Belgium, France, and Germany
D Stephen Heersink
to help the United States in the prosecution of the war against
Baghdad nor help Turkey maintain the integrity of its borders in the
possibility of such a war. NATO, until now, is a protectorate of any
member country. Now, three members of the group have decided that
Turkey, the only moderate Muslim country, isn't needful of such
security, because they have a peace plan for Iraq.
What they have proffered is appeasement. Germany, a country that
started two world wars, and France, which is so insecure about its own
machismo, and Belgium, the seat of the new EU, are splintering NATO
and making the U.N.'s various resolutions upon Iraq irrelevant. What
kind of "friends" are these that won't come to the defense of member
nations? Not only Turkey, but also the U.S? This unfortunate state of
affairs resembles Britain's Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement of
Hitler's Germany back in the 1930s.
The whole matter resolves around Iraq's compliance with Rule 1441 and
the sixteen rules that preceded it; the Rules require that Iraq
demonstrate it has destroyed all weapons of mass destruction. Despite
these numerous resolutions and rules, Iraq has only shown contempt for
the U.N., and Belgium, France, and Germany have collectively done
their best to thwart the enforcement of the many resolutions over the
period of twelve years.
Could it be that Germany and France are reluctant to go forward with
any kind of insistence that Iraq disarm, because both have provided
Iraq with the very materiel that are proscribed under the U.N.'s rules
and resolutions? Iraq and Germany and France are trading parties, who
have skirted the rules by providing weapons for Iraqi oil. So, this
isn't so much a war for oil, but appeasement for oil -- and for
discovery that Belgium, France, and Germany have skirted the embargo
against Iraq and sold weapons for oil.
Belgium, France, and Germany stand alone against sixteen other NATO
countries that want to provide assistance to Turkey and support the
prosecution of war against Iraq given its recalcitrance in complying
with international rules and resolutions. Because any one of these
members can veto the other seventeen, Belgium, France, and Germany are
making NATO as irrelevant as the U.N.. So, while the majority of NATO
and the majority of Europe, save Belgium, France, and Germany, support
the U.S. and NATO, Belgium, France, and Germany peculiarly stand
apart.
Where will Belgium, France, and Germany get its oil if a war,
initiated and won by the U.S. and its other European allies, reveals
their complicity in undermining the sake of international peace?
Belgium, France, and Germany are no better to us as allies than Cuba
or North Korea are. It's one thing to have honest differences of
opinion, but Iraq has made those differences academic -- and merely
political for Belgium, France, and Germany.
Obviously, Belgium, France, and Germany have decided that the
exploitation of its independence from the U.S. and NATO make both of
these larger and older institutions irrelevant. Iraq could have --
indeed should have -- disarmed 12 years ago. But Belgium, France, and
Germany now think the European Union is more important, and worthy of
the risks of devaluing NATO and the U.N. for its own political sake. I
hope we will remember our friends, and avoid our enemies, whatever the
outcome of Iraq. Belgium, France, and Germany have been tested, and
they have failed.
--
This is message #4521.
**********
To post, send mail to <gay...@groups.queernet.org>.
To unsubscribe, send mail to <gaynet-un...@groups.queernet.org>.
(This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact <gaynet...@groups.queernet.org>.)
For information about other lists, or to create and manage a list on
a topic that interests you, see <http://groups.queernet.org> for details.
-
Help keep QueerNet and OPG lists on the air and advertising-free --
see <http://groups.queernet.org#donate> to donate.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Ezekiel Krahlin
<<
Belgium, France, and Germany, as principal members of NATO, don't want to help the United States in the prosecution of the war against Baghdad nor help Turkey maintain the integrity of its borders in the
possibility of such a war.
>>
Let it go, Heersink, let it go. Let the heteros have their wars. Let us secede from those who breed: make it sin to NOT waste seed!
None of this has ANYTHING to do with sexual minority issues. The whole world could blow up for all I care, and I'd STILL be here, defending queer rights. Does the same go for you, or are you not true blue?
(Thus a secret has just been revealed
To those whose eyes are reasonably peeled.)
SinQueerly yours,
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://www.gay-bible.org/
--
This is message #4524.
David Thompson
>Let it go, Heersink, let it go. Let the heteros have their wars. Let us secede from those who breed: make it sin to NOT waste seed!
>
>None of this has ANYTHING to do with sexual minority issues.
