw a network cut to Bush when he was in San Diego. He did what any president should do, he informed about where to send money for aid in relief efforts, but then almost without taking a breath he launched into his blather about protecting against terrorism and Iraq, and thank God the network decided to cut away from what was probably another long winded fear mongering war promoting chant. And how come he takes three days to get his ass back to Washington?
Bush is so out of touch. An in touch president would have been back in Washington by the first images of destruction. We would have heard numerous speeches by now about Katrina and all the issues that need to be dealt with. And that would be the only subject talked about from the White House. He’s suppose to give a speech at 500pm today from Washington, if I hear one word about terrorism or Iraq, I will be up screaming at my TV.
I think we should all take the few minutes it might require to contribute whatever we can to whatever relief/charity organization we deem most efficient and trustworthy in order to help alleviate the suffering due to Katrina.
And then, take another few minutes to urge others in your sphere or cyber-sphere to do the same.
Dollars are what are needed. Little else helps, unless of course you are in a position to volunteer.
A very meandering thread, it’s pretty cool to see it evolve across the days, even though we’re supposed to remain on-topic. Not the sniping, of course, which is truly boring.
It’s going to be difficult to leave Iraq in less of a mess than is currently the case, but the White House ought to prioritize a withdrawal plan. I continue to believe that conducting two wars at once was an idea that should never have been implemented. Conducting two wars in the context of two major tax cuts also beggars the imagination. But here we are, and a sudden pull-out would surely lead to even more catastrophic violence than Iraq is now experiencing. I continue to say it should never have begun, but begin it did, and now we have to deal with the aftermath.
The government ought to formulate a plan that might include some of the following provisions, which America should underwrite: 1) increased as well as more rapid training of Iraqi security personnel, 2) a commitment to infrastructural repairs as an adjunct to an improved security profile (or the insurgents will just destroy what is built), 3) investment in medical training, drugs, and surgical supplies aimed at strengthening the Iraqi health sector, 4) sponsorship of Iraqi-conducted search-and-destroy missions aimed at weapons caches now accessible to the insurgents, 5) joint US-Iraqi surveillance and patrolling of border areas to halt the flow of additional fighters and armaments, 6) further encouragement and active solicitation of international assistance in any or all of the above provisions, and 7) a timetable for withdrawing US troops linked to security-based criteria. The timetable may need to be secret to keep the insurgents guessing.
If the Bush team is doing any of these now (effectively, I mean), good. News of it would be welcome.
Needed to implement all these provisions: personnel and, especially, money. It’s unfortunate that the government’s deficit will be increased by the costs of these actions. It’s even more unfortunate that the country is having to juggle two wars at once, at least one of which began under, shall we say, “debatable” circumstances (I’m being exceedingly generous in my phrasing right there!), but as I’ve said, here we are. The point is, the US owes Iraq big-time, and the debt won’t be paid just by sponsoring the formation of a new government there. It’s going to cost plenty to make the kind of improvements necessary for the “new Iraq” to compare favorably with Saddam’s Iraq, barring the violence his regime visited upon so many. But the destruction of basic infrastructure and the total lack of a secure environment makes life hugely difficult for millions, even those whose prayers were answered when Saddam was out of the picture.
Aside: What does the US do if the new Iraqi government behaves brutally toward its citizens?
To conclude: US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan have so far carried out an incomplete agenda. Both countries are owed heavily, but I’ll “remain on-topic” and focus on Iraq. The debt owed to Iraq will not begin to be paid by the simple backing of a new regime. The implied benefit of the war was that Iraqis would be distinctly better off if Saddam was ousted and a new form of government was established with the help of the US. That doesn’t just mean a constitution, or a new electoral system, it means measurable, tangible betterment of ordinary people’s lives over and above regime-change. It’s a big debt that’s owed, it’s going to cost plenty to pay it, and the people of America have been led to this obligation by the policy of conducting war there. That obligation (and why it exists) is something we should all acknowledge. Get used to the idea of paying; you’re going to.
