Has the USA gone mad?---London Times
Mark Stebbeds
The United States of America has gone mad
by John le Carré
London Times
<http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif>
America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this
is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the
Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the
Vietnam War. The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden
could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the
freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being
systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and
vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that
should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier
columns of the East Coast press. The imminent war was planned years
before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without
bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky
matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its
shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard
for the world’s poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated
international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they
support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions. But bin
Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies are
riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are told.
The US defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to around
$360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the
pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of
Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how
long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the
American taxpayer’s pocket? At what cost — because most of those 88
per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people — in Iraqi lives? How
Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America’s anger from bin
Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring
tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one
in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on
the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being
misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and
fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his
fellow conspirators nicely into the next election. Those who are not
with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the enemy. Which is
odd, because I’m dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam’s
downfall — just not on Bush’s terms and not by his methods. And not
under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy. The religious cant that
will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening
aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God
has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save
the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be
the nexus of America’s Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to
mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the
enemy, and d) a terrorist. God also has pretty scary connections. In
America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one
another’s, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President,
one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of
Texas. Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior
executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90:
senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000:
chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice,
1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named
an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling
associations affects the integrity of God’s work. In 1993, while
ex-President George Bush was visiting the ever-democratic Kingdom of
Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating them, somebody tried to kill
him. The CIA believes that “somebody” was Saddam. Hence Bush Jr’s cry:
“That man tried to kill my Daddy.” But it’s still not personal, this
war. It’s still necessary. It’s still God’s work. It’s still about
bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed Iraqi people. To be a
member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute
Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family and God,
is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won’t tell us is the
truth about why we’re going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of
Evil — but oil, money and people’s lives. Saddam’s misfortune is to
sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and
who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who
doesn’t, won’t. If Saddam didn’t have the oil, he could torture his
citizens to his heart’s content. Other leaders do it every day — think
Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.
Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and
none to the US or Britain. Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, if
he’s still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff
Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes’ notice. What is
at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the
economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America’s need
to demonstrate its military power to all of us — to Europe and Russia
and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle
East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by
America abroad. The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair’s
part in all this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he
could steer it. He can’t. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and
a smooth voice. Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a
corner, and he can’t get out. It is utterly laughable that, at a time
when Blair has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain’s
opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But that’s Britain’s
tragedy, as it is America’s: as our Governments spin, lie and lose
their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other
way. Blair’s best chance of personal survival must be that, at the
eleventh hour, world protest and an improbably emboldened UN will
force Bush to put his gun back in his holster unfired. But what
happens when the world’s greatest cowboy rides back into town without
a tyrant’s head to wave at the boys? Blair’s worst chance is that,
with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will
to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been
avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain
than it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set
back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to
come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great
domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the
party of the ethical foreign policy. There is a middle way, but it’s a
tough one: Bush dives in without UN approval and Blair stays on the
bank. Goodbye to the special relationship. I cringe when I hear my
Prime Minister lend his head prefect’s sophistries to this colonialist
adventure. His very real anxieties about terror are shared by all sane
men. What he can’t explain is how he reconciles a global assault on
al-Qaeda with a territorial assault on Iraq. We are in this war, if it
takes place, to secure the fig leaf of our special relationship, to
grab our share of the oil pot, and because, after all the public
hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair has to show up at the
altar. “But will we win, Daddy?” “Of course, child. It will all be
over while you’re still in bed.” “Why?” “Because otherwise Mr Bush’s
voters will get terribly impatient and may decide not to vote for
him.” “But will people be killed, Daddy?” “Nobody you know, darling.
Just foreign people.” “Can I watch it on television?” “Only if Mr Bush
says you can.” “And afterwards, will everything be normal again?
Nobody will do anything horrid any more?” “Hush child, and go to
sleep.” Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to his local
supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: “Peace is also
Patriotic”. It was gone by the time he’d finished shopping.
~ rob ~
"Mark Stebbeds" <mste...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:h02b2vgjg36nft9q6...@4ax.com...
> January 15, 2003
>
--------snip---------
Lookslikeaninterestingtpoic,butcannotreadit,Istarted,butgotnauseoustryingtor
eadit,seemsyourenterkeynotbeingused,ergoamateur.
-rj-
fid
Americans.euro is smarter. pro"?
"Mark Stebbeds" <mste...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:h02b2vgjg36nft9q6...@4ax.com...
> American taxpayer's pocket? At what cost - because most of those 88
> per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people - in Iraqi lives? How
> Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from bin
> Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring
> tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one
> in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on
> the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being
> misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and
> fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his
> fellow conspirators nicely into the next election. Those who are not
> with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the enemy. Which is
> odd, because I'm dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam's
> downfall - just not on Bush's terms and not by his methods. And not
> Evil - but oil, money and people's lives. Saddam's misfortune is to
> sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and
> who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who
> doesn't, won't. If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his
> citizens to his heart's content. Other leaders do it every day - think
> Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.
> Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and
> none to the US or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, if
> he's still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff
> Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes' notice. What is
> at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the
> economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America's need
> to demonstrate its military power to all of us - to Europe and Russia
Mark Stebbeds
<dontsen...@nothing.com> wrote:
>Lookslikeaninterestingtpoic,butcannotreadit,Istarted,butgotnauseoustryingtor
>eadit,seemsyourenterkeynotbeingused,ergoamateur.
looksfinetomeandotherswhohavereaditandexactlylikethesourceitwascutandpastedfromperhapsyoushouldgetabetternewsreader
Kurt Albershardt
> Lookslikeaninterestingtpoic,butcannotreadit,Istarted,butgotnauseoustryingtor
> eadit,seemsyourenterkeynotbeingused,ergoamateur.
Try http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html
“Why?”
The author has also contributed to an openDemocracy debate on Iraq at
www.openDemocracy.net
lanis lebaron & hank alrich
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:50:17 GMT, " ~ rob ~"
> <dontsen...@nothing.com> wrote:
>
> >Lookslikeaninterestingtpoic,butcannotreadit,Istarted,butgotnauseoustryingtor
> >eadit,seemsyourenterkeynotbeingused,ergoamateur.
>
>oksfinetomeandotherswhohavereaditandexactlylikethesourceitwascutandpase
dfromperhapsyoushouldgetabetternewsreader
My news version didn't have paragraphs, so I went to the London Times
website and pulled it off easily, pasted into BBEdit Lite and now I can
enjoy the agony arising from the insight of Mr. le Carre into what
passes for our national "soul".
Maybe we could blame all this on really shitty music being boradcast way
too often.
--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
lanis lebaron & hank alrich
> I'm mad. But about off topic posts like this. Why not post in "Don't like
> Americans.euro is smarter. pro"?
That's probably why you cleverly quoted the entire posting in your
reply, right?
Jny Vee
<dontsen...@nothing.com> wrote:>
Lookslikeaninterestingtpoic,butcannotreadit,Istarted,butgotnauseoustryin
gtor
> eadit,seemsyourenterkeynotbeingused,ergoamateur.
>
had problems reading YOUR post, Mark's was clean, clear and well
formatted.
meds again?
--
Perspective is vital to wisdom. It is indeed a good
thing to know that for every ELECTRIC LADYLAND there
were months/years/decades of tracking The Archies.
>> Help Keep The Net Emoticon Free! <<
Jny Vee
> news:h02b2vgjg36nft9q6...@4ax.com...
> > January 15, 2003
> >
> > The United States of America has gone mad
> > by John le Carré
hey Mark...
i dug it (whether i agree or not with it)
and it was recieved by THIS reader as a reasonable
"hey here;'s somethign interesting"
without comment and that;s fine...
no huhu.
I'm always up for somebody pointing out an interesting side issue...
if we can post interminably in multiple divergent threads about
foundless gossip then this sort of thing can pop up every now and
again.
It's why I hang out at the bar.
"fid" <as...@asad.com> inexplicably wrote:
> I'm mad. But about off topic posts like this. Why not post in "Don't like
> Americans.euro is smarter. pro"?
hey 'fid'... if it's SOOOOOO disconcerting, just what seizure made you
repost the whole damned thing?
Jny Vee
> <dontsen...@nothing.com> wrote:
>
> >Lookslikeaninterestingtpoic,butcannotreadit,Istarted,butgotnauseoustryingtor
> >eadit,seemsyourenterkeynotbeingused,ergoamateur.
>
In article <or7b2v0ilbgg4ffq6...@4ax.com>, Mark Stebbeds
<mste...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> looksfinetomeandotherswhohavereaditandexactlylikethesourceitwascutandpastedfro
> mperhapsyoushouldgetabetternewsreader
HA!
Jny Vee
Dik LeDoux
How bout an OT or posting to an appropriate newsgroup?
Thanks,
Dik
rocksteady
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html
Al
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:50:17 GMT, " ~ rob ~"
<dontsen...@nothing.com> wrote:
nos...@here.com
<mste...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> January 15, 2003
>
> The United States of America has gone mad
> by John le Carré
> London Times
> <http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html
Regardless of one's viewpoint, this article is simply an emotional
reaction lacking any real substance. Nowhere does it mention the real
problems that the country should be concerned about, like secret courts
rubber stamping wiretapping on US citizens, the throwing out of the 4th
amendment, a recent change in the wording of the secret court's charter
that makes it no longer restricted to only information gathering of an
international nature. It's now available for domestic law enforcement
purposes, with no 4th amendment or probable cause necessary, which
originally was professed quite loudly at it's inception as being
something it could and would never be used for. In addition, US citizens
can now be held indefinitely in inhumane conditions in military brigs
with no charges filed, no right to counsel, and just plain no rights at
all (not talking about the prisoners of war in Cuba). These are the
concrete facts that should be getting attention. Even those US citizens
taken from the European battlefields of WWII fighting against the US
were given lawyers and trials, as was the recent "American Taliban".
Even if this guy did whatever it is they haven't accused him of, or has
information that is important to the anti-terrorism effort, they must
operate within the confines of the consititution. It's one thing to
capture non citizens fighting the US on an actual battlefield and not
put them through the process, but to take a US citizen in the US and
throw out the constitution is another. In times of crisis, I can even
see the rules stretched a little, but just plain thrown away? That's
another very dangerous and disturbing thing. You think they'll give any
of these rights back once the current crisis subsides? The secret court
has been around since around 1968, has literally never once said no to a
governament request, and even after around 75 instances of abuse
detailed by the judges (just recently made public by them in protest, a
first in it's more than thirty years of existence), there is no debate
of the issue.
These are not some "conspiracy theory" items but simple facts that are
easily verifiable, and reported, albeit quietly, on NPR, CNN, and the
major news sources. The public at large seems unaware that such things
are happening, programmed to believe, "it could never happen in
America", though history indicates otherwise. We need to keep checks and
balances and transparency in government or there is nothing preventing
it from spinning out of control. This is not a Republican or Democratic
issue. This is important for all.