>
We are talking about the leader of a state who is taking direct action
(i.e., the use of chemical weapons) against a community within his
country simply because he doesn't approve of how they like their life or
he's looking for a scapegoat for political convenience.
Any gay person who doesn't see the gay parallel obviously isn't looking
hard enough.
And any gay person who does see the parallel and still opposes war truly
doesn't care about respect for everyone.
--
This is message #4527.
Bruce Garrett
> We are talking about the leader of a state who is taking direct action
> (i.e., the use of chemical weapons) against a community within his
> country simply because he doesn't approve of how they like their life or
> he's looking for a scapegoat for political convenience.
No. We're talking about going to war, actually starting a war,
with just one, out of the many political despots of the world who fit that
description; some of which are a far bigger threat to the United States of
America then Saddam Hussein ever was. And what is worse, we're talking
about starting that war on the say-so of the same smirking silver spoon
fratboy jackass who once said while he was governor of Texas, that he'd
veto any repeal of that state's sodomy law, calling it a legitimate
expression of the moral values of the people.
> And any gay person who does see the parallel and still opposes war truly
> doesn't care about respect for everyone.
Oh right...And you respect the innocent victims of Saddam
Hussein's rule so goddamn much you're willing to let Smirk rain bombs on
them nonstop for days if not weeks. You humanitarian you. And have you
noticed how the administration has been busy assuring the Turks, that
they don't want an independent Kurdish homeland either?
This isn't about respect for everyone. This isn't about
overthrowing a totalitarian despot. It's about who are you willing to
follow into war. Who do you trust to lead the American military machine.
Anyone who thinks the man who said that ninety-two million American
taxpayers would keep "an average of almost $1,100 more of their own money"
in the last State Of The Union address, is trustworthy enough to send
Americans to war, just isn't paying attention. And any gay person who
would puppy dog follow to war the same man who keeps nominating one gay
hating bigot after another to the federal courts has...issues.
http://www.signorile.com/articles/nyp64.html
---
-Bruce Garrett
http://www.brucegarrett.com
--
This is message #4529.
James Nimmo
Yes, sir, my feelings exactly. All the Bu$histas ever do is to tell lies and spin.
It's as if they're children caught with hands in the cookie jar and then make elaborate excuses as to how the cookie jar leapt on them by intent, such as Regan saying that homeless people choose to sleep in the open over steam grates.
In the Bu$histas's case, it's a far more deadly consequence, politically, environmentally, and morally.
Jim Nimmo
Bruce Garrett <bgar...@pobox.com> wrote:David Thompson ...
> We are talking about the leader of a state who is taking direct action
> (i.e., the use of chemical weapons) against a community within his
> country simply because he doesn't approve of how they like their life or
> he's looking for a scapegoat for political convenience.
No. We're talking about going to war, actually starting a war,
with just one, out of the many political despots of the world who fit that
.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day--
This is message #4530.
Faren D'Abell
to marry (I know they're out there, just couldn't find anyone willing to
speak out about it), so the article ended up being much more muted than I
had originally hoped... Here it is (and with a Chicago angle) for anyone
interested...
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/article?33186
--
This is message #4531.
D Stephen Heersink
(loathing/approval) of President Bush and the Gulf War. Bruce Garret
doesn't do this, and argues against the war with an ad hominem against
George Bush.
Moreover, Garret doesn't think the war is designed to depose a despot,
because he *would veto any repeal of Texas' sodomy law. Huh? And what
does Bush's "silver spoon" have to do with anything? Gore had one too.
To think this war is not about the removal of a real and genuine
threat to the world order is naive, as David Thompson rightly points
out. The issues involved are complex, and they include oil, Islamic
radicals, terrorists, Mideast hegemony, the safety of Israel, and a
host of other licit and righteous causes. OBL even claims Hussein a
"friend" in the fight against *Western infidels.
Perhaps the most important issue involved in this war IS values.
Radical Islamic fundamentalists want to negate 15 centuries of Western
and Eastern Civilization that has brought about democracy, the rule of
law, justice and freedom, due process, equal protection, individual
liberty, and the whole constellation of a pluralistic society. Women,
under THEIR rule, would be clothed head to toe. Gays would be
castrated, lesbians mutilated, the deaf and blind neglected, if all
not killed for efficiency.
