hell bent on war

[David]

Linda --

Again, I fear I may not be understanding your question -- I apologize. But I think your view of how various forces of society --for both good and ill-- influence people's thinking, mirrors my view. That's why, in my opinion, it's encumbent upon all people to question, query, demand "Show me the data!" and never accept at face value the edicts of those in power, or those who control the means of dissemination of information. Not that they're always lying or brainwashing or otherwise being nefarious, of course -- but that we, ourselves, need to be vigilant and [if you'll pardon the horrid term] "empowered" to ensure the truth of what they're saying by testing it against reality, at all times.

Linda, I can see how it might look as if I think this is solely "George Bush's war," because --after all-- it's Bush's role in it and his propagation of it that 's been my main topic of discussion. But, believe it or not, I don't think that's the case. The international world is far, far too complex for such a simplistic analysis, in my opinion. Yes, as leader of the govt. with the most wealth and firepower at his disposal, Bush (like those before him) has a major, probably THE major role in many world affairs. But in no way is he solely responsible for what's going on in the Middle East today. Do I think U.S. policy is the major factor? Yes I do --and, although I do NOT want to get into a discussion about Israel here, I think that the historical relationship between the U.S. & Israel is yet another facet that cannot be ignored.

But the relationship between middle eastern countries and the Anglo-European/Greco-Roman world has been fraught with tensions and distrust --to say nothing of horrible violence-- for many, many years (just ask the ghosts of Alexander the Great, Lawrence of Arabia, .... the list goes on) -- It's been rich and mutually rewarding at some times, nearly genocidal in its ferocity at other times. That history, as well, is part of what's playing out here, because it's part of the relationships between and among Middle Eastern countries as well as the relationships between all of those countries --as individual entities and also as, more or less, a bloc-- and the countries of Europe and other parts of the world.

On the other hand, there's a good chance that Saddam would not be in power had the U.S. (not George Bush, obviously, but his predecessors, both Demoblican and Republocrat) not supported and financed him; ditto, Osama Bin Laden. So U.S. policy does, in fact, have much to answer for in terms of the cataclysmic events of the last couple of years. This does NOT mean that the U.S. or the American people "deserve" bad things that happen to them; it simply means that to understand the history, we have to understand the role of the most influential and powerful player[s] in that history.

Ultimately, though, as I suggested earlier, I think that the "agenda" is one of international corporate domination. In that sense, it isn't that "it's Bush's war... and there's no way he can win it, because it will just lead from one bad deed to another," as you've intepreted my view. It's more that expansion and exploitation are essential for the economic and political domination of the corporate class to continue, and the political enforcers who work for them will find ways to ensure that this happens. So-called "liberal" Bill Clinton, although he didn't go to war to the extent Bush has done, was just as culpable: he rammed GATT and NAFTA through the policy-making process, virtually ensuring sweatshop slave labor in 3rd World countries around the world and paving the way for the WTO domination of today. So no, I don't see it in terms of "Bush's War" -- I see it in terms of an ongoing strategy of geopolitical domination that's characterised corporate/U.S. policy for decades, and continues to do so.

Again, Saddam is every bit the demonic tyrant they say he is -- I would not shed a tear if someone --whether an Iraqi revolutionary or an allied soldier-- emerged from Baghdad with his head on a platter. But ultimately, that wouldn't matter: he's been a convenient excuse for the U.S. govt. to do what had to be done anyway, in the name of the ideologies and agendas I mention above -- Bush is only doing with guns, tanks, and fighter jets what Clinton, in the examples I cited, did with pieces of paper.

[David]

p.s.

Linda, you're absolutely right, of course, that the police would not wait until after a trial to arrest you. But they could not storm into your house with no tangible reason --i.e., "evidence" or something very much like it-- to justify their suspicions. That was what I was trying to suggest. In my opinion, the U.N. inspections that were going on --and which were getting more intense, and which could have become far more so had time been given for them to unfold [most experts have estimated that such a process would have taken at least a year to really do correctly]-- were the equivalent of using a search warrant to gather the evidence needed for an arrest. Sending in the jackbooted storm troopers before the evidence has been gathered is not my idea of responsible police work.