The “East” looks to the morals,(or lack) advocated by our culture. They look at the rate of violent crime and rapes and they see more than they are used to in their cultures. Despite the hubris of anyone who wants to deny it, the Islamic culture has very high ideals towards which the majority of Muslims are striving more closely than many christians are to their own. If you want to make a comparison, consider that among some of the torture techniques US soldiers are perpetrating on Muslim men include forcing them to masturbate, to be seen naked by women and to have women do blatantly sexual things to them. Now how many of you sweet american boys would have a problem with any of that Rabbit wonders? Doesn’t this tell you anything. Abu Ghraib, GITMO were not a surprise to Muslims, they already expected that was the true nature of our called culture.
All you clowns who keep crowing about bringing “freedom” to others. Open up your eyes and look around you, you can’t even hang onto the freedom which your fathers took for granted. You have not brought freedom to the Iraqi people, you have destroyed the only island of secuar security in a sea of potential Islamic Fundamentalism You have, predictably, we all said it you didn’t listen and now what have we? The beginnings of a greater Shiite conclave than the world has ever seen, fundamentalist and totally antipathetic to all US interests, and you did it, all by yourselves. Kuya has got it right.
Just a little something to let you know how bad things are looking for the USA. You are running out of friends.
A mainstream Australian Newspaper here describes Bush and his administration as:
“The Emperor of Vulgarity
a strutting Texan mountebank, with his chimpanzee smirk and his born-again banalities delivered in that constipated syntax that sounds the way cold cheeseburgers look, and his grinning plastic wife, and his scheming junta of neo-con spivs, shamans, flatterers and armchair warmongers, and his sinuous evasions and his brazen lies, and his sleight of hand theft from the American poor, and his rape of the environment, and his lethal conviction that the world must submit to his Pax Americana or be bombed into charcoal.—Mike Carlton, Sydney Morning Herald, January 22, 2005
That’s your leader he’s talking about and you know its accurate.
Nobody is joining your cause, many are abandoning it and nobody is coming back. The ship is leaking like a sieve. By all means stay aboard, frankly Rabbit always thought rats should go down with their ship. Best that way.
Natalie, you are such a kind and loving soul, so thoughful and concerned for the safety and well being of yuour fellow man.
Perhaps you could send them a little package of the depleted uranium you have been SHILLING for on the other thread. Just what they need to warm them up don’t you think, and so safe too.
Natalie you forget you resigned from the human race in the support of an inhumane, illegal weapon of mass destruction.
Thanks very much “girl” but those of us who actually own consciences don’t need your type to tell us how to care for each other, how to support and love our fellow man. We’ve got it thanks. Go back to killing innocent people in the name of lies, its what you’re best at.
Sorry Rabbit is for New Orleans, but things would have been much better if POTUS hadn’t gutted the budget of emergency services and sent so many national guard to “fight for your freedoms”.
Your little input here looks as false and unconvincing as everything else you’ve said. You are a complete put on, but by all means keep on squirming. Oh and Rabbit has heard a whisper we should have your ID shortly.
Won’t that be fun.
Natalie, I had two days ago sent money to the Red Cross. I suggest to all the Red Cross will be the best and probably most honest agency to send money to.
I’ve been getting more angry as I watch the lack of evacuation. I can visually see live on cable the thousands standing around on that freeway overpass. Where are those military transport helicopters my tax dollars have paid for? Far too many in Iraq I have to assume.
Last night on Larry King I saw him interview some national guard commander who used the word “ruthlessly” to describe how to deal with the looting. And Bush this morning used the term “zero tolerance.” I’m sorry, but the vast majority of these people are not looters, they are refugees and survivalists. Until they get evacuated (who knows when that’s going to happen) they can loot all they want as far as I’m concerned. I see them taking diapers, dry clothes, footwear, food, water, floating devices, etc. If relief for these people in those same items were forthcoming, “looting” would be much alleviated.