Garrett also fails to understand the difficulties with the Kurds. They
are a people without a homeland, because British chopping of the
Middle East a century ago was about as precise as a Molotov cocktail
thrown from a airplane. Perhaps one of the benefits of the war will be
to enable the Kurds to at least have a state or district that they can
call home, without being gassed by Hussein or abandoned by Turkey.
Finally, Thompson's statement that "any gay person who does see the
parallel and still opposes war truly doesn't care about respect for
everyone," shows that we all share in the human condition, that the
plight of others often affects us (even in the most remote ways). But
above all it is respect of self that leads us to help others. Those
heterosexuals who aid us gays and lesbians in our fight for equality
and due process are paramount examples of just such people who care
for others beyond their myopic circle of politically correct mantras.
I should think the war is of paramount importance for gays and
lesbians, as many of our brothers and sisters will be engaged in this
war. It is truly a fight for our "freedom" and freedom of the Mideast.
It's a call to enjoy the freedom to live in any country we choose, to
be intimate with any gender we want, to be clothed by Brooks Brothers
or in overalls or even nothing at all (how many nude beaches exist in
the Islamic world?). We can watch any films we want (most of which
would be banned under Islamic law).
Of the three "great" traditions, the East and West have grown from
their experiences and developed great civilizations. The Mideast,
especially since the seventh century, has had only modest success --
great when it merged with the West in the middle ages, but backward
looking since the emergence of this century. Such an approach is
wholly antithetical to the forward-thinking Hegelian development of
humankind over time. It's not just "another" approach; it's
wrongheaded and beget wrong ideas, policies, and attitudes --
especially dangerous to gay men and women.
Kind regards,
___________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@intergate.com
--
This is message #4532.
Bruce Garrett
> It's important to distinguish between one's attitude
> (loathing/approval) of President Bush and the Gulf War. Bruce Garret
> doesn't do this, and argues against the war with an ad hominem against
> George Bush.
Oh cut me a break Heersink. If the former CEO of Enron came to you
with a really great investment opportunity in his new company, would you
take him at his word for it, and give him your life savings, regardless of
how great it looked, would you tell him to go to hell, or would you at
least get a second opinion? The entire case for this war rests essentially
on President Cartman's say-so, and that's the problem here. Tony Blair's
attempt to buttress Smirk's case last week, using plagiarized documents
years old, as old as ten years by some reports, only succeeded in making it
more clear that there is no case for this war beyond Smirk's inner circle,
and the republican Mighty Wurlitzer. Well excuse me for being skeptical.
The evidence that Saddam Hussein was a part of the September 11th
attack, or that apart from retaliating for an invasion of Iraq, is planning
an imminent attack on America now, is literally nil. Sure he's a danger to
his neighbors. But the Soviet Union was a danger to the whole goddamn
world and containment worked just fine as a policy toward them (and
speaking of which...I'm Sure Glad They Fell. Would you want this president
to have his finger on That nuclear button? Reagan only joked that the
missiles were on their way...) That makes everything about this war boil
down to how much you trust the word of the man who won the republican
primary in South Carolina, by spreading rumors of drug abuse, adultery
and...wait for it...homosexuality, against the family of John McCain (even
Andrew Sullivan was put off by the spectacle of how Smirk won South
Carolina. But in those days Sullivan still had a conscience too).
I.......fail to be convinced.
> Moreover, Garret doesn't think the war is designed to depose a despot,
> because he *would veto any repeal of Texas' sodomy law. Huh?
Huh. Thompson said "And any gay person who does see the parallel
and still opposes war truly doesn't care about respect for everyone." Now
tell me Heersink, go ahead, how embracing and defending the sodomy laws of
Texas amounts to caring about respect for everyone. Tell me how the goal
of caring and respecting everyone is achieved, by blindly following someone
who has a history of not caring and respecting everyone. You don't do
battle for human rights, by blindly following leaders with a history of
doing battle Against human rights.
> And what does Bush's "silver spoon" have to do with anything? Gore had
> one too.
So did Roosevelt. Problem with Smirk is that the silver spoon is
still there. Roosevelt and Gore and others like them at least grew up.
> To think this war is not about the removal of a real and genuine
> threat to the world order is naive, as David Thompson rightly points
> out.