On one hand we have people writing articles as above that are just
emotional anti-American drivel, yet the real issues that one should get
upset about are being ignored. John le Carré's article linked above does
nothing to help his cause, except to whip up America bashing in those
"already converted" to his point of view. A more rational article may
have actually provoked thought and swayed some undecideds to his side,
or encouraged them to investigate the issues. In a balanced view, we
need to fight terrorism and even Sadaam. However, if you can't do it
within the confines of the constitution, you're either not trying hard
enough, or you're doing something that shouldn't be done.
George Gleason
Adrian Clark
> Regardless of one's viewpoint, this article is simply an emotional
> reaction lacking any real substance. Nowhere does it mention the real
> problems that the country should be concerned about,
Er... like declaring war unilaterally ("bilaterally" if you include the
maniacs over here as well) because you mysteriously happen to dislike
one particular crazy dictator more than the other crazy dictators you
chose to ignore?
Adrian
--
___________________________________
THE VIEW FROM THE SPAGHETTI FACTORY
http://www.spaghetti-factory.co.uk
Bob Smith
>
> January 15, 2003
>
> The United States of America has gone mad
The whole world is completely insane. - R. Crumb (sometime in the '70s)
--
bobs
we organize chaos
Bob Smith - BS Studios
http://www.bsstudios.com/
rsm...@bsstudios.com
Mark Stebbeds
>The public at large seems unaware that such things
>are happening, programmed to believe,
No shit. But I think the article drove home the point that 88% of
the American people support Bush's plan to invade Iraq because they
are under the false impression that this is retaliation for 911.
It's about oil, and making his oil and energy executive friends
richer, and ultimately, the Bush family richer. It's about distrating
the American people from the failure to capture Bin Laden and Al
Quida. It's about distracting the American people about losing their
401K accounts, when Enron and World Com criminals run free, and live
posh billionaire lives..
There has been a lot of evidence that the Saudi royal family has been
providing finacial support to known terrorist organizations, yet Bush
& Co. turn a blind eye, point toward Saddam (he tried to kill my
Daddy). There is too much for the energy giants to lose by causing
trouble with Saudi Arabia.
If the US invades the middle east, I think we can expect a terrorist
attack(s) on US soil that will make 9/11,the worse attack on US soil
in the history of our country, seem like child's play.
Mark
Rob Adelman
Mark Stebbeds wrote:
> No shit. But I think the article drove home the point that 88% of
> the American people support Bush's plan to invade Iraq because they
> are under the false impression that this is retaliation for 911.
Did it say that? Where did they come up with that conclusion? I think
that's bull.
Mike
country as well as ours. That's why so much of the story was about Blair.
<nos...@here.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-CAE806....@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Regardless of one's viewpoint, this article is simply an emotional
reaction lacking any real substance. Nowhere does it mention the real
problems that the country should be concerned about, like secret courts
rubber stamping wiretapping on US citizens, <snip>.
Mark Stebbeds
wrote:
>Did it say that? Where did they come up with that conclusion? I think
>that's bull.
The artilcle said 88% of the people want the war. This figure varies
from poll to poll, but it's not new information.
It's MY opinion that many of the supporters of Bush's war plan are
under the false impression that Iraq is responsible for the terrorist
attacks of 911, or at least deserve to be attacked in retaliation for
it.
Mark
Jim Gilliland
>
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 00:31:55 GMT, Rob Adelman <rade...@mn.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Did it say that? Where did they come up with that conclusion? I think
> >that's bull.
>
> under the false impression that Iraq is responsible for the terrorist
> attacks of 911, or at least deserve to be attacked in retaliation for
> it.
I think most Americans realize that Iraq and Al-Qaeda are two separate
entities, but I also think that in some subconcious way they feel that
an attack on Iraq will let us "get even" with the Arab world. I think
there are a lot of people who hold all Muslims responsible for 9/11,
even if they'd not say so publicly. At least that's the only way I can
explain our apparent willingness to launch a completely unprovoked
attack on Iraq.
Sadly, there IS a lot of support for Al-Queda throughout the Arab
world. Sadder still, Bush seems to be doing all he can to foster more
of it.
Rob Adelman
Mark Stebbeds wrote:
> The artilcle said 88% of the people want the war. This figure varies
> from poll to poll, but it's not new information.
I agree with this.
> It's MY opinion that many of the supporters of Bush's war plan are
> under the false impression that Iraq is responsible for the terrorist
> attacks of 911, or at least deserve to be attacked in retaliation for
> it.
>
Well that is much different, and I don't agree.
-Rob
Mark Plancke
>Regardless of one's viewpoint, this article is simply an emotional
>reaction lacking any real substance.
Yeah, sure. It made a lot of sense to me at least.
I guess the news organizations in the US have more substance? How
about the 3 part CNN "profile" on the North Korean president, rolling
my eyes now.
Mark
http://SoundtechRecording.com
"Putting the lion's share of your attention and investment out in front
of the microphones pays off every time." -- Bob Olhsson
John Halliburton
Hey! Stop that, the eye doctor just told me I need reading glasses last
week(this week too, come to think of it, and most of the upcoming weeks as
well), and that's just not typing fair! ;>)
John
Mike
> January 15, 2003
>
> The United States of America has gone mad
> by John le Carré
> London Times
> <http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif>
> America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this
> is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism
Right up there with that pedophile witchhunt going on in Britain
Geoff Wood
"Jim Gilliland" <usemyl...@cheerful.com> wrote in message
> Sadly, there IS a lot of support for Al-Queda throughout the Arab
> world. Sadder still, Bush seems to be doing all he can to foster more
> of it.
Maybe George should invade Saudi instead ? They are much keener on
fundamentalist religion that the average Iraqi, and from all account provide
most of AQ's funds.
geoff
rocksteady
>Be fair. He's a Brit writing mostly about the way Bush is fucking over HIS
>country as well as ours. That's why so much of the story was about Blair.
OK then, here's an American talking about it:
-------------------------------------------------------
Iraq and the Economy
U.S. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich
Swearing-In Ceremony
Sunday, January 5, 2003
Cleveland, Ohio
by US Rep Dennis Kucinich
My fellow Americans, in this ceremony we recognize the power of the
people in a democracy to create self-government. For you have truly
lifted me, as a lowly servant, up from your midst to serve our nation.
You have entrusted in me the duties of national service. You have
asked me to stand as a sentinel to safeguard our rights. You have
expected me to tell the truth, even if that truth shall disturb
established economic, political and social structures. I accept your
trust with humility and with resolve. I shall proceed in my duties
each day with courage, with unshakeable faith and with love of you, my
dear constituents, love of our country, love of freedom and love of
our brothers and sisters worldwide.
For the America I envision seeks world unity instead of unilateralism.
It gains its power through being the first to help, not the first to
strike. It extends itself to the peoples of the world to lift their
burden. It is an America, which when asked for help, dispenses bread
instead of bombs, medical assistance instead of missiles, and food
instead of fissile materials.
There is a role for America in the world. It is in working with the
community of nations to achieve the security of all nations. It is in
restoring the promise of the Non Proliferation Treaty to lead the way
to get rid of all nuclear weapons. It is in helping to assure
international order. It is through strengthening and abiding by
international treaties. It is in assuring control and eventual
elimination of biological and chemical weapons, and landmines. It is
in protecting our global climate by cooperating with the rest of the
world in reducing carbon emissions.
America can help protect the world. America can help save the world.
But America cannot control the world, nor should we want to do so.
Yet our Administration would project American power for the purpose of
domination. Their National Security doctrines call for America to
strike anywhere it pleases and to be the first to use nuclear weapons.
Our nation is now poised to go to all-out war against Iraq. Iraq has
not committed any act of aggression against the United States. Iraq
was not responsible for 911. No credible evidence exists linking Iraq
to Al Queda's role in 911. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax
attack on our nation. The United Nations has yet to establish that
Iraq has usable weapons of mass destruction. There is no intelligence
that Iraq has the ability to strike at the United States. According to
the CIA, Iraq has no intention to attack America, but will defend
itself if attacked.
Why then, is our nation prepared to send three hundred thousand of our
young men and women into house to house combat in the streets of
Baghdad and Basra? Why is our nation prepared to spend $200 billion or
more of our hard-earned tax dollars for the destruction of Iraq?
Why is our nation preparing to use the most powerful military machine
in history to wage an assault against the people of Iraq, to destroy
their houses and buildings, to wipe out their water and electric
systems and to block their access to food and medical supplies?
There is no answer which can separate itself from oil economics,
profit requirements of arms trade, or distorted notions of
empire-building. War with Iraq is wrong. But if war is prosecuted
further in Iraq, we must be prepared to advance the cause of peace in
this country. We must be prepared to stand up, to speak out, to
organize, to march, to demand an end to the war, or to demand an end
to an administration which insists on war.
It is urgent we oppose this war. It will dominate our nation's
priorities. It will threaten Social Security. It will threaten
Medicare. It will block a prescription drug benefit for the elderly.
It will stop America from providing jobs for all, health care for all,
education for all.
There are some who believe that it is unpatriotic to challenge the
Administration on the war. They believe it is politically wiser to
debate the economy. But how can one reasonably separate war from the
budget, war from the economy, war from America's ability to meet the
needs of the people of this nation?
The Administration's own top economic adviser said the war could cost
up to $200 billion. Our federal budget is already close to a $200
billion deficit due to huge tax cuts for the wealthy. Remember when we
had a budget surplus?
Each time the administration talks about war, fear is created and when
fear goes up, the market goes down. War will mean a sharp increase in
oil prices, which will hurt jobs in manufacturing and transportation.
One economic study with a worst-case scenario puts the cost of an
all-out war, plus long-term occupation of Iraq at $1.6 trillion.
You cannot separate war from the economy. You cannot separate war from
America's future, from its role in the world and its ability to meet
the needs of our own people here at home.
We need to ask the questions: Why does America have hundreds of
billions to ruin the health and take the lives of innocent people in
Iraq but no money to provide health care for all Americans?
Why would America spend hundreds of billions to retire Saddam Hussein,
but no money to protect the retirement security of its own people?
Why does America have money to blow up bridges over the Euphrates
River in Iraq, but no money to build up bridges over the Cuyahoga
River in Cleveland?
The path America must take is one of peace which leads to prosperity.
It is one which understands that creating a structure of peace ensures
that economic structures can be sound, affirmative of human needs and
restorative of human values.
This is the dream of a Department of Peace which can help America take
the first step towards making nonviolence an organizing principle in
our society - - making the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a
reality - - and working to make war itself a thing of the past. It is
this ethic of peace seeking and peace building which will cause us to
take down weapons from the heavens and work to create a heaven on
earth full of new possibilities.
Peace and prosperity shall be as two pillars in a newly rebuilt
America which provides for the economic and social security of its own
people as a cause of nationhood and for the economic and social
progress of peoples of other lands as a cause of brotherhood.
This confirmation of the purpose of nation was the dream of Franklin
Roosevelt and the New Deal, Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society, and
John F. Kennedy and the New Frontier. This shall continue to be our
dream in the days ahead, that no matter the darkness, we shall hold up
the light of America's higher purpose, which calls to us across the
ages from Washington. Jefferson and Adams through Lincoln to the
present day.