And it’s quite clear from the images, these are poor black folk in New Orleans. We still haven’t dealt with poverty in America and now the world gets to see the results. Spending hundreds of billions in Iraq is so wrong when we see how America can’t or won’t deal with deep social problems here at home.
The median income in Biloxi was $18,000 a year prior to Katrina, that’s below poverty level and that’s despite all those casinos lining the coast nearby. The survivors are now jobless and homeless, their meager income is now nothing.
I can’t for the life of me understand how reporters can show the total lack of response to the many thousands just sitting around waiting for help and that the powers that be can’t seem to reach those very people the reporters can. I’ve only been to New Orleans twice and I know exactly where those people are located on the overpass, our government doesn’t seem to know. I don’t understand how I saw musician Harry Connick Jr. able to get in to downtown New Orleans to be interviewed by MSNBC this morning, but evacuation vehicles can’t? Outrageous.
And I certainly understand the difficulties and logistics, but this is three days later. The poor countries in Asia did a better job after the Tsunami. What about airdrops of supplies? We can’t start dropping water bottles by now, three days after knowledge that clean water is virtually non-existent? If they don’t like the “looting” then airdrops of those simple supplies is the answer until evacuation is possible.
I’m certainly becoming suspicious that this is about rich and poor. The rich got out, the poor wait for the shoddy response from the government.
Back to Iraq.
Kula, your 7 point plan certainly has merit, but not with the losers, liars and thieves that run our country today. Their version of your plan is colored with neocon ideology. They want a capitalist country in our image, the poor be damned. They still, unbelievably, think this is still achievable or at least that’s what they want to project to Americans. Parts of your plan are unrealistic.
Do you really think we can protect the borders of Iraq? We can’t do that in our own country. It would take a massive increase of troops to even attempt it. International assistance, not going to happen. Our coalition has been breaking apart and most countries have come to see this as solely our problem, leaving us to twist in the wind, (like we should as we lied our way in, we will have to lie our way out). I could point out many difficulties in detail of all your points, not to make light of your attempt at a solution, I understand your attempt.
The thing is, the Bush criminals have no interest in your plan apart from anything that might get Iraq off our TV screens.
I guess there must be some sort enjoyment to carry on this blame orgy, but I fail to appreciate it…
And just what could he do from Washington he couldn
Jon B,
Do you realize the immensity of what has happened in New Orleans? I have a cousin down there who is superintendent of the water dept. in one of the suburbs. It was only last night that he was even able to get word out that he and his family are OK, but their house is not.
People are working around the clock rescuing others
For your info WTH the government didn’t confiscate our guns. It is so boring trying to correct all the falsehoods goons like you live by. We had changes made to our gun laws which resulted in some types of control increasing over what was already a strict regime. Actually the result that many Australians, including many older more conservative farmers for example have become deeply suspicious of the government’s plans. Many have simply surrendered there legal guns, dropped their licences and purchased much more powerful firearms which are readily available on the black market. Don’t worry my little oistrich we are well aware of what’s going on. Trouble is that even though our prime minister is as worthless as your POTUS, he is however a very intelligent man and a real politician, he has managed to avoid most of the crud that your Shrub and Bliar are burying themselves in.
As for crime which actually doesn’t seem to be reduced by massive gun ownership, witness the fact that the USA has a much higher rate of violent crime than we could even concieve of.
Oh and Port Arthur is known to have been a false flag attack, just like 911 and 7/7. See:
F:\Andrew MacGregor.htm
Rabbit knows you SHILLS lack the subtlety to comprehend that there is actually a broad range of opinion opposed to you. The world is not black and white at all. rabbit for one is not proud of his once respected and loved nation. We are still held in infinately higher regard than USA, but falling fast. Did Rabbit say Australia was great? NO. You are just using your Shilling tricks to avoid the real issues if they are too hard and instead inventing things about your opposition to give you an apparent point. Not buying.