No. To think it is, is naive. Every single excuse this
administration makes for going to war melts under the slightest gaze. Case
in point, the latest missive from Osama bin Laden, which the administration
instantly began waving around as further proof that bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein were in cahoots (funny how they were saying last time that nobody
should just air bin Laden's messages in whole because they might contain
some hidden code messages to his supporters...), when in fact just reading
the goddamned thing shows the opposite. Or in other words, the only link
here with al Qaeda is between George Bush and Osama bin Laden, both of whom
loath Saddam Hussein and would like very much to see him removed from
power.
> Perhaps the most important issue involved in this war IS values.
> Radical Islamic fundamentalists want to negate 15 centuries of Western
> and Eastern Civilization that has brought about democracy, the rule of
> law, justice and freedom, due process, equal protection, individual
> liberty, and the whole constellation of a pluralistic society.
What a coincidence Heersink. That also applies to a non-trivial
segment of president Smirk's constituency...namely the Religious Right.
Last year, after Smirk teamed up with Those Very Same Islamic
Fundamentalists in the UN, to trashcan the international expansion of
protections for gays, women and children at United Nations conferences,
Bruce Bower asked on his web site:
Yet what do Bush and those around him truly believe? Which
actors on the world stage are, in their view, the real good
and bad guys? To put it bluntly, if there is indeed a
world-scale conflict underway between fundamentalist
intolerance and democratic pluralism, which side are they
really on?
He rewrote that later, watering it down a tad I suppose, so it
wouldn't look like he was beating up on Smirk. But it was a good question.
A really good question. And here's one for you Heersink. Which side of
that battle are You on? We know which side Smirk is on...from his smiles
to the audience at Bob Jones university during the primaries, to his waving
the banner at that convention of right wing religious broadcasters just a
few weeks ago. The religious right didn't impose itself on Smirk...he
willingly shook their hands. He is Still shaking their hands.
And in the meantime, we have Patriot Laws II on the way. Smirk has
already assumed for himself the right to secretly detain and imprison, and
even convict by secret military tribunal, anyone, even American citizens,
at his sole desecration. The right wing nutcase he installed at the
justice department can't seem to get enough power to spy on American
citizens, and no judicial review thank you. Values Heersink? Values?
What the hell happened to democratic values? I'll endure lectures on
values from a lot of people, but not from the George Bush fan club. Values
aren't things you just toss aside when they get in your way.
> Garrett also fails to understand the difficulties with the Kurds.
Oh I understand it, and so do you. The Kurds are seeking self
rule, and they have every just cause to do so considering their history.
But supporting them would be...difficult...when you're busy cutting deals
right and left with every thug in the region so you can loot Iraq for its
oil. If this war in Iraq is a war of liberation, they why are deals being
made to deny people the right to govern themselves? Do I really need to
ask this?
Snip yadda yadda...except for this:
> But above all it is respect of self that leads us to help others.
Sure does. And I've always wondered how some gay people can
respect themselves while supporting a president who keeps kicking them
in the face. Actually...no I haven't. It =is= all about self respect,
isn't it Heersink?
---
-Bruce Garrett
http://www.brucegarrett.com
--
This is message #4533.
D Stephen Heersink
writes:
> Oh cut me a break Heersink. If the former CEO of Enron came to you
>with a really great investment opportunity in his new company, would you
>take him at his word for it, and give him your life savings, regardless of
>how great it looked, would you tell him to go to hell, or would you at
>least get a second opinion? The entire case for this war rests essentially
>on President Cartman's say-so, and that's the problem here. Tony Blair's
>attempt to buttress Smirk's case last week, using plagiarized documents
>years old, as old as ten years by some reports, only succeeded in making it
>more clear that there is no case for this war beyond Smirk's inner circle,
>and the republican Mighty Wurlitzer. Well excuse me for being skeptical.
First of all, I *have had CEOs come to me and suggest really great
investment opportunities. I have *never relied on the word of any
person, not even a CEO, on making such an investment. In fact, I
haven't even relied on the prospectus, since so many of them are
inflated with unrealistic characteristics that cannot be supported by
common reason. The prudent person, which I hope I am, would require an
abundance of good reasons to invest, not merely the word of a CEO.
The entire case for the Gulf War does *not rely on the word of
President Bush. Experts from the previous administration, naysayers
from the Father's administration, and pros and cons against the war
from both sides of the question, and consequentialism, are just a few
of the resources I used to make my judgment of this war.