Our nation has always had a higher calling, despite the darkness of
911 and the official response to it. It is a calling to maintain the
quest for democracy, for freedom and liberty at times of peril as well
as in times of peace. We can sense that higher calling. That higher
calling is our heritage. The words of Francis Scott Key still echo:
"Oh say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave, o'er the land of the
free and the home of the brave?" In this he celebrated the link
between freedom and bravery: That it takes courage to live in a
democracy. It takes courage to stand up to terrorists and maintain
basic liberties. It takes courage to lead the way toward global
disarmament while some are bent on destruction. It takes patience to
face dictators around the world and not be tempted to bomb them into
submission. It takes wisdom to have great power and to make gentle its
presence in the world.
And it takes compassion to understand the plight of peoples world wide
who themselves are trying to survive, to live out their own humble
lives despite having conditions which are challenging or governments
which are oppressive.
My friends. This is still your government. You have a right to have a
say in how its destiny is being charted. That right derives from our
very Declaration of Independence, which claimed self-governance as a
basic right. Government does not just happen in Washington, DC. It is
the result of a process which takes place in thousands of cities,
villages and townships. It is also a process which also takes place in
our hearts, which is brought to life by our love of country, and our
love of each other. It is your love which enables me to carry those
hopes and dreams forward. And I shall do so courageously in the days
ahead. Thank you.
contact Dennis Kucinich at email: dkuc...@aol.com
website: Kucinich.us or www.house.gov/kucinich
telephone 216-252-9000
Brian Middleton
> Regardless of one's viewpoint, this article is simply an emotional
> reaction lacking any real substance.
It's emotional, certainly. I don't see where you're getting the
lack-of-substance part. Emotion and substance sometimes go very well
together.
> Nowhere does it mention the real
> problems that the country should be concerned about, like secret courts
> rubber stamping wiretapping on US citizens, the throwing out of the 4th
> amendment....
I think you must have skimmed past his third sentence:
"As in McCarthy times, the
freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being
systematically eroded."
True, he doesn't elaborate the point; I thought he was assuming his
readers knew the basic facts of the situation.
> On one hand we have people writing articles as above that are just
> emotional anti-American drivel
I don't think Le Carre's piece was anti-American at all. Hell, at one
point he says that most Americans are "thoroughly decent and humane
people." If anything, I'd be tempted to call that pro-American drivel.
---
Brian Middleton
Night Kitchen
Dorchester, Mass.
Jny Vee
nos...@here.com wrote:
>... we
> within the confines of the constitution, you're either not trying hard
> enough, or you're doing something that shouldn't be done.
Franklin lives!
Kurt Albershardt
>
> Sadly, there IS a lot of support for Al-Queda throughout the Arab
> world. Sadder still, Bush seems to be doing all he can to foster more
> of it.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0113/p01s04-wosc.html
Headline: Latest Al Qaeda recruits: Afghans seeking revenge
Byline: Scott Baldauf Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Date: 01/13/2003
(KHOST, AFGHANISTAN)Haji Din Mohammad's family has been marked by two
tragic acts. The first was an American bombing raid in December 2001
that killed his nephew Zeni Khel in a local mosque. The second was the
murder of an American CIA agent a month later by another nephew in an
act of revenge.
It's this eye-for-an-eye code of Mr. Mohammad's Pashtun ethnic group
that Al Qaeda and its allies are exploiting to create new suicide
squads in Afghanistan, say Afghan intelligence officials. They are
drawing recruits from families who have suffered losses in the past
year of war. With motives and methods copied from Palestinian suicide
bombers, the young men pose the newest, and perhaps gravest, threat to
the young government, to American aid workers, and to US troops.
"I am too old to feel revenge," says Mohammad, the family elder. "But
for our youths, revenge is like an ember that burns in your heart."
He blames local mullahs for converting his pious nephew, Abdul Malik,
into a murderer. "I used to tell my nephews, what happened has
happened, it is in the hands of God," says the old farmer, crouching in
a dry riverbed outside his house. "But they did not listen to me, they
listened to the radicals, the mullahs who pump the emotions of the
boys," he finishes with a sigh.
Abdul Malik may be one of dozens of young men willing to take the war
in Afghanistan to a new level of danger, risking their own lives to
avenge the deaths of family members for the sake of culture, family,
and to a certain extent, Islam.
"The worst enmity in Afghanistan is not religious and not political, it
is cultural," says Mohammad Ibrahim Mushfiq, deputy governor of Khost,
referring to the Pashtun code of revenge. "The only solution is
cultural. If a tribal council came with US forces to a family of a
victim, and they apologized and said we are sorry for your loss, and we
ask for your pardon, the family will not reject that. But if you don't
do that, these families can be the most dangerous, because they are the
ones who will do suicide attacks."
The December 2001 bombing of the mosque is just one action that has
many Afghans upset. On Dec. 20, 2001, American bombers, tipped off by
an Afghan warlord, bombed a car caravan full of Pashtun tribal leaders
from the Khost region, killing 30. In May 2002, US planes bombed a
mountain in Khost Province where two tribes were fighting in a land
dispute, killing 10. The following month, American planes bombed a
wedding party in Urozgan, killing 37, mainly women and children. In
each incident, tribal councils alerted the provincial government that
they intend to take revenge against US forces.
Turning angry Pashtuns into professional killers, Afghan intelligence
sources say, appears to be the work of Hizb-I Islami, a
Pashtun-dominated religious party that once fought against Soviet
presence in Afghanistan. After the Soviet-backed Afghan government fell
in 1992, Hizb-I Islami fought in a bloody civil war for control of
Kabul and the national government.
When the Taliban ended the civil war in 1996, and entered Kabul, Hizb's
chief, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar fled to Iran. But when America's bombing
campaign began last October, Mr. Hekmatyar declared a jihad against
American troops. Last month, he announced his alliance with Al Qaeda
and the Taliban.
Like Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden, Hekmatyar is thought to be
operating both in remote parts of southeastern Afghanistan, including
Khost, Paktia, and Nangrahar Provinces, and in the northeastern Konar
Province, say Afghan military officials. They say he also finds refuge
on the Pakistani side of the border in autonomous Pashtun tribal areas
where Pakistani authorities have little control.
"Hizb-I Islami has the expertise to bring together those who have lost
family members, to equip them with weapons, to train them, and to
provide transportation to Kabul, where they can carry out their
attacks," says Gen. Khial Baz Sherzai, the military chief of Khost
Province.
Countering this threat is a problem, General Sherzai says, because
local Afghan forces don't have sufficient manpower or weapons to stop
infiltration by Hizb fighters. "We have a 180-kilometer border with
Pakistan, and everybody can easily enter here and carry out what they
want. We have security only in the city of Khost, not the province of
Khost."
Afghan intelligence sources say that most of these suicide attackers
are making their way to Kabul, where US soldiers, aid workers,
diplomats, and even journalists are easy to find. Just three weeks ago,
in a crowded market in Kabul, a young Afghan teenager threw a grenade
into a jeep full of American soldiers. The soldiers were severely
injured.
Speaking broadly about recent attacks on US soldiers, including the
grenade attack, Major Steve Clutter, the US military spokesman at
Bagram Air Base, said the attacks were considered serious, but showed
the current weaknesses of Al Qaeda and its allies.
"Clearly there are people who have bad intent, and they don't like the
way things are going in the war on terrorism," he told reporters
recently. "They appear to be acts of a desperate foe."
Details about the Afghan teenager are sketchy. Kabul police say the
boy, who remains in US custody at Bagram Air Base, gave his name as
Amir Jan and said that he comes from the Ishmail Khel district in the
Khost Province. Khost provincial officials say they don't believe he
comes from their province.
But in the Ishmail Khel district, in the village of Mandozai - a
scattering of mud-walled homes - a senior family member and neighbors
close to the family say the boy under arrest in Kabul is Abdullah Jan,
son of Abdul Karim, and brother of Nasratullah Noori, who was killed in
the December mosque bombing.
Locals describe Abdullah Jan as a smart, pious 11th grader who prayed
five times a day and learned English in a madrassah in Pakistan. Before
the war, Abdullah showed no concern for politics. But after the death
of his brother Nasratullah, he increasingly talked with local mullahs
of plans for revenge.
In the guestroom of their home, ringed with cushions, Abdullah Jan's
family admit to visitors that they lost one son to the mosque bombing.
But Abdullah Jan's father vehemently denies that his son was involved
in any attack on Americans. "I have a son named Abdullah Jan, but he is
not the one who carried out the attacks," says Abdul Karim, a local
farmer.
If Karim is cautious, it may be because of the experience of the family
of Abdul Malik, the 18-year-old who killed the CIA agent. When Abdul
Malik escaped to Pakistan, local Afghan authorities arrested two of his
young cousins in an attempt to pressure the family to bring him back.
One of those cousins, Salahuddin, says he was tortured and beaten by
Afghan intelligence agents during 10 months of captivity in Kabul. "The
worst thing was our Afghan secret police, the 3rd Directorate of
Intelligence," says Salahuddin, who has only one name. "They would give
us electric shocks to compel us to confess.
"But I really liked the Americans. They were not as cruel as I thought
they would be. They were very friendly. They offered me a Pepsi. Even
when they would beat us, it was like they were joking."
The elder Mohammad says vengeance has only added to his family's
sorrow, and given sorrow to another family in America, thousands of
miles away.
"I am sorry for the killed American," he says. "I remember the wife of
my brother crying when she lost her son. Now the same must be happening
with the mother or sister of the American killed here. The pain is the
same, and we share it with that family."
(c) Copyright 2003 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
Particle Salad
> I think most Americans realize that Iraq and Al-Qaeda are two separate
> entities,
Sadly, I believe you are incorrect. I had my inlaws over for Christmas,
and the Iraq subject was brought up. Two adults SWORE up and down that
there was a direct connection to Iraq. Bush's bullshit campaign is
working.
George Gleason
"John Halliburton" <j_chall...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:cOqV9.8158$qU5.6...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
have the problem well in"hand"
:-)
George
NIKOŠ
mste...@earthlink.net says...
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 22:20:56 GMT, nos...@here.com wrote:
>
> >The public at large seems unaware that such things
> >are happening, programmed to believe,
>
> No shit. But I think the article drove home the point that 88% of
> the American people support Bush's plan to invade Iraq because they
> are under the false impression that this is retaliation for 911.
>
> It's about oil, and making his oil and energy executive friends
> richer, and ultimately, the Bush family richer. It's about distrating
> the American people from the failure to capture Bin Laden and Al
> Quida. It's about distracting the American people about losing their
> 401K accounts, when Enron and World Com criminals run free, and live
> posh billionaire lives..
>
>
Mark you are ill informed.
We need to get Sadam becuase he is planning to get a nuclear bomb.
If he gets a nuclear bomb, he will use it, or allow persons such as Bin
Laden to use it against us or others. 60% of the republican guard
survived and escaped the last battle. The U.S. did not blow up half of
what they thought they did in the last battle, and most of his chemicals
remain.
What you fail to realize is that like North Korea, once a person gets
nuclear weapons you can not do much to stop their terror. We can not do
much about Norht Korea. Now only china can mittigate them as it would
be in their best interest to do so...but back to Sadam.