Don’t pretend you still have a real democracy or any freedoms worth exporting, you got less than many places you think need your garbage society. PATRIOT ACT is probably something you think of as a necessary in a free and democratic society. Actually the PATRIOT ACT cancels your free and democratic society, get a clue, or else keep coming across as an excuse for more of the same and a redneck to boot.
You WTH are living in a false Utopia which is so far removed from reality that it’s hilarious.
Rabbit is watching the terrible situation in New Orleans and is very concerned about what seems to be happening. Does it seem to anyone else that the authorities were being remarkably lax in allowing things to get as far out of hand as they seem to be? I am really concerned that they are deliberately letting things get as much out of hand as possible here to justify an even more massive clampdown. Even before the recent round of clampdowns the police and national guard would have dealt harshly with looters and especially people who resisted them, especially to ensure that things didn’t escalate. Rabbit fears they are setting these poor beggars up for a massive and brutal response. This could be a perfect chance to bring down the final curtain.
Good luck Americans, Rabbit has a bad feeling about this one.
WTH do you think you can do better at just trying to make an intelligent point. It is getting boring just pointing out your delusions and shortcomings as a person.
America has a border problem, natural disasters without sufficient manpower or funds to deal adequately and massive poverty as well as a collapsing economy. Don’t you think it is time you stopped killing people in far away lands “for their own good” and brought your troops home? Oh of course you guys are just so altruistic and generous you will sacrifice whatever you have to, for “freedom and democracy for all”.
That’s why we love you so much. You are just such all round good and enlightened people. No more so than your criminal military junta. That by the way is an accurate description.
The junta stole government despite losing the election. It has broken many international laws including the Geneva convention, Criminal Military Junta.
Whattheheck, you asked a rhetoric question but fail to comprehend the true answer, so let Rabbit help you
“How do you separate the crooks from people who are just trying to survive? A tough situation.”
Tough for whom? A gerbil?
Actually the two groups will be separate from each other. The crooks will be obviously breaking the law, while those people just surviving will obviously be doing that. Maybe you intend to just shoot them on sight instead of first challenging them, that would explain your reasoning of course and sounds consistent with your attitudes.
WTH I just can’t get past it, everytime I glance back at your drivel more crap becomes apparent.
What makes you think that the atrocities mentioned above are not a continuing problem? People like you have so far ensured that the whole thing is being kept as out of site as possible which is why the issues of US abuses in its illegal prisons has not yet been resolved. We’ve gone from coverup to denial, to scapegoating to more denial and now the most horrible pictures yet proving your base nature are trying to reach the light of day while your military masters and sycophants run another attempted desperate coverup.
You are a real peach Whattheheck.
Rabbit can hardly wait for your next bit of
sycophantic and infantile sloganeering.
Figured out the difference between survivors and criminals yet? Of course you havn’t. You are a deluded, sycophantic gerbil who has overdosed on hubris pills.
Hello Jon B,
To clarify, my plan represented something that I would like to see, a set of provisions that I believe ought to be implemented by the administration and, more to the point, ought to be an accepted priority by the American public. I believe all of my points could be put into effect if only the will to do so was there, e.g. border protection in Iraq. Just as here, it’s a matter of deciding to invest the resources toward solving the problem. In other words, I see it as less an objective impossibility and more of a policy decision and a choice of allocation.
I think the main idea I was hoping to transmit was that America is in the position of having a moral obligation. That obligation can be met with the devotion of resources to making Iraq more secure than it is now and remedying the destruction that the war brought about, e.g. water systems, electricity grids, all the things that have been in severe disrepair for more than 2 years (not to mention those aspects of destruction that pre-date the invasion). For me, ousting Saddam will not relieve the US of their obligation, and in fact doing that set the stage for that obligation.
It’s certainly true that each of the provisions I’m advocating (not least of which would be gaining international help) will require a change in the direction of the administration’s emphasis. But as I say, I see these not as being truly unrealistic, i.e. incapable of being carried out no matter the motivations of the actors, but mainly a function of political will.