As to the rest of Garrett's comments, the arguments, if such can be
said of Garrett's assertions, are so rampantly pejorative as to make
meaningful discussion too difficult, if not impossible. The use of
pejorative metonyms to describe the persons involved only obfuscates
the cases for and against the war, and by not taking the individuals'
names seriously is not to take your arguments seriously.
As my last comment on this post, the preceding paragraph is just
another instance of making a bold assertion without any reasoned
support. It's another in a manifold series of ad hominems.
Kind regards,
___________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@intergate.com
--
This is message #4534.
Bruce Garrett
> As to the rest of Garrett's comments, the arguments, if such can be
> said of Garrett's assertions, are so rampantly pejorative as to make
> meaningful discussion too difficult, if not impossible.
Uh-huh. And speaking of the Trust thing, and that Values
thing...hey...how 'bout that al Qaeda base in Kurdish-controlled northern
Iraq that Powell alerted the UN to the other day, eh?
Values. Honesty. Values.
---
-Bruce Garrett
http://www.brucegarrett.com
--
This is message #4535.
D Stephen Heersink
write a wholly irrelevant, meaningless harangue when he doesn't
understand things too complicated for him. He has this fixation on Tom
Cruise that pops up in the most inappropriate places as if Mr. Cruise
is the prism through which Mr. Seright-Payne sees the world. He seems
preoccupied with a lover he can never have, but what that has to do
with the price of bread, or the consequences of a war, is beyond me.
Kind regards,
___________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@intergate.com
--
This is message #4540.
Eric Seright-Payne
the past.
I certainly would not follow the advice of someone who had, repeatedly
and publicly, spoke of being abducted by flying saucers, or having
visited Elvis in a mobile home park in Montana, would you?
I certainly would not follow the advice of someone who had, repeatedly
and publicly, spoke of anyone being impaired and financially stricken
for having been called a name. I certainly would not follow the advice
of someone who attempts to show instances of violence against myself and
those I know makes that person worthy of being compensated for being an
"undeserved" target, rather than address the problems which must make
them believe myeslf, and those I know, are somehow a deserving target.
I certainly would not follow the advice of someone who repeatedly
publicly spoke of "allowing the course to be run," then ran to the Court
system when it looked like other were going to permit the completion of
the course. I certainly would not believe anyone who repatedly publicly
speaks of his singel-minded solution being the only way to go.
That is why I do not believe the words of (in order) the Weekly World
News, you, or George W. Bush.
Eric Seright-Payne
Glendale, AZ
--
This is message #4541.
Mathemagician
>I should think the war is of paramount importance for gays and
>lesbians, as many of our brothers and sisters will be engaged in this
>war.
Indeed...only to be kicked out as soon as they get home for being
gay...except for that one branch (I recall it as the Navy, but I may be
mistaken) that has issued a stop-loss order for everything *except* being gay.
>It is truly a fight for our "freedom" and freedom of the Mideast.
What freedom can there be when your own country doesn't want you or only
considers you valuable when people are to be put in front of a bullet?
>It's a call to enjoy the freedom to live in any country we choose, to
>be intimate with any gender we want, to be clothed by Brooks Brothers
>or in overalls or even nothing at all (how many nude beaches exist in
>the Islamic world?). We can watch any films we want (most of which
>would be banned under Islamic law).
Hah! It is still illegal to engage in same-sex sex in many states in this
country. We still don't have the freedom to get married. We can still
have our wills contested by our families. I am hardly saying that the US
is a horrible place to be if your gay compared to the Middle East, but to
say that we have the freedom "to be intimate with any gender we want" in
the US is simply not true.
Do I think we ought to go to war? A significant part of me says yes, but
for absolutely none of the main reasons put forth by the Bush
Administration. The main point is that at the end of the Gulf War a decade
ago, Iraq was given specific actions by the UN that it was required to
carry out. They haven't even come close. The inspections have been a
failure. The inspectors have no backup, there are too few of them, and
Iraq knows when and where they are coming and can clear out everything
before they get there. What is the point of a UN directive if it can be
violated without a single repercussion? If the UN is going to be nothing
more than an international philanthropic agency, then it should admit it
right here and now so we can stop looking to it for something that it is
incapable of providing. But if the UN is supposed to have some teeth, then
it needs to follow through on its mandates. And yes that means North Korea
should be put into just as bright of a spotlight as Iraq is now due to
their violation of a UN order not to develop nuclear weapons and Pakistan
and India had better get over themselves real soon as they are all walking
down the same path that Iraq is.