If Sadam gets nukes, or long range missiles (which it may nly take money
to do so) then everyone is in trouble. It is bad enough that anyone
has nukes and long range missiles. It is even worse that a mad man has
them. If you do not stop terrorists, then they will get more powerful.
We must stop sadam in order to make that region safer, and to make every
place safer. With him out of power and to establish a democratic leader
there, will benifit that country as well as everyone else. It is guys
like you who allowed binladen to get to the power of ever being able to
bomb the towers. IF he was stoped early, then that would have never
happend. We knew about Bin laden for a long time before we done
anything about it. No one took him seriously.
Sadam both gives guys like binladen, money and the tools to perform that
kind of task. Sadam wants any oposition to him destroyed.
I can not see how you can be so duped into thinking it is about oil and
nothing more.
How would you feel if you came home one day with a gun in your hand and
as your were entering your home, a guy who just raped your wife was
leaving. You done nothing and let the guy get away.
You didn't even report it. THen 3 months later the rapist returns and
rapes her again, and kills her.
Don't you get it!
It is guys like that who will continue their crimes unless they are
stoped....Lets stop sadam NOW!!!!
--
Next time shoot scope
NIKOŠ
says...
> Mark Stebbeds wrote:
> >
> > It's MY opinion that many of the supporters of Bush's war plan are
> > under the false impression that Iraq is responsible for the terrorist
> > attacks of 911, or at least deserve to be attacked in retaliation for
> > it.
>
False impression?
Where do you think BinLaden gets his money, and suport from?
Iraq deservs to be attacked due to IRaq's own bullshit.
The last time we were there, the "people" were in suport of us bombing
him. THe streets were filled with persons yelling George Bush, George
Bush, George Bush, and partying in the streets. They even took up arms
to attempt to overthrow the rest of the republican guard.
Bush senior was afraid that the U.S. and it's suporters would soon think
we were slaugtering innocent people after we had finished 75% of our
mission last time. We bombed a highway that was suposed to be
millitants attemting to escape, but most of that was not.
Our marines were about to block off the republican guard and finish them
off. Prior to this we had mainly only killed Sadams entry level troops.
Then Swartshcoft informed bush that the mission was finished so bush
called off the attacking troopps. Swartscoft also allowed them to take
their tanks, and helicopters with bombs back to Iraq. Once we pulled
out, Sadam turned arond and used this equiptment to slaughter the people
who attempted to continue to overthow Sadam.
So basically we bombed alot of stuff, but we still left Sadam in power,
and later we discovered from persons close to Sadam that defected, that
most of his chemical plants and other facilities were unscaved.
We are attempting to finish off what we didn't do last time.
> I think most Americans realize that Iraq and Al-Qaeda are two separate
> entities, but I also think that in some subconcious way they feel that
> an attack on Iraq will let us "get even" with the Arab world. I think
> there are a lot of people who hold all Muslims responsible for 9/11,
> even if they'd not say so publicly. At least that's the only way I can
> explain our apparent willingness to launch a completely unprovoked
> attack on Iraq.
>
I know you are wrong. I know both Arabs and americans who live in a
military comunity. I can say that there seems to be little hatred
towards the Arabs I know and with persons who ar ein the military or in
that comunity.
> Sadly, there IS a lot of support for Al-Queda throughout the Arab
> world. Sadder still, Bush seems to be doing all he can to foster more
> of it.
I am surprised how you are not in touch with what you are saying.
In the Arab world, most of them do not like Sadam. I have never met an
Arab in suport of Sadam. I don't think you actually know any Arabs or
seen anyone in the U.S. or overseas who will suport what you are saying.
Jim Gilliland
>
> We need to get Sadam becuase he is planning to get a nuclear bomb.
> If he gets a nuclear bomb, he will use it, or allow persons such as Bin
> Laden to use it against us or others.
>
> stoped....Lets stop sadam NOW!!!!
Wow, you swallowed Bush's rhetoric hook, line, and sinker! It's not the
first time in history that a nation's leader has lied to its population,
but it's certainly the most blatant example that I've seen at home.
Have you noticed that the rest of the world is in complete disagreement
with Bush on this point? Even in Britain, support for Bush's proposed
war is eroding. The entire world think's he's wrong.
Jim Gilliland
>
> > Sadly, there IS a lot of support for Al-Queda throughout the Arab
> > world. Sadder still, Bush seems to be doing all he can to foster more
> > of it.
>
> I am surprised how you are not in touch with what you are saying.
> In the Arab world, most of them do not like Sadam. I have never met an
> Arab in suport of Sadam. I don't think you actually know any Arabs or
> seen anyone in the U.S. or overseas who will suport what you are saying.
Niko, my remarks have nothing to do with Saddam. They are about George
W. Bush.
No one likes Saddam. That's not the point. The point is that George
Bush is generating enormous amounts of ill-will in the Arab world by
starting an unprovoked war with Iraq. Saddam is a problem, but even if
Bush's war removes Saddam from power, it'll still cause so much hatred
of the US in the Islamic world that the US will be more under attack
than ever.
We need friends in the Arab world, not enemies. After 9/11, there was a
great deal of sympathy for the US among Arabs. That sympathy has now
been largely washed away by George Bush's arrogant approach to the world
around him.
Phil Hadaway
Phil Hadaway (Out) )in(
Phil Hadaway
Phil Hadaway (Out) )in(
Pat Janes
Phil Hadaway <neve...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is getting to easy. Another liberal in the bucket! 2 points!
<sarcasm> Yes, the entire western world with the exception of the USA is
in the grip of liberal hysteria. </sarcasm>
Have a nice bray.
Mark Stebbeds
<Ni...@fiveminutesoffame.uk.com> wrote:
>False impression?
>Where do you think BinLaden gets his money, and suport from?
According to the news reports I've read, mostly from Saudi Arabia, and
there has been no evidence of financial support from Iraq.
As far as the rest of your comments, thank you for reinforcing my
point that most Americans suppport the war for the wrong reasons..
mark
Mark Stebbeds
<Ni...@fiveminutesoffame.uk.com> wrote:
>We need to get Sadam becuase he is planning to get a nuclear bomb.
>If he gets a nuclear bomb,
The US is the only cuuntry that has used a nuclear bomb in war, in the
history of the world. It is the rest of the world that has a reason
to be afraid, and they are.
I agree that we should be concerned about a madman, but what gives the
US the right to have nuclear bombs, but no one else can? Becasue we
won't use it? Wrong.
mark
William Sommerwerck
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that, whatever benefit
they might have in the short run, W's policies are not consistent with where we
want the world to be 10, 20, or 50 years from now.
The potentially disastrous "blow back" of invading Iraq is plain to anyone who
has eyes to see. This is a period in world history when the US should be
"pulling in its horns" and working quietly behind the scenes, rather than
throwing its weight around. It would be much more productive in the long run if
the US pretended it didn't even exist.
Unless, of course, you want to see the US at (more or less) permanent war with
the Moslem world...
People like Saddam and bin Laden -- who, by the way, are our own creations, just
as the Afghan rebels are Russia's creation -- have a tendency to self-destruct.
It makes more sense to be patient and quietly push them in that direction,
rather than confront them directly.
Jim Gilliland wrote...
Mark Stebbeds
<Ni...@fiveminutesoffame.uk.com> wrote:
>How would you feel if you came home one day with a gun in your hand and
>as your were entering your home, a guy who just raped your wife was
>leaving. You done nothing and let the guy get away.
>You didn't even report it. THen 3 months later the rapist returns and
>rapes her again, and kills her.
>
>Don't you get it!
>It is guys like that who will continue their crimes unless they are
>stoped....Lets stop sadam NOW!!!!
Well then, you fell strongly about your beliefs. Here is how I see
it.
1) You will join the military, volunteer for service in Iraq, and put
your life on the line for what you believe in support of George Bush's
war plan..
2) You are inelibible for military service, but you will encourage
your children, relatives, friends and neighbors, to join the military
and put their lives on the line for your beliefs.
3) You just blow smoke and do nothing, and let someone else fight
your battle. There's a stronger word for that.
Mark
Rob Adelman
And even more applicable to North Korea. Of course I am not comfortable
with them having nukes, but for us to say "we can have them and you
can't, and you better do what we say or else". Please.....
Mark Stebbeds
<rockstea...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Iraq and the Economy
>U.S. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich
>Swearing-In Ceremony
>Sunday, January 5, 2003
>Cleveland, Ohio
I wrote that guy a letter when he first suggested the Department of
Peace, over a year ago. I friend of mine saw him speak at his church.
I encourage his efforts, but I wish he were a little more focused on
something he could actually pull off.
Mark
Jim Gilliland
Dennis speaks his mind and he is a truly ethical politician. I've met
him many times - a close friend and fellow DJ at WRUW is on Dennis's
staff here. He's a solid liberal and isn't likely to back down on an
issue like this. We certainly need a few politicians who aren't afraid
to "talk back" to George Bush. I only wish there were more of them in
Congress.
He's not the congressman for my district - Republican gerrymandering
last year made sure of that. But he's earned my respect again and
again.
Jim Gilliland
>
> You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that, whatever benefit
> they might have in the short run, W's policies are not consistent with where we
> want the world to be 10, 20, or 50 years from now.
>
> The potentially disastrous "blow back" of invading Iraq is plain to anyone who
> has eyes to see. This is a period in world history when the US should be
> "pulling in its horns" and working quietly behind the scenes, rather than
> throwing its weight around. It would be much more productive in the long run if
> the US pretended it didn't even exist.
>
> Unless, of course, you want to see the US at (more or less) permanent war with
> the Moslem world...
Exactly. We are a very strong country. We should be acting as a
leader, quietly working through diplomacy, setting a good example for
the world around us. Instead, we're acting as the schoolyard bully,
trying to be (as Phil Ochs put it) the "Cops of the World".
Bush is setting precedents that may haunt us for the rest of the
century. What a legacy to leave for our children!
SoundCheck
> January 15, 2003
>
> The United States of America has gone mad
> by John le Carré
> London Times
> <http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif>
...continues with yawn inducing fluff...
If you'd like to read a non-emotional, less rhetorical, and nothing
but factual explication of the situation between the U.S. and Iraq, I
highly suggest the following two articles, both available on-line and
in full:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/11/kaplan.htm
and
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/11/fallows.htm
They are both very long reads, but, they are both loaded with facts,
not emotion-laden U.S. (or otherwise) bashing. I will venture to
guess that if you make it through the entire article(s), you may
either have (1.) more to gripe and opine about (but you will be much
better informed and factual), and/or (2.) be convinced that what Bush
and his administration is suggesting by taking on Iraq is in fact the
thing to do.
Just wanted to throw more _factual_ feed to the fodder!
peace
WillStG
still cause so much hatred of the US in the Islamic world that the US will be
more under attack than ever. >
>We need friends in the Arab world, not enemies. After 9/11, there was a great
deal of sympathy for the US among Arabs.>
Fact is our enemies are going to attack us regardless, and _not_ going
after Saddam would likely only embolden them further. And exactly what kind of
so-called "friends" do we "need"? Truly our Arab friends and foes alike are in
serious need of change politically and economically, and the prospects of that
coming change create the greatest anger and fear in those who are the most
corrupt. But removing Saddam and facilitating the creation of a democratic
state in Iraq will have earth shaking consequences in the Islamic World which
is still in the dark ages politically.