Kuya, for the sake of clarification, Rabbit agrees with you. Us Aussies too, do owe the Iraqi’s something now that we’ve trashed their country. But in the absence of even the most rudimentary form of humanity in yours or our administrations its best we just get the hell out of there and start cleaning up our own backyards. Let the civilised world clean up our mess, we can only make things worse.
We might just be better off compensating our victims and blessing them by never again attacking them without cause. Until we can figure out how to maintain real free and democratic societies ourselves without resorting to lies and massive propaganda campaigns, and Patriot Acts we have no business assuming we can improve anyone else’s lot. Forget international help, get out of the way and let decent people try and sort out the US adventure gone wrong.
Just as a courtesy, we could commit ourselves to never doing something like it again. You know, to kind of repent. Of course Rabbit is forgetting that we haven’t done anything to repent of, as WTH is no doubt about to blurt out in his usual informed and rational manner.
Looking forward Rabbit is to the education so ably given by the great sage, Whattheheck. Here is a prime example of what is going so drastically wrong with the USA lately.
Come on down whattheheck, dance monkey, dance for us!
Hello Rabbitvoz,
I would certainly like to see the end of the Iraq debacle, but I think there must be some preparatory work done first. Sadly, this would extend the timeframe, no doubt. But I fear that a quick abandonment would lead to all those weapons caches being emptied and the death-tools used all over Iraq, much more than at present. It would compound the horror, I feel.
Talk about a messed up set of choices!
And as far as civilized people taking charge, wow, if only I could name someone who would be able to do so effectively. Actually, I can’t name anyone who would even try. I think they’d leave the Iraqis to their civil war and try to strip the carcass once they were exhausted.
Sorry for the dismal assessment, but I don’t think of it as outlandish. Really one hell of a complicated mess!
With respect to all the thought-provoking postings, a big, tough bully will get away with kicking sand in the faces of weaklings only so long. . . and the results are often well-deserved.
Natalie,
You claim we have no right to accuse you of using two or more names?Yes we do.All you have to do is look at what some person,known by consensus as Jack Barnes or Michael Hardesty did on this site from April to July of this year.That particular chat room gremlin is,and I’ll be willing to bet pounds to pence on this,probably the reason we have the new security on this site and some of the regular and continual posters vigilant for his return.Not to mention the reason that watching hte last few minutes of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back gets more and more funny each time I view it.
As well many of us watch for posts
that are done in this format and
call people Troskyist boobs and
sound like a mixture of Joseph
McCarthy,Robert Novak,and Ann Coulter.
Frankly,having perused this site since March,it still puzzles me you right-wingers come here and spout off.Perhaps lack of attention as a child?Well,in that case,there’s always karaoke.Maybe they just like to antagonize anyone who disagrees with them?
That’s actually refreshing as the right’s usual strategy is to demonize the opposition,call them insane,or just out to sell a book and make a quick buck.
By the way,are we allowed to change our posting names?I’m curious.I thought of one I’d like better.
What
Would
Overbearing
Obnoxious
Demagogues
Say
has worn a little bit thin.
Sadly, Yes.
Rabbit,
Cool,thanks for the info.Much appreciated.Unfrotunately it gives license to ol’ Jack to do more mischief.If you want to see what i mean,if for no reason than morbid curiosity,check out the multiple hit sites on the home page of this site
Rabbit,
Are you becoming Rabid? Calm down
Yeh wwoods (what do you want to be called?) Rabbit knows what you mean. The thing is they do it anyway. Just keep “catapulting the propaganda”. The fact is they thrive on the sort of debate that James offers them because that allows them to start filling up the thread with what appears to be scientific debate and lots of apparent references. Copying at least in format the way “real” posters with a clue do. The more you argue the issues with them the more other highly debatable or just false issues they will add to the mix. Eventually if they can’t win the debate, which they seldom can they at least manage to clutter up the thread rendering it of questionable worth to any but the most dedicated. That is precisely why Rabbit has perfected the art of bringing them onto his turf, before belting them into humility. Draw them out using their common natures. The sort of people we are dealing with are deeply flawed, they have massive insecurities and are genuinely desperate. Rabbit who is a deeply spiritual soul, would not normally be deliberately nasty to anyone, partly because he is uncommonly sensitive to others. However, there are no limits when it comes to fighting liars and beastmen. Rabbit is unmerciful and has had various satisfying encounters about the net. Have seen trolls off before, usually things settle down and Rabbit moves on again.