[Sore Loser]

I agree with David on many points about the convoluted and very complicated history that has lead to this war. But there is one very important element to this debate that has not been broached. There is the proverbial elephant in the room. The one everyone would rather not see. And that elephant's name is Islam.

[tom.d.stiller]

First of all: it was a relief to see that at least some of the poison gas that had been contaminating part of this thread's history, and drove precious and dear voices away, seems to have evaporated. Be it; better late than never.

Several of the questions raised can presently only be answered by doing a lot of research, by distilling the small portions of truth out of hundreds of sources. But the question "cui bono" has always been a valuable tool for the Poirots and Holmes's (and for journalists who see their profession as something more than just a source of income, do you listen, abc, CNN and Fox?) both in fiction and reality. So I suggest to follow some of the Cheney-Halliburton/Bush-ENRON/Rice-Chevron lines, sine ira et studio, unbiassed, unprejudiced. We'll see if it leads to an impeachment, or if some future history books will simply line up GWB with former White House inhabitants Grant and Harding.

It is only a matter of a few days, and they will present us with "proof" that there is a Saddam-9/11-connection; it will be a matter of a few years to find out that the proof has been greatly "enhanced" - like some police officers have been reported to put some drugs into the pockets of those they "knew" to be guilty.

Really: if at all, we'll learn about the truth after the war at five o'clock, but I fear it will rather be seventeen hundred (17.00) than five hundred. Though evidence is Oswald didn't kill JFK, it is still told as an eternal truth by some, real proof still isn't available, or has been made permanently unavalaible, and who drove whom, and why, and when, and how - i'd put some money on that a fire will have destroyed the files shortly before the archives would have to be opened. (Bad luck again - some twenty years from now.)

Re anti-Americanism: it could be held, Paula, that the real "anti-American conspirators" are congregating in five-angled buildings and oval office rooms. (As it can be held that Blair, the most Toryish Labour man I've ever seen, isn't very British.) However, in the few weeks that I know Elizabeth I never saw the slightest trace of it, and maybe Byron was right saying that some try to settle old debt...

To me it seems they serve their country but poorly who only sheepishly "Sir, Yes Sir!" whatever the leaders, pretending it's in the nation's interest, do. (Those who affirm the policy whole-heartedly, are a different bunch, and I respect them without necessarily sharing their views, Linda.)

I - not an American, by the way, but who would have suspected that? - was brought up to love and respect the US, and I still do, but this, to me, doesn't exclude the most severe criticism. On the contrary, if I were anti-American, I could just let it go by that everything America stands for again is in danger of being thrown into some muddy mixture of oil and mud. I can't.

I'm not blind to the fact that this post, like the thread as a whole, is in danger of losing the thread to a degree not even golden needles could ever mend the damage done. So I'd better stop now (last post and chorus) and leave it at that, for now. Better late than never.

But as this verbiage seems to be have been flowing so well, I'd like to bore you with quoting another one of my favorite lines: "Don't follow leaders. Watch the parking meters." (This is not LC, of course, but "that don't make it junk.")

Tom

[tom.d.stiller]

Sore Loser
pls. think again about your last post.

The Islam is just another religion: it gets nasty only when it starts into fundamentalism and fanaticism.

Tom

[David]

Sore Loser --

I concur with the above post. It's fundamentalist fanaticism, not any one religion, that's at fault. The Christians have done things just as egregious at certain times in history (ask any Native American) --

Shalom
Salaam


David

[David]

Tom --

I don't know if I've quote this before... but either way, I think you'll appreciate it. I heard it from a member of Vietnam Veterans Against The War, who spoke very eloquently at a peace rally here in Chicago a week or two ago:

"It takes more than a gun to make a man; it takes more than a salute to make patriot; it takes more than a flag to love your country!"

Words o' wisdom, methinks --

David

[tom.d.stiller]

David,

I fully consent with both of your above postings.

I've seen a TV spot on the Chicago Event, and the quotation immediately sounded familiar. (It seems like I heard it before - can it be that it was part of the old - re Viet Nam - "Veterans against the war" movie?)