> That sympathy has now been largely washed away by George Bush's arrogant
approach to the world
around him.<
Truth is many just feared the awakened wrath of the sleeping giant. But
just like people in the Eastern block countries wished for our help duirng the
Cold War, the young population of Iran is seriously Pro-US and hate being ruled
by the repressive Religious Courts. Liberating next door Iraq would likely
encourage their hunger for freedom from the Ayatollah's a great deal.
Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
WillStG
has been no evidence of financial support from Iraq.>
Read more Mark. How about Military Intelligence? Joining in large coalition
of terrorist organizations and helping finance, train and arm them? How about
sheltering fleeing Taliban in Bagdad? There are plenty of reports that this is
the case. Not that Saddam wouldn't stab a Taliban in the back if it was to his
benefit, but that doesn't mean he's not helping them for his own political
benefit right now either.
William Sommerwerck
We complain about the unjustness of the societies we live in, the stupidity and
venality of our politicians, etc, etc, as if these were the cause of our
problems.
They are, instead, the effects of what human beings consider important.
The world will not meaningfully improve until people change their values.
Jim Gilliland wrote...
William Sommerwerck
> just like people in the Eastern block countries wished for our help duirng the
> Cold War, the young population of Iran is seriously Pro-US and hate being
ruled
> by the repressive Religious Courts. Liberating next door Iraq would likely
> encourage their hunger for freedom from the Ayatollah's a great deal.
Then why don't they just start their own revolution, as we did?
Jay Kadis
<will...@nwlink.com> writes:
[snip]
> The world will not meaningfully improve until people change their values.
>
>
And this is the crux of the problem. While technology has exploded, human
nature remains in the paleolithic era. The world will never improve as long as
our first reaction is violence.
-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x
Geoff Wood
"Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:10427006...@nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net...
> Jim Gilliland wrote:
> >
> > Sadly, there IS a lot of support for Al-Queda throughout the Arab
> > world. Sadder still, Bush seems to be doing all he can to foster more
> > of it.
I am just greading the day when somebody proudly announces that they've just
opened a Kabul McDonalds....
;-(
geoff
Kurt Albershardt
>
>> The world will not meaningfully improve until people change their values.
>
> And this is the crux of the problem. While technology has exploded, human
> nature remains in the paleolithic era. The world will never improve as long as
> our first reaction is violence.
Our technology has eclipsed our morality. It did so a long time ago.
hollywood_steve
the American people support Bush's plan to invade Iraq because they
are under the false impression that this is retaliation for 911.
******************************************
Who are these 88% and where do they live? Because I never see or talk
to any of them. Hell, I'm not sure if I personally know anyone who
even voted for Bush. If my circle of friends and acquaintences in LA,
NYC and Boston are all almost 100% against Bush, his cronies and all
of their policies, there must be some huge parallel, but out-of-phase,
pro-Bush society that exists completely off of my radar. Maybe that's
who is driving all of those grossly oversized SUVs everywhere I go?
steve
lex...@pacbell.net
Your Add Here!
Hitler used in his justification for invading Poland. He then trumped
up a boarder skirmish and moved in. This policy is insane and
precendent speaks for itself.
rocksteady
<Ni...@fiveminutesoffame.uk.com> wrote:
>We can not do
>much about Norht Korea. Now only china can mittigate them as it would
>be in their best interest to do so...but back to Sadam.
Hmmm, how come we can't do much about N. Korea, but we can easily bomb
the shit out of Iraq?
Also, buy a dictionary or use a spell-checker, bright-eyes.
Al
rocksteady
<neve...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Another liberal in the kill file. I love this thread!
You'll have to put most of the world in your kill file, gonzo.
Al
rocksteady
<Ni...@fiveminutesoffame.uk.com> wrote:
>In article <3E2616BB...@cheerful.com>, usemyl...@cheerful.com
>says...
>> Mark Stebbeds wrote:
>
>> >
>> > It's MY opinion that many of the supporters of Bush's war plan are
>> > under the false impression that Iraq is responsible for the terrorist
>> > attacks of 911, or at least deserve to be attacked in retaliation for
>> > it.
>>
>
>False impression?
>Where do you think BinLaden gets his money, and suport from?
From Saudi Arabia, bright-eyes, *not* Iraq. This guy is a perfect
example of how well the propaganda is working.
From the rest of your post, we are all lucky that you aren't writing
the history books. Not that there would be much chance of that.
Al
>Iraq deservs to be attacked due to IRaq's own bullshit.
>The last time we were there, the "people" were in suport of us bombing
>him. THe streets were filled with persons yelling George Bush, George
>Bush, George Bush, and partying in the streets. They even took up arms
>to attempt to overthrow the rest of the republican guard.
>
>Bush senior was afraid that the U.S. and it's suporters would soon think
>we were slaugtering innocent people after we had finished 75% of our
>mission last time. We bombed a highway that was suposed to be
>millitants attemting to escape, but most of that was not.
>
>Our marines were about to block off the republican guard and finish them
>off. Prior to this we had mainly only killed Sadams entry level troops.
>Then Swartshcoft informed bush that the mission was finished so bush
>called off the attacking troopps. Swartscoft also allowed them to take
>their tanks, and helicopters with bombs back to Iraq. Once we pulled
>out, Sadam turned arond and used this equiptment to slaughter the people
>who attempted to continue to overthow Sadam.
>
>So basically we bombed alot of stuff, but we still left Sadam in power,
>and later we discovered from persons close to Sadam that defected, that
>most of his chemical plants and other facilities were unscaved.
>
>We are attempting to finish off what we didn't do last time.
>
>
>
>> I think most Americans realize that Iraq and Al-Qaeda are two separate
>> entities, but I also think that in some subconcious way they feel that
>> an attack on Iraq will let us "get even" with the Arab world. I think
>> there are a lot of people who hold all Muslims responsible for 9/11,
>> even if they'd not say so publicly. At least that's the only way I can
>> explain our apparent willingness to launch a completely unprovoked
>> attack on Iraq.
>>
>
>I know you are wrong. I know both Arabs and americans who live in a
>military comunity. I can say that there seems to be little hatred
>towards the Arabs I know and with persons who ar ein the military or in
>that comunity.
>
>> Sadly, there IS a lot of support for Al-Queda throughout the Arab
>> world. Sadder still, Bush seems to be doing all he can to foster more
>> of it.
>
>
rocksteady
At least he's thinking positive... and among all the cynical voices
(including the one in my own head) it's nice to hear something a
little more inspiring.
Al
rocksteady
It's easy to live in a bubble of people who think like you do. I live
in a very progessive city, but all I have to do is drive about 40
miles out and start talking to people to get a completely different
point of view.
Al
Adrian Clark
> Have you noticed that the rest of the world is in complete disagreement
> with Bush on this point? Even in Britain, support for Bush's proposed
> war is eroding.
Indeed - a poll by Channel 4 television today gave a figure of only 19%
in favour of a war.
Adrian
--
___________________________________
THE VIEW FROM THE SPAGHETTI FACTORY
http://www.spaghetti-factory.co.uk
Will Hunt
you're making your point nicely.
Will
Phil Hadaway wrote:
> This is getting to easy. Another liberal in the bucket! 2 points!
Adrian Clark
> If you'd like to read a non-emotional, less rhetorical, and nothing
> but factual explication of the situation between the U.S. and Iraq, I
> highly suggest the following two articles, both available on-line and
> in full:
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/11/kaplan.htm
Nope, that's just more opinions, but from the other side. It always
makes me laugh when people proudly proclaim that an article features
"the facts"... I'm perfectly happy to read a real human being talking
about issues which affect other real human beings.
> They are both very long reads, but, they are both loaded with facts,
> not emotion-laden U.S. (or otherwise) bashing.
If someone can talk about huge global issues without emotion, I'd be
suspicious about his/her motives.
William Sommerwerck
Most of my friends have traditionally been well-educated, "liberal" people. But
several years ago I joined a black-powder club which consists of some of the
nicest but appallingly conservative people you'd want to meet. It has been an
eye-opening experience.
Rick Knepper
--
Rick Knepper
MicroComputer Support Services
Knepper Audio
Ft. Worth, TX
817-239-9632
413-215-1267 Fax
PC Tech Support & Equipment Sales
CDR Duplication & Audio Mastering
Recording
http://www.rknepper.com
<nos...@here.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-CAE806....@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> In article <h02b2vgjg36nft9q6...@4ax.com>, Mark Stebbeds
> <mste...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > January 15, 2003
> >
> > The United States of America has gone mad
> > by John le Carré
> > London Times
> > <http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif>
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html
>
> Regardless of one's viewpoint, this article is simply an emotional
> reaction lacking any real substance.
Agreed.
> Nowhere does it mention the real
> problems that the country should be concerned about, like secret courts
> rubber stamping wiretapping on US citizens, the throwing out of the 4th
> amendment, a recent change in the wording of the secret court's charter
> that makes it no longer restricted to only information gathering of an
> international nature. It's now available for domestic law enforcement
> purposes, with no 4th amendment or probable cause necessary, which
> originally was professed quite loudly at it's inception as being
> something it could and would never be used for. In addition, US citizens
> can now be held indefinitely in inhumane conditions in military brigs
> with no charges filed, no right to counsel, and just plain no rights at
> all (not talking about the prisoners of war in Cuba). These are the
> concrete facts that should be getting attention.
Here's a link to a paper on the "Secret Court" written in 1995, prior to
911, the resulting hysteria and the liberal backlash. Make note that the
Secret Court was establshed in 1978, during Jimmy Carter's reign. Senator
Edward Kennedy sponsored the legislation that created the "court". The FISC
was further expanded during the Clinton admministration.
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/fiscshort.html
--
Rick Knepper
MicroComputer Support Services
Knepper Audio
Ft. Worth, TX
817-239-9632
413-215-1267 Fax
PC Tech Support & Equipment Sales
CDR Duplication & Audio Mastering
Recording
http://www.rknepper.com
NIKOŠ
says...
> "NIKOŠ" wrote:
> >
> > > Sadly, there IS a lot of support for Al-Queda throughout the Arab
> > > world. Sadder still, Bush seems to be doing all he can to foster more
> > > of it.
> >
> > I am surprised how you are not in touch with what you are saying.
> > In the Arab world, most of them do not like Sadam. I have never met an
> > Arab in suport of Sadam. I don't think you actually know any Arabs or
> > seen anyone in the U.S. or overseas who will suport what you are saying.
>
> W. Bush.
>
> No one likes Saddam. That's not the point. The point is that George
> Bush is generating enormous amounts of ill-will in the Arab world by
> starting an unprovoked war with Iraq. Saddam is a problem, but even if
> Bush's war removes Saddam from power, it'll still cause so much hatred
> of the US in the Islamic world that the US will be more under attack
> than ever.