A sort of Lone Ranger Rabbit.
Anyhow I’m skipping back to the DU thread again Roger is on his last legs and he is becoming particularly hysterical, right about now.
“Rabid”
Whattheheck are you blathering about.
You think out of sight out of mind. Sure there is plenty more crap going on, you forget that many people are being released from your illegal prisons and talking about US treatment. All those people released some after years, are innocent. Witness they were released. Many were still tortured.
We were talking about looters in New Orleans, now you are on about Iraqi terrorists.
For your information WTH there are mostly just freedom fighters facing your unfortunate troops who are themselves the terrorists while thay are engaged in an illegal and unjustified war of agression against a sovereign nation.
You don’t advocate trials or questions you bastard, you want to shoot them.
As for restraint I agree they seem to be remarkably restrained about actually helping anyone. They are too busy getting ready to shoot them I expect.
“Economics, however, are so globally interwoven that the collapse will miss very few.”
That’s right you exactly why we wish you guys would just cool it, we’re all going to cop it, thanks to you idiots and your mentally retarded leadership. Frankly WTH with Dubya as your president I’m amazed that any American still has the gall to pretend you have anything to say that anyone wants or needs to hear. You are a completely redundant nation as far as improving the world goes, we are just getting used to moving on without you. We can’t wait to become more peaceful and more loving and more responsible about the environment until you cowboys think its a good idea. You are not leading anyone, you’re marching away to the beat of a drum nobody else can hear. Your emperor has no clothes yet your country is full of discussions of the royal wardrobe.
Yes WTH of course you should be spending less time on the computer and more at the TV. You are an American, you go and attend to your duties now, get in front of your TV. That should help.
You noticed the poor handling after all did you? Seems so poor as to be even beyond the usual farce that hubristic nations endure. Rabbit wonders why. Strange, wrong somehow. This was after all a predictable, expected event.
“These poor people are in a survival mode. Like a wounded animal they will even attack someone who is trying to help. This is totally understandable
whattheheck, writes to me…Do you realize the immensity of what has happened in New Orleans?
I most certainly do. I expect, no wait, DEMAND, that my federal government do its utmost to “realize the immensity” when these vastly tragic disasters happen.
I look to my president who was slow to understand the enormity of the situation. On Tuesday, while I was watching on TV the city of New Orleans filling with water from broken levees (and this was delayed video mind you) my president was giving his lame speech in San Diego, a full 95% was about Iraq. The only consideration toward Katrina aftermath he decide to interrupt his Iraq diatribe with was phone numbers for the Red Cross and Salvation Army (NGOs). Then he got into Airforce One to jet to Arizona for a speech on illegal imigration. By this time the reports were that New Orleans was 80% underwater.
Are you going to defend his lack of response to a lack of knowledge of a city underwater? Are you going to try to claim that in those hours none of his entourage was monitoring the media about Katrina blowback? That no one was able to glimpse the images I saw and knew instintively that a drowned city is a catastrophe?
Then let’s follow Bush some more. Off to the ranch he goes. We don’t hear a peep from this guy or ANYONE in his administration (except the FEMA director) until 200pm the next day, when members of his cabinet back in Washington begin to announce a major relief effort. So from the time he got back to the ranch until early afternoon the next day apparently Bush sat and watched TV coverage (at least I hope he did) and it took that long to announce a massive relief effort and not by him I might add.