Tom

[Sore Loser]

This is why I have hesitated bringing this up. The mantra is always Islam is a religion of peace. (Even George Bush repeats this refrain). It is not. It is a religion of submission or else. In every country in which it is the dominant religion it's power is maintained by the sword. Are there peaceful Muslims. Of course. Most of them are. Or would like to be. But where Islam is the established religion dissent is never allowed. This may be the result of the fanatical few but it flows from their theology. And this theology comes directly from the Qur'an and Muhammad. Muhammad was a man of violence and set his seal and approval on it. The many atrocities committed in the name of Christianity run directly contrary to the teachings and commandments of Christ. In the last Judgement, Christ will say to these: "Depart from me, I never knew you." This is not so and will never be so with Islam. The fanatics merely take their theology and run with it.

Do I hope the coalition destroys Saddam and his murderous regime. Yes. Will it do any good in the long run? No, I don't think so. It's the fourteenth century all over again. The West had better get used to a century of warfare. Or submit.


SL

P.S. A favorite saying in the Muslim world is: "First, we'll take care of Saturday and then we'll take care of Sunday."


P.P.S. I sincerely hope that I do not get a stream of posts tearing into me for being a racist/intolerant biggot. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[David]

Tom --

I don't doubt that the phrase has been used before; it may well be a common saying among V.V.A.Ws. It sounds like the kind of hard-earned, forged-in-fire wisdom that a brotherhood like that might well celebrate as a common bond.


Sore Loser --

Quoth this resolute and unrepentant Secular Humanist:

NO theocracy, regardless of denomination, tolerates much dissent. And all of the Big Three monotheistic faiths --Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--have plenty of violent and warlike passages in their various holy scriptures that can be used (and have been used) to visit all manner of horrible torment on the heads of unbelievers, "infidels," etc.

I grew up in a Christian culture, and I've heard as much about "His terrible swift sword" and the eternal suffering and damnation that will be visited upon non-believers as any Muslim ever did. The atrocities committed in the name of Christianity may well, as you suggest, go against the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth himself -- but I'm afraid that that point is pretty moot. We can quibble forever about what this or that scripture, prophet, or poet "meant", and because literary interpretation is an inexact science, we'll never agree.

The point, in other words, is not whether Jesus of Nazareth "meant" what he said when he suggested that those who did not follow him would be condemned to an eternity in a realm that was analogous to the flaming, putrid garbage heap outside of town known as "Gehenna"; the point is not whether the prophets of the Old Testament/Torah "meant" what they said when they envisioned all manner of torture and torment visited upon the heads on non-Jews and non-believers; the point is not whether the prophet Muhammed "meant" what he said when he "ran with" his theology and foretold the suffering and damnation of the "infidels." The point is that any of these teachings may be used for good or ill. As far as I'm concerned, Osama Bin Laden, Pat Robertson, and the late Rabbi Kahane (sp?) will all have to face the same Judgment, if indeed there is any post-life Judgmnet to be faced. Until then, the rest of us simply have to do the best we can.

David

p.s. Saddam, by the way, is a secularist who has entered an alliance of convenience with various Muslim clerics in his own country and elsewhere, but whose own atrocities are motivated by all-too-worldly considerations of power and accumulation of wealth. He's no more "Muslim" than the U.S. slaveholders who claimed to justify their horrid practices by quoting the Bible out of context were "Christian." Blind faith and opportunism have always gone hand-in-hand.

[lizzytysh]

Dear David ~ It's 1:15 AM [now Sunday morning] as I start this, as it's taken me considerable time to catch up on entries posted since just Friday night. In light of all the directions the discussion has taken since then, it seems almost irrelevant now, but I still want to clarify what I feel to be the difference between what I was saying and the analogy you've used.

First, however, I want to talk about this statement. "We should probably wait for concrete evidence of U.S. atrocities, just as we want others to wait for concrete evidence of a Saddam-9/11 connection." I've already addressed this briefly, but simply want to reiterate that from what I've seen here, some people are saying that we should be where we're at in Iraq because of the Saddam-September 11 connection, as though it were already a done deal. Hence, not speculation awaiting concrete evidence. My statement regarding U.S. atrocities was clearly conjecture on my part [well, at least clear to me, that being an obvious downfall of any argument] and what I said that followed was my support of my conjecture and the relative "reasonableness" of such conjecture based on human traits and behaviours that can emerge in wartime situations, due to a wide variety of factors. Had I actually seen evidence at that point, I'd have immediately pointed everyone to where it was at, so they could see it, too.