>
That is untrue. Arab's like the U.S. they want Sadam out of power, but
they want him all the way out, and to be replaced with a democratic
voice. Unfortuantely there is no one to assume the place of Sadam after
he is gone. That is what most Arabs are concerned with
As for U.S> being under more attack, you are wrong there too, as the
only arabs that are against the U.S. are the ones led by Sadam and Al
Queda. Once Sadam is gone, that region will be stable if they find teh
proper replacement for Sadam.
> We need friends in the Arab world, not enemies. After 9/11, there was a
> great deal of sympathy for the US among Arabs. That sympathy has now
> been largely washed away by George Bush's arrogant approach to the world
> around him.
>
That is untrue. The only sympathy that has been washed away is that of
the people who do not understand what America is all about. Our own
people who do not value that there are people who will die for the
freedom of americans. The people who think that terrorists will leave
us alone if we leave them alone. Those are the only people who have
lost sympathy.
The only way to stop terrorists is to get them out of power.
The "so-called" last voice of Binladen stated that they will never stop
unless 10 items were met:
one of those were that the american people had to convert to Islam.
How many americans will do that?
Your answer should be, not many. That in and of itself tells us that
terrorists will never stop. They are against our way of life and they
want to take that away. Not fighting them will not stop them.
That is what YOU do not seem to understand.
--
Next time shoot scope
Chris Johnson
"Geoff Wood" <ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:
> I am just greading the day when somebody proudly announces that they've just
> opened a Kabul McDonalds....
>
> ;-(
>
> geoff
Yeah, the irony is that _our_ systems are collapsing even as we (or
our leadership) push for total empire.
For instance, we'll make the whole world do privatized healthcare so
they're not a bunch of socialist commies, while all the time our OWN
doctors are bailing out of the profession in droves because they cannot
survive in the healthcare market- they can't afford to work and still
pay the insurance premiums our system has naturally led to.
We've yet to see really radical genetically-modified-organism crises,
but we're pushing monoculture agriculture on the world by ruthlessly
stamping out any other option on the grounds it's not efficient, never
mind that it is a safeguard against ecological disaster.
We're stamping out all forms of environmental protections including
the Kyoto accord, and we are ALREADY seeing natural disasters produced
by the cranked-up high-energy weather system produced through global
warming! The Gulf Stream itself is rather likely to stop within ten
years as a result of these changes, giving us in the Eastern US and most
of Europe a nice new Ice Age to play with- soon!
It really does make one understand why some people become absolutely
desperate to stop the US by any means, even if you can't tolerate their
means. I don't see a contradiction between on the one hand saying
"Terrorism MUST stop" and on the other hand saying "and yet, what the
hell else are they supposed to do?"
What the hell else ARE they supposed to do?
We need to get a handle on our own loonies quick, before they get us
all killed. If we don't, it's gonna be done for us even if it takes the
whole world to stop us. Neither Imperial Germany or Imperial Japan got
away with what we're continually doing. We won't either. Ask someone
from one of those countries what path we're on!
Chris Johnson
NIKOŠ
>
> Exactly. We are a very strong country. We should be acting as a
> leader, quietly working through diplomacy, setting a good example for
> the world around us. Instead, we're acting as the schoolyard bully,
> trying to be (as Phil Ochs put it) the "Cops of the World".
We have already seen what happens when you let terrorists go about their
way....They blow up our buildings.
They do not like our way of life. For Al Queda it is a wholy war.
For Sadam it is only a matter of time before he gets nuclear weapons.
What you do not realize is that under Clinton, he made it possible for
the chineese to obtain rocket technology to enable long range fire.
With that, they now can shoot a rocket over to the U.S. and blow us up.
IF they put a nuclear weapon on that rocket, it won't be a world trade
center bomb, it will be the end of the free world as we know it.
Even without nuclear power, they can send bilogical weapons here or
anywhere else. The only thing stoping them from doing it is the right
amount of money, or the right trade with the chineese. It is only a
matter of time before that technology spreads to everyone.
You may not know it, but untill 3 years ago, no one had the capability
to send a rocket to our country and hit us across the seas. Now they
do.
This is why we must stop the terrorists now!
We can not go on blindly letting them gain weapons which we know how
they will use them. The chineese has the power, that we can not do
anything about. Sadam we can do something about it.
Just like we could have done something about bin ladden years before we
did. If you don't sotp terrorists, they will stop you.
Think of it like cancer. Would you just let that continue to get
larger?
>
> Bush is setting precedents that may haunt us for the rest of the
> century. What a legacy to leave for our children!
>
--
NIKOŠ
says...
After we left the last battle, they tried that.
The people took up arms and attempted to finish off what remained of
Sadam . Unfortuantely Norman Swatshcoft, allowed the enemies to have
all of their unused weapons, tanks, and armored helicoptors.
Once the U.S. troops, who were so eager to return home, were out of the
country. Sadam turned these weapons on these people and slaughtered
them all. Anyone who thought of challlenging him was sent to death.
Even his own men and guards, would have raids against their own men.
Routienly groups of his soldiers would wake up other souldiers and ask
them are they going to helpo overthrow Sadam. With a knife to their
throat, if they said yes, they were killed.
Suddenly there was only one answer and all who thought negative about
sadam were killed. That is how their revolution never happened.
NIKOŠ
@hotmail.com says...
> Another liberal in the kill file. I love this thread!
>
Another conservative , without us, they would be in the dead pile.
Fight for freedom
>
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:12:46 GMT, Jim Gilliland
> <usemyl...@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
> >"NIKOŠ" wrote:
> >>
> >> We need to get Sadam becuase he is planning to get a nuclear bomb.
> >> If he gets a nuclear bomb, he will use it, or allow persons such as Bin
> >> Laden to use it against us or others.
> >>
> >> It is guys like that who will continue their crimes unless they are
> >> stoped....Lets stop sadam NOW!!!!
> >
> >Wow, you swallowed Bush's rhetoric hook, line, and sinker! It's not the
> >first time in history that a nation's leader has lied to its population,
> >but it's certainly the most blatant example that I've seen at home.
> >Have you noticed that the rest of the world is in complete disagreement
> >with Bush on this point? Even in Britain, support for Bush's proposed
> >war is eroding. The entire world think's he's wrong.
>
> Phil Hadaway (Out) )in(
>
--
Michael Angel
-OO-
Michael Angel
Mange...@aol.com
Angel Lofte Studio, Atlanta
32 Bit CD Mastering
NIKOŠ
mste...@earthlink.net says...
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:22:27 GMT, NIKOŠ
>
> >We need to get Sadam becuase he is planning to get a nuclear bomb.
> >If he gets a nuclear bomb,
>
> history of the world. It is the rest of the world that has a reason
> to be afraid, and they are.
>
I can understand that.
> I agree that we should be concerned about a madman, but what gives the
> US the right to have nuclear bombs, but no one else can? Becasue we
> won't use it? Wrong.
I didn't say we have the right to something and no one else should have
that right. What I am saying is that we can not do much about russia
and the chineese having nuclear weapons, but now, we have a mad man who
has made it clear what he wants to do. We can do something about that.
and I think we should not only for the U.S., but for humanity sake.
>
> mark
NIKOŠ
>
>
> Mark Stebbeds wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:22:27 GMT, NIKOŠ
> > <Ni...@fiveminutesoffame.uk.com> wrote:
> >
> > >We need to get Sadam becuase he is planning to get a nuclear bomb.
> > >If he gets a nuclear bomb,
> >
> > The US is the only cuuntry that has used a nuclear bomb in war, in the
> > history of the world. It is the rest of the world that has a reason
> > to be afraid, and they are.
> >
> > US the right to have nuclear bombs, but no one else can? Becasue we
> > won't use it? Wrong.
> >
>
>
> And even more applicable to North Korea. Of course I am not comfortable
> with them having nukes, but for us to say "we can have them and you
> can't, and you better do what we say or else". Please.....
>
If you were a 17 year old boy, and you came across a 15 year old kid
beating up a 10 year old, I would hope you would stop the fight.
The U.S. because it has the power to help others financially or
otherwise, often steps in to preven people from being opressed. That is
what America does. I will agree there has been times when they should
stay out, but Sadam, I do not believe is such a case.
As for North Korea, that strengthens my arguement about the things you
can and can not do much about. With Sadam, we can prevent more death
against his own people, and we can keep weapons out of the hands of a
mad man. Not acting on what we "should do" allows situations such as
the twin towers.
With North Korea, there is not a lot we can do about them having nukes.
WE can give the south Koreans nukes to even it up.
We can nuke them, and start a world war.
If we nuked them furiously, the fall out would hit china and bring them
into a war with us. So for that situation we do not have a lot of
power. OUr only out is to let China stop the North Koreans.
In this situation we have to use diplomacy.
Asian's take pride in their character. If you make them look bad, they
would be willing to die to save their honor. For that reason, you have
to be careful of what you say and how you say it.
The smart thing to do is to make it seem like China is the one to stop
that nuke stuff. Of course china backs north Korea so why would they
stop them? Well the more people you have with nukes, the more chance
for someone to go off the handle. Being that china is backing North
Korea, it is in everyone best interest that China control their nuke
ability, and not to have that power in the control of the Norht Koreans.
This will give the chineese the power to look good, adn powerful.
That is something of high value to asians. That is the best way to deal
with Norht Korea, otherwise things can get out of hand.
My point is. Sometimes you can keep things under control, and
othertimes you can not. Sadam is something we have the power to defuse,
Korea we man not.
NIKOŠ
mste...@earthlink.net says...> >How would you feel if you came home one day with a gun in your hand and
> >as your were entering your home, a guy who just raped your wife was
> >leaving. You done nothing and let the guy get away.
> >You didn't even report it. THen 3 months later the rapist returns and
> >rapes her again, and kills her.
> >
> >Don't you get it!
> >It is guys like that who will continue their crimes unless they are
> >stoped....Lets stop sadam NOW!!!!
>
> it.
>
> 1) You will join the military, volunteer for service in Iraq, and put
> your life on the line for what you believe in support of George Bush's
> war plan..
>
> 2) You are inelibible for military service, but you will encourage
> your children, relatives, friends and neighbors, to join the military
> and put their lives on the line for your beliefs.
>
> 3) You just blow smoke and do nothing, and let someone else fight
> your battle. There's a stronger word for that.
>
> Mark
>
Yeah, I was in the Marines, my brother in law was a Navy Seal and my
brother was in the army.
I think our country is worth fighting for...do you?
NIKOŠ
rockstea...@attbi.com says...
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:22:27 GMT, NIKOŠ
> <Ni...@fiveminutesoffame.uk.com> wrote:
>
> >We can not do
>
> Hmmm, how come we can't do much about N. Korea, but we can easily bomb
> the shit out of Iraq?
North Korea is not bombing or blowing up our buildings.
North Korea has the backing of China, who has nuclear weapons, as well
as other weapons. North Korea does not have an interest to destroy our
way of life. North Korea can not be fought physically without the high
possibility of it turning into a nuke battle. North Korea does not
necessarily directly affect our way of life, making it less likely that
they will directly confront us. North Korea does not have a dictator
who is only interested in killing everyone who opposes him.