Excuse me, but the Lazy Bush Ranch has reporters within shouting distance at the ready for any shred of vocal stretching Bush might bless them with. He could have hit primetime Tuesday night with something to assure Americans that our administration was actually paying attention to the aftermath and further that they would do everything possible to help.
He then flew over the affected areas with a pool photographer (no other reporters were allowed access) to snap a picture of him looking out the window, how quaint. Finally we actually get to hear him speak, to deem Americans worthy of his wisdom at 500pm.
There’s no excuse from the chimp nor from you to convince me that Bush was not doing what he does best during a critical 24 hours, masterbate.
Now I could describe in vivid detail all that I saw during the Bush silence timeline, but I don’t nearly have the time nor space in a web post. In fact, Whatheheck, you think back to all that you saw during those many hours of TV coverage and ask yourself, might have Bush addessed our nation sooner? That a federal relief plan defined for Americans would have been a tremendous help?
I will give you one hint of what was happening in New Orleans during the Bush no show, THE CITY WAS UNDERWATER! THERE WAS NO POWER! THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION! THERE WERE PEOPLE DIEING! THERE WERE DEAD BODIES FLOATING AROUND! Should I go on to tell of the enormity of the situation I saw?
But go ahead, make your excuses. Bush never makes mistakes, he is always right, unlike everyone else on the planet. But that position is a sinking ship these days. There is growing anger across America. A good majority of Americans prior to Katrina and certainly after this week now understand he makes mistakes, big ones.
Pray to your Bush God. Defend him on bended knee for all I care. Americans are abandoning the “Bush Ship Lollypop” as we speak. And more will in the coming days as they get a good look at his no show timeline.
He will have a tough time now claiming he is America’s protector because he couldn’t get his ass in gear when Katrina came ashore.
Dear Jon & Rabid,
Did you guys have a life before George Bush took office? Do you possibly have any other topics you are interested in besides Bushwacking?
Since you apparently start your rebuttal before completely reading anything, I guess I’ll just wish you well and say goodbye.
Have a nice Day.
Since what you are most interested in is apologising for the doofus it must seem like that’s all we’re interested in to you. These people are always so two dimensional, notice Jon?
That’s right WTH go and watch TV, as you said:
“I should be spending less time on the computer and more at the TV.”
So you should, how else will you know what’s happening in the world. Keep up the good work WTH, see ya mate.
Don’t know about you Jon but Rabbit actually has had quite a life so far, eventful, fun and very interesting. Rabbit still having quite a life, but worries muchly about his children’s lives in the future, WTH and the other dittoheads are bringing down. Without Bush they were nothing, just people we could ignore, make jokes about, but now they have a leader, oh my.
Doesn’t the thought of all of them, sitting in front of their TVs slavering at the destruction. Listening to the words of the POTUS as he explains why their countrymen are actually terrorists but luckily since he’s a “WAR President” he is going to do what it takes, the hard work he is so good at. Just make you wish you could have a life like theirs?
Oh Jon, Rabbit feels so deprived, how I wish I had such a life.
Here’s the latest wisdom from the fuerer:
“What we had in New Orleans is a growing disaster: The hurricane hit, that was one disaster; then the levees broke, that was another disaster; then the floods came; that became a third disaster.”
- G.W.Bush
Go here anyone reading, New Orleans thread on fire.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_09/007026.php
Yes Rabbit, WTH was nothing but a Bush apologist. He does believe Bush is the only perfect human on earth.
I do have a life both now and before, I bashed Clinton as well, but as he isn’t our president anymore he is old news and has nothing to do with the catastrophes that emit from the White House these days.
Did you catch Bush in Mississippi? He was giddy about rebuilding Trent Lott’s house and said he couldn’t wait to sit on his future front porch. How insensitive can he get to the poor? One elite politician fawning over the other, disgusting.
As I watch the news of Katrina aftermath, the reporters are very angry at all politicians. It has been so refreshing to see the media get a backbone. We may have the beginnings of an election revolution at last. 2006, could be the year of “throw the bums out” that I’ve been waiting for.