That said, I am not surprised in the slightest that France and Germany are
the opponents. Given the way the current administration has treated Europe
in the past two years, abrogating every treaty and thumbing its nose at
every turn, is anybody surprised that when we come to them looking for
international agreement they would balk? If Europe were to truly unify,
they would be capable of putting forth an economy as strong as the United
States and could put forth a military force just as powerful...and tell
Bush and those who share his attitude of "We don't need Europe" that Europe
doesn't need us.
France, Germany, and Russia have a legitimate point: If we haven't crossed
the point of no return, we shouldn't be engaging in activities that make it
look like we have. Yes, Turkey is in an extremely vulnerable position and
yes, we are very grateful to them for allowing us access to their country,
but they are going to have to keep a stiff upper lip until such time as it
becomes clear that there is no turning back...at which time we should do
everything we can to keep her as safe as possible.
--
Brian P. Evans | I used to work for Bill Gates...
rrh...@ix.netcom.com | ...but I got better.
--
This is message #4543.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<<
Here it is (and with a Chicago angle) for anyone
interested...
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/article?33186
>>
Nonetheless, a well-written, tight little piece of journalistic craft. Excellent coverage of the big picture, putting this issue in perspective for Americans. Thanks!
SinQueerly yours,
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://www.gay-bible.org/
--
This is message #4544.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<<
We are talking about the leader of a state who is taking direct action (i.e., the use of chemical weapons) against a community within his country simply because he doesn't approve of how they like their life or he's looking for a scapegoat for political convenience.
Any gay person who doesn't see the gay parallel obviously isn't looking hard enough.
>>
This new-age sophistry Orwell named "doublespeak" is getting old. After all, 1984 came and went 19 years ago!
ANY issue can be considered very relevant to gays, by those who'd derail us from striving towards our liberation. We are made to feel GUILTY whenever we focus on queer rights specifically...yet no OTHER minority gets accused of "selfishness" for forming their own groups dedicated to their specific liberation. They get pats on the back (while we receive scorn, humiliation, and threats).
Since gay people generally compose around 10% of ANY group--no matter their raison d'etre, politically speaking--one can ALWAYS claim that queers have a vested interest in this or that specifically non-gay issue.
So, you DEMAND that we queers toe the line of our President, who is the leader of the free world's anti-gay agenda. You do not even MENTION queers being abused by Muslims...and THAT is what I'm criticising. YOU, TOO, participate in obscuring and silence the queer issue...just like the gov't and media.
So you CANNOT expect queer folk to run to the rescue of other people's plights, ESPECIALLY when these same people will gladly bash their own queer citizens to a bloody pulp, even when they win their OWN freedoms! (And I am thinking of Afghani women, here, as a perfect example.)
Also you CANNOT expect queer folk to serve a military that ALSO persecutes and bashes queers.
Yet YOU would present the U.S. as a LESSER evil still worth defending. DESPITE the fact that the virulence against queers BY OUR OWN MAJORITY OF CITIZENS is no less bad or evil than by fanatic Muslims.
Serving ONE enemy to beat ANOTHER enemy is a tired game that we queers should NOT get suckered into, once again. And the queer issue then gets put on the back burners, while perverted glory that calls itself "religion" grinds through many MORE centuries bolstered by a wicked anti-queer doctrine.
No thanks. I'll sit this war out; maybe even this nation. Call me unamerikan all you want: just know that I am as PROUD of that, as I am of my being gay.
SinQueerly yours,
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://www.gay-bible.org/
--
This is message #4545.
David Thompson
> ANY issue can be considered very relevant to gays, by those who'd
> derail us from striving towards our liberation. We are made to feel
> GUILTY whenever we focus on queer rights specifically...yet no OTHER
> minority gets accused of "selfishness" for forming their own groups
> dedicated to their specific liberation. They get pats on the back
> (while we receive scorn, humiliation, and threats).
>
Actually my contention had to do with the gay parallel here in the
United States. Once we go to Irag to free the Kurds from tyranny,
we--as a country--lose a lot of the moral foundation used to justify
laws such as those which say that the United States won't recognize gay
marriage. Does this mean that the U.S. is instantly going to recognize
gay marriage? Probably not but it does produce a step in the right
direction.
Of course, this just CAN'T be a logical reason to go to war simply
because it's ANY reason to go to war.
--
This is message #4548.