North Korea is only 6 months away from the possibility of obtaining
nukes. Even if they have them there is not a high probability that they
have a reason or motivation to use them. For this reason I say that
North Korea may have or be closer to getting nukes than Sadam, but it is
Sadam that we would, not may, have to worry about if he gets them.
getting rid of a dictator who WILL use them and most likely against us
is a stronger reason to stop him now.
North Korea is pretty much beyond the point where we can do much besides
start a nuke battle to stop them. What we all need to realize is that
technology and secrets are spreading faster than most realize. It won't
be long before most countries have nukes. I think it is a smart move to
get rid of the wackos who are likely to use them foolishly (as if any
use of them would be unfoolish). Sadam we can stop..if we do it now.
> Al
Dave Martin
rec.audio.pro readers include liberals, conservatives, and anarchists. Lost
of us have no place else to go to talk, politics, religion, or barbecue. If
you don't want to participate, ignore it. So far, this thread hasn't reached
nearly the level of vituperation that appeared in RAP after 9/11.
--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN
"Michael Angel" <mange...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030116180735...@mb-bd.aol.com...
Jny Vee
<mste...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The US is the only cuuntry that has used a nuclear bomb in war, in the
> history of the world. It is the rest of the world that has a reason
> to be afraid, and they are.
>
> I agree that we should be concerned about a madman, but what gives the
> US the right to have nuclear bombs, but no one else can? Becasue we
> won't use it? Wrong.
Mark you ignorant slut.
You obviously are pigheadedly IGNORING the FACT that God -is- on Our
Side.
(I am sitting here now REALLY hoping you watched SNL when it was
funny...)
--
Perspective is vital to wisdom. It is indeed a good
thing to know that for every ELECTRIC LADYLAND there
were months/years/decades of tracking The Archies.
>> Help Keep The Net Emoticon Free! <<
Roger W. Norman
trying to run the world strictly to OUR goals and ignoring that any
transaction needs to have two satisfied parties, not one that's happy and
one that's bulled over by sheer mass. Our dealings with other countries has
almost strictly been conducted with the most base of human frailties such as
greed and power. Had we started treating other countries right we'd have
less problems, just like the fuckups that have taken place in this country
visa vie the indiginous population and the import of slaves. We have a
history of great people, but we also have a world known history of very
agressive and arrogant government. If only we'd learn from our past
mistakes, and in fact, if we don't we won't be around making more of them.
I certainly don't mind making new mistakes if all avenues have been
considered, but making the same old ones over and over again expecting a
different result is the definition of insane.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
I have never in my life used any equipment that works well enough,
is reliable enough, and sounds good enough.
--scott dorsey
"Geoff Wood" <ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:YnqV9.7446$j94.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
>
> "Jim Gilliland" <usemyl...@cheerful.com> wrote in message
>
> > Sadly, there IS a lot of support for Al-Queda throughout the Arab
> > world. Sadder still, Bush seems to be doing all he can to foster more
> > of it.
>
> Maybe George should invade Saudi instead ? They are much keener on
> fundamentalist religion that the average Iraqi, and from all account
provide
> most of AQ's funds.
>
>
> geoff
>
>
Roger W. Norman
American soldiers may have caused havoc with locals, sometimes just killing
a chicken but other times family members, but there was always immediate
compensation and formal response (well, forget My Lai). In one of the cases
I know of the American in question was ordered to offer his apologies to the
specific family, and although he initially thought of these people as
semi-enemies (hard to tell who was Viet Cong), it actually changed him in a
number of ways by having to face these people and admit his harm to them.
May not be the way to fight a war, but it is a way to heal the spirit. Our
government needs to treat every noncombatant casualty's family as people.
Most people realize that war can't be waged without death. But death
without some response by the government that caused that death is certainly
fertile ground for revenge and hatred.
Besides, with all but the most dire of circumstances, shouldn't we be able
to make war the last possible step? I'd rather keep up with helping
Afghanistan become a real country and concentrate on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda
than to be throwing our weight around threatening Saddam and scaring the
shit out of North Korea.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
I have never in my life used any equipment that works well enough,
is reliable enough, and sounds good enough.
--scott dorsey
"Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:10427006...@nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net...
> Jim Gilliland wrote:
> >
> > Sadly, there IS a lot of support for Al-Queda throughout the Arab
> > world. Sadder still, Bush seems to be doing all he can to foster more
> > of it.
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0113/p01s04-wosc.html
>
> Headline: Latest Al Qaeda recruits: Afghans seeking revenge
> Byline: Scott Baldauf Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
> Date: 01/13/2003
>
> (KHOST, AFGHANISTAN)Haji Din Mohammad's family has been marked by two
> tragic acts. The first was an American bombing raid in December 2001
> that killed his nephew Zeni Khel in a local mosque. The second was the
> murder of an American CIA agent a month later by another nephew in an
> act of revenge.
>
> It's this eye-for-an-eye code of Mr. Mohammad's Pashtun ethnic group
> that Al Qaeda and its allies are exploiting to create new suicide
> squads in Afghanistan, say Afghan intelligence officials. They are
> drawing recruits from families who have suffered losses in the past
> year of war. With motives and methods copied from Palestinian suicide
> bombers, the young men pose the newest, and perhaps gravest, threat to
> the young government, to American aid workers, and to US troops.
>
> "I am too old to feel revenge," says Mohammad, the family elder. "But
> for our youths, revenge is like an ember that burns in your heart."
>
> He blames local mullahs for converting his pious nephew, Abdul Malik,
> into a murderer. "I used to tell my nephews, what happened has
> happened, it is in the hands of God," says the old farmer, crouching in
> a dry riverbed outside his house. "But they did not listen to me, they
> listened to the radicals, the mullahs who pump the emotions of the
> boys," he finishes with a sigh.
>
> Abdul Malik may be one of dozens of young men willing to take the war
> in Afghanistan to a new level of danger, risking their own lives to
> avenge the deaths of family members for the sake of culture, family,
> and to a certain extent, Islam.
>
> "The worst enmity in Afghanistan is not religious and not political, it
> is cultural," says Mohammad Ibrahim Mushfiq, deputy governor of Khost,
> referring to the Pashtun code of revenge. "The only solution is
> cultural. If a tribal council came with US forces to a family of a
> victim, and they apologized and said we are sorry for your loss, and we
> ask for your pardon, the family will not reject that. But if you don't
> do that, these families can be the most dangerous, because they are the
> ones who will do suicide attacks."
>
> The December 2001 bombing of the mosque is just one action that has
> many Afghans upset. On Dec. 20, 2001, American bombers, tipped off by
> an Afghan warlord, bombed a car caravan full of Pashtun tribal leaders
> from the Khost region, killing 30. In May 2002, US planes bombed a
> mountain in Khost Province where two tribes were fighting in a land
> dispute, killing 10. The following month, American planes bombed a
> wedding party in Urozgan, killing 37, mainly women and children. In
> each incident, tribal councils alerted the provincial government that
> they intend to take revenge against US forces.
>
> Turning angry Pashtuns into professional killers, Afghan intelligence
> sources say, appears to be the work of Hizb-I Islami, a
> Pashtun-dominated religious party that once fought against Soviet
> presence in Afghanistan. After the Soviet-backed Afghan government fell
> in 1992, Hizb-I Islami fought in a bloody civil war for control of
> Kabul and the national government.
>
> When the Taliban ended the civil war in 1996, and entered Kabul, Hizb's
> chief, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar fled to Iran. But when America's bombing
> campaign began last October, Mr. Hekmatyar declared a jihad against
> American troops. Last month, he announced his alliance with Al Qaeda
> and the Taliban.
>
> Like Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden, Hekmatyar is thought to be
> operating both in remote parts of southeastern Afghanistan, including
> Khost, Paktia, and Nangrahar Provinces, and in the northeastern Konar
> Province, say Afghan military officials. They say he also finds refuge
> on the Pakistani side of the border in autonomous Pashtun tribal areas
> where Pakistani authorities have little control.
>
> "Hizb-I Islami has the expertise to bring together those who have lost
> family members, to equip them with weapons, to train them, and to
> provide transportation to Kabul, where they can carry out their
> attacks," says Gen. Khial Baz Sherzai, the military chief of Khost
> Province.
>
> Countering this threat is a problem, General Sherzai says, because
> local Afghan forces don't have sufficient manpower or weapons to stop
> infiltration by Hizb fighters. "We have a 180-kilometer border with
> Pakistan, and everybody can easily enter here and carry out what they
> want. We have security only in the city of Khost, not the province of
> Khost."
>
> Afghan intelligence sources say that most of these suicide attackers
> are making their way to Kabul, where US soldiers, aid workers,
> diplomats, and even journalists are easy to find. Just three weeks ago,
> in a crowded market in Kabul, a young Afghan teenager threw a grenade
> into a jeep full of American soldiers. The soldiers were severely
> injured.
>
> Speaking broadly about recent attacks on US soldiers, including the
> grenade attack, Major Steve Clutter, the US military spokesman at
> Bagram Air Base, said the attacks were considered serious, but showed
> the current weaknesses of Al Qaeda and its allies.
>
> "Clearly there are people who have bad intent, and they don't like the
> way things are going in the war on terrorism," he told reporters
> recently. "They appear to be acts of a desperate foe."
>
> Details about the Afghan teenager are sketchy. Kabul police say the
> boy, who remains in US custody at Bagram Air Base, gave his name as
> Amir Jan and said that he comes from the Ishmail Khel district in the
> Khost Province. Khost provincial officials say they don't believe he
> comes from their province.
>
> But in the Ishmail Khel district, in the village of Mandozai - a
> scattering of mud-walled homes - a senior family member and neighbors
> close to the family say the boy under arrest in Kabul is Abdullah Jan,
> son of Abdul Karim, and brother of Nasratullah Noori, who was killed in
> the December mosque bombing.
>
> Locals describe Abdullah Jan as a smart, pious 11th grader who prayed
> five times a day and learned English in a madrassah in Pakistan. Before
> the war, Abdullah showed no concern for politics. But after the death
> of his brother Nasratullah, he increasingly talked with local mullahs
> of plans for revenge.
>
> In the guestroom of their home, ringed with cushions, Abdullah Jan's
> family admit to visitors that they lost one son to the mosque bombing.
> But Abdullah Jan's father vehemently denies that his son was involved
> in any attack on Americans. "I have a son named Abdullah Jan, but he is
> not the one who carried out the attacks," says Abdul Karim, a local
> farmer.
>
> If Karim is cautious, it may be because of the experience of the family
> of Abdul Malik, the 18-year-old who killed the CIA agent. When Abdul
> Malik escaped to Pakistan, local Afghan authorities arrested two of his
> young cousins in an attempt to pressure the family to bring him back.
>
> One of those cousins, Salahuddin, says he was tortured and beaten by
> Afghan intelligence agents during 10 months of captivity in Kabul. "The
> worst thing was our Afghan secret police, the 3rd Directorate of
> Intelligence," says Salahuddin, who has only one name. "They would give
> us electric shocks to compel us to confess.
>
> "But I really liked the Americans. They were not as cruel as I thought
> they would be. They were very friendly. They offered me a Pepsi. Even
> when they would beat us, it was like they were joking."