I simply loved Anderson Cooper addressing various fat cat elected officials. He’d interupt them and say things like “Don’t you GET what’s going on down here?” He told one politician (can’t remember which one) that he was tired of politicians patting each other on the back while getting nothing done. Joe Scarborough was many times scathing to every politician, particularily the federal government (and that meant Bush of course, and Joe is a Republican).
Once the media turns on you, forgetaboutit. Bush is on the way out of town. I’ve heard a number of people who were twice voters for Bush express disgust with him since Katrina. I just sent Bush an email and told him to do the right thing and resign. Just wait until the polls come out, his approval rating is going to set new presidential lows. And if they poll whether to impeach him, it will be above 50%.
The march on Washington Sept. 24th just got bigger thanks to the clueless politicians this week. The 24th is going to be like the ‘60s when people took to the streets to force change.
I’ve said it before, but sometimes it takes major disasters before Americans wake up. Katrina has been a wake-up call. It’s so sad that it takes so much pain, suffering and death to provoke Americans out of their slumber and become citizens.
Oh, and to answer WTH, we have been discussing many subjects. The reason Bush comes up so often is that he has caused the problems, how dense can WTH be?
Something bad is going down Jon B and anybody who reads this. Rabbit has been edited out and other tomfoolery. The troll who seems to be very active on this site has been given something of a leg up while Rabbit has been dealt out.
Rabbit can be found here for any who wish.
http://www.iraqinews.com/home.shtml
Expect this message to be removed as soon as the Censors get around to realising Rabbit has come back to haunt them.
Announcement:
This site encourages debate about issues. The truth may be discussed but it is not in any way intended that truth should be established beyond doubt. Any poster caught seriously removing all doubt about any issue which is too unflattering to the US government or its employees will be edited out and locked out of the site. Furthermore their computer will suffer a serious hacking attack.
This thread has been re-arranged so as to undo some of the damage via strong but true words which cast serious doubt on quality of US Government or its employees by Rabbitvoz.
Another thread on DU has had similar treatment because Rabbitvoz said too many true things about the US government.
Members are encouraged to discuss things but this site reserves the right to curtail excessive imbalance of truth. Balance means equal amount of lies and truth.
Debate is meant to continue, not be resolved.
War is Freedom
The dangers of DU are in doubt.
All animals are equal.
Some are more equal than others.
There is No Rabbitvoz
There never was anybody called Rabbitvoz
There is nothing to see here folks.
Any member mentioning someone called Rabbit as having been a real person will be terminated.
You have been warned.
Rabbit sorry for being mean to ITT. Rabbit is a feisty creature and can take some getting used to. ITT have shown they are true and have given Rabbit a home. Hooray for ITT.
(Sucky Rabbit)
Baghdad And New Orleans
I remember the looting that went on in Baghdad and the sneering contempt that many people expressed for Iraqis gone wild. Watching the looting and desperation it was good to see that Iraqis and Americans are not so different after all. Hopefully the veneer of cultural superiority that too many people have will be worn away a little.
David in Canada,
I would say use of the term “looting” should be restricted to people taking national treasures, TV sets, or other items for monitary gain. If food is the “loot” it is more accurate to call it self preservation.
Otherwise it is a bit like saying, “Let them eat cake.” which may come from a feeling of superiority
whattheheck,
Agreed, looting is looting and self preservation is something else. Some Iraqis were looting after the invasion and some were struggling for survival. The same goes for people in New Orleans. Valuable lessons to be learned when people see themselves through the eyes of others and stop judging them through ignorance or superiority.
David in Canada,
With all the conflicting reports and everyone spinning to suit themselves, it is difficult to make sound judgments on a lot of issues. One thing which I found truly amazing was the evident lack of an attempt to communicate with the people left behind.
A note tied to a rock which explained the scope of the destruction and huge rescue and logistics problems could have helped immensely. Nothing turns a crowd into a mob quicker than rumors not dealt with.
register a new account »Posting Security