>
> The elder Mohammad says vengeance has only added to his family's
> sorrow, and given sorrow to another family in America, thousands of
> miles away.
>
> "I am sorry for the killed American," he says. "I remember the wife of
> my brother crying when she lost her son. Now the same must be happening
> with the mother or sister of the American killed here. The pain is the
> same, and we share it with that family."
>
>
>
>
>
> (c) Copyright 2003 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
>
Roger W. Norman
never lie to them or do anything untoward. And of course they never got all
the news about what our government was doing, even to it's own military what
with radiation experiments that actually affected every American on the
continental US because of fall out. Geez, there are so many wrongs and yet
Americans, on the whole, think we're doing it right.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
I have never in my life used any equipment that works well enough,
is reliable enough, and sounds good enough.
--scott dorsey
"Particle Salad" <ma...@particlesalad.com> wrote in message
news:w6tV9.240$M17.11...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Jim Gilliland wrote:
>
> > I think most Americans realize that Iraq and Al-Qaeda are two separate
> > entities,
>
> Sadly, I believe you are incorrect. I had my inlaws over for Christmas,
> and the Iraq subject was brought up. Two adults SWORE up and down that
> there was a direct connection to Iraq. Bush's bullshit campaign is
> working.
>
lanis lebaron & hank alrich
> If you were a 17 year old boy, and you came across a 15 year old kid
> beating up a 10 year old, I would hope you would stop the fight.
> The U.S. because it has the power to help others financially or
> otherwise, often steps in to preven people from being opressed.
A review of our behavior in South America might help illuminate the
silliness of what you have written above. A reading of _Lies My Teacher
Told Me_ could outline how most of us have come to know so very little
of our own national history, as it is represented in the primary soruces
versus that which has been and is being fed us in public schools across
America. Sometimes ignorance is misery, other times it's dangerous.
--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
Kurt Albershardt
> Once Sadam is gone, that region will be stable if they find teh
> proper replacement for Sadam.
Riiiiiight.
Kurt Albershardt
>
> Just like we could have done something about bin ladden years before we
>
> Think of it like cancer. Would you just let that continue to get
> larger?
You have no idea just how dead-on your analogy is. Your solution is
eerily similar to the use of radiation, surgery, and chemo for the
treatment of a disease characterized by once-healthy cells attacking the
body from which they came.
Hint: The rate of success in long-term treatment/management is similar.
Prevention is the key in both. Think of normal relations and trade as a
kind of pulse or respiration...
William Sommerwerck
Many of the world's current problems are caused by one nation interfering (or
having interfered) in another nations' affairs -- the US, Russia, and China
being the principal offenders, though historically we could add England, France,
and Japan.
The US also has to understand that its economic power is an interference -- not
always wanted -- in other countries' societies.
"Roger W. Norman" wrote...
SoundCheck
the articles. What I will say, however, is that those two articles in
particular, more than most that I have read, describe and explain, in
a thoughtful and articulate manner, what's in store (at the very
least, a very very reasonable scenario), if a war were to break out
between the U.S. and Iraq, and if the U.S. were to win that war.
Again, what's being posted here in this thread, for the most part, and
I know that I'm generalizing, is mostly rhetoric and emotional
venting. Which is fine, and which is normal for people who are about
to enter a war, I guess. But, I think it's always a good idea to have
a dose of articulate explanation, from a couple of authors who
probably know a hell of a lot more on the subject than the collective
knowledge of this whole user group.
And, I wouldn't say that the authors are necessarily "on the other
side". In fact, if anything at all, they may be so neutral, that they
aren't on either "side", but only give the appearance of one or the
other, as a result of their blunt and straight forward,
no-holds-barred presentation of the situation.
I don't think I've flipped through more than a few issues of that
magazine, and if anything, they may _possibly_ have a slight liberal
slant, if any at all.
spag...@hotmail.com (Adrian Clark) wrote in message news:<1fowe4s.14jwrapiqpgy3N%spag...@hotmail.com>...
nmm
wrote:
> Unfortuantely there is no one to assume the place of Sadam after
>he is gone. That is what most Arabs are concerned with
what are you talking about.. the world is filled with backroom oil
executives like the one they put in power in Afghanistan.. There'll be no
trouble for Standard Oil, or even the United States even to find a new
ruler for Iraq..
And please shut up about democracy.. These people Don't Want Democracy..
or it has to be phased in over say... 30 years..
It should be set up like Kuwait, they never needed democracy there.. and
maybe put in some of those fundemental islamic schools. That way the people
won't get too smart,and there'll be an excuse for a strong continual
millitary presence. That will keep insurance rates on shipping oil down,
That's the important bussines
lanis lebaron & hank alrich
> In article <eold2vgcfo5qojp13...@4ax.com>, Mark Stebbeds
> <mste...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > The US is the only cuuntry that has used a nuclear bomb in war, in the
> > history of the world. It is the rest of the world that has a reason
> > to be afraid, and they are.
> > I agree that we should be concerned about a madman, but what gives the
> > US the right to have nuclear bombs, but no one else can? Becasue we
> > won't use it? Wrong.
> Mark you ignorant slut.
> You obviously are pigheadedly IGNORING the FACT that God -is- on Our
> Side.
> (I am sitting here now REALLY hoping you watched SNL when it was
> funny...)
Free speech... it didn't work for The Smothers Brothers.
(Was it really _their_ fault Nixie was so easily parodied as a
nincompoop?)
nmm
wrote:
>You may not know it, but untill 3 years ago, no one had the capability
>to send a rocket to our country and hit us across the seas. Now they
>do.
>
Where do you get your misinformation? Christian Broadcast News or
something?
The Russians the Chinesse, the French, The Brits.. have all had this
Technology for a long long time.. 1950s.. You can probably do a web search
on what class of Soviet missle was aimed at your house.
Are you trying to lead up to the Reagun - Bush betray of the
Anti-ballistic Missle treaty, and how right now we need a "Star Wars
Program"
YOu are way out of touch with reality. 9-11 showed you that investing in
that kind of millitary hardware is a waste of money.. But clods like you
are believing Pat Robertson,and want to pump money into such crap.. when
your country is on par with Brasil in terms of Health Care.
You must be 15 years old.. No offense to 15 year olds.
nmm
wrote:
>North Korea is only 6 months away from the possibility of obtaining
>nukes. Even if they have them there is not a high probability that they
>have a reason or motivation to use them.
That's why i'mmore worried about a renegade human rights abusing country
like Israel having Nukes.. Unfortunately no-one is willing to disarm this
rogue nation, that has a notorious record of killing children.
Mark Stebbeds
<Ni...@fiveminutesoffame.uk.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I was in the Marines, my brother in law was a Navy Seal and my
>brother was in the army.
>
>I think our country is worth fighting for...do you?
I did my time during Vietnam era, and had two brothesr and a sister
follow during the peaceful years afterward. Yes, I think America is
worth fighting for if we are attacked, and to protect our borders, but
not in this case. Not for oil or money, or to distract the attention
of the Amercan people from the real trouble at hand.
I have a nephew who just got his orders to deploy to the middle east.
It's not what he had in mind when he joined after 911. The rank and
file aren't fooled, but they follow orders as ageed.
Soon it will all be exposed, just like during Vietnam, the last
fiasco.
Mark
Mark Stebbeds
<moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com> wrote:
>Mark you ignorant slut.
>You obviously are pigheadedly IGNORING the FACT that God -is- on Our
>Side.
>
>
>(I am sitting here now REALLY hoping you watched SNL when it was
>funny...)
I even watch it when it's not funny, cuz there's nothing else on the
tube on Saturday night.
Mark
Mark Stebbeds
On 16 Jan 2003 11:38:27 -0800, s...@soca.com (hollywood_steve) wrote:
>Who are these 88% and where do they live? Because I never see or talk
>to any of them. Hell, I'm not sure if I personally know anyone who
>even voted for Bush. If my circle of friends and acquaintences in LA,
>NYC and Boston are all almost 100% against Bush, his cronies and all
>of their policies, there must be some huge parallel, but out-of-phase,
>pro-Bush society that exists completely off of my radar. Maybe that's
>who is driving all of those grossly oversized SUVs everywhere I go?
As you know Steve, Bush lost California by over 20%, which is what
brought the rath of Dubya via Enron if you remember. Also, the
democratics carried virutally ALL urban areas like Boston and NYC
during the 2000 election.
Bush's support came primarily from the rural areas, where promises of
$300 tax refunds seem like a big deal. In LA, that's a couple of
dinners with drinks at a nice restaurant.
Of course, he lost the popular vote, and was not elected at all, but
selected by the Supreme Court justices that were appointed by his
father.
mark
Kurt Albershardt
> God -is- on Our Side.
Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.
Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.
Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.
Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.
When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.
I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.
But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
Copyright © 1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music
Personally, I kinda like the Neville Brothers' version
Roger W. Norman
power over the states in order to get the states to go along with federal
mandates, such as not giving states their tax money if they don't adhere to
the drug enforcement guidelines, etc. So they're not just sticking it in
your face but in ours to. Too much power and too little brains behind it.
I still say that no man who WANTS to be president should be allowed to be
president. Much better to walk up to some house and go "here, you're the
president for the next 4 years". At least it probably wouldn't hurt.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
I have never in my life used any equipment that works well enough,
is reliable enough, and sounds good enough.
--scott dorsey
"William Sommerwerck" <will...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:v2evkfo...@corp.supernews.com...
rocksteady
wrote:
>Sorry, I'm not proud about proclaiming anything, or proud of either of
>the articles. What I will say, however, is that those two articles in
>particular, more than most that I have read, describe and explain, in
>a thoughtful and articulate manner, what's in store (at the very
>least, a very very reasonable scenario), if a war were to break out
>between the U.S. and Iraq, and if the U.S. were to win that war.
I read the article. Personally I think any writer with the hubris to
predict the outcome of a war like this is not to be trusted. There
are just way too many things that could go wrong. It remings me of
all the Yale and Harvard types who ran the CIA in the early days, they
thought they new everyting & could do no wrong -- but just made
mistake after mistake, killed lots of people and did not really change
anything.
>Again, what's being posted here in this thread, for the most part, and
>I know that I'm generalizing, is mostly rhetoric and emotional
>venting. Which is fine, and which is normal for people who are about
>to enter a war, I guess. But, I think it's always a good idea to have
>a dose of articulate explanation, from a couple of authors who
>probably know a hell of a lot more on the subject than the collective
>knowledge of this whole user group.
You know, I'm really tired of this elite attitude that the common
person doesn't have a right to comment, as if the oridinary person
can't see for themselves what is going on, and you need to be some
kind of politician or media guy to understand anything that is
happening in the world. That's what people like Dick Cheney think...
that we, the "little people" don't really know what's best and it's
best for us to abdicate any responsibilty and leave everything to the
wiser folks. I think that's bullshit, frankly.
Al
rocksteady
<Ni...@fiveminutesoffame.uk.com> wrote:
>the
>only arabs that are against the U.S. are the ones led by Sadam and Al
>Queda.
You don't get out much, do you?
Al