When I spoke of the propensity for warriors to engage in torturous activities, I meant that as a blanket statement, applying to all sides. Not because they were trained to do so, and are expected to follow through on orders to do so. As near as I can tell, our soldiers are trained to be scrupulous in their warring methods. It seems to me from all I've read, heard, and seen, that Saddam's warriors may have been trained to be unscrupulous in their warring methods, if their leader is to be followed by example. Yet, I've also heard that those whom Saddam considers to be "his" people, have not suffered at his hands, and that it's other factions in Iraq who have.

This certainly doesn't justify any cruelty or maltreatment, but it seems an interesting distinction. I might equate it to the settlers' treatment of the American Indians, and the government and citizenry's treatment of the blacks. Yes, they live within the same boundaries, but do they receive the same protections or concerns for their welfare, and have they, in fact, been abused? Yes.

"But just as I'm not going to look at any group of African-American kids with their five-point star tattoos and their caps tilted to the left and assume, without asking, that someone is gonna get wasted in front of my building, I'm not necesariliy going to look at a group of soldiers --any soldiers, "ours" or "theirs"-- and assume the worst either, until I know it for sure. 'Tain't "negotiation" -- it's only fair."

As I read your analogy here, I thought, "We're still not talking about the same thing." The example you've given is one of toxic stereotyping in a relatively-benign milieu [the "hood," where you actually live, as opposed to Iraq, where we are being perceived as invaders by those who are rising up to fight us, even where we least expected it]. Another difference is that we are armed with guns, tanks, and bombs ~ trained in their usage ~ and following through on orders to destroy the enemy. Without getting into the women and children issue, the enemy is anyone who does not surrender. The expectation put upon our troops is to kill. Likewise, with the Iraqis, the expectation put upon them is to kill us. Asking questions might be considered a luxury at best. Even where it appeared that surrendering was taking place, it seems that the Helen-of-Troy scenario that concerned me has, indeed, been played out in some situations.

The torturing came in, in my mind, in the after-the-engagement scenarios.

We have many young, very young, people over there. They have never left the U.S. boundaries for anything. They joined the armed services for a variety of reasons, the majority of which were not, in the least, conflict-related. They have never been in battle. They have never killed. They are on order to do so. They have the weapons to do so. They are disoriented by land, weather, and advancing real-life forces....this is not a dress rehearsal, and the difference is mind-boggling. They are trained and "brainwashed" in its common vs. literal usage into seeing the Iraqis as the enemy to the U.S..

The Iraqi forces are trained and see the U.S. as an invading enemy. Accounts of that continue to mount. They also have weapons and order to kill.

Their anger toward us [let's go with the Elite Republican Guard] has been additionally stoked by Saddam and they have seen us bomb everywhere that we've bombed; seen innocent civilians killed and interpret it [right or wrong] as having been done by intent; they see as ones who have come to overtake their country and use it to our own ends.

Our anger toward them has been stoked, as well. As we witness their killing of our guys, and our guys see their buddies and comrades killed, their own anger and their own fear mounts. Actions borne of fear can become quickly disproportionate to situations.

Both sides have plenty of reason for seething rage to take hold. Having seen that the Iraqis were assassinating prisoners, displaying and parading them, and apparently torturing some......I feel and still feel that it is not unreasonable under the conglomeration of all these particulars of these circumstances, that Americans may be doing the same thing. Venegeance can be an ugly thing. Both have reasons for feeling this ugly desire. As people outcried the public display of our soldiers, when I've seen photos in magazines of war conflicts and children/adults shot, I've heard comments such as, "I can't stand to see pictures of little children like that," but not, "Why do they have to put pictures like that in magazines?" But, these pictures are always of non-U.S. people.

My points regarding torture, displays of torture, reasons behind the conflict, etc. ~ for which I'm being called "anti-American" and now "unhealthy," as well ~ are to try to humanize those on the other side of this conflict. My feeling is that they are people who basically want to live peacefully in their own land, who share many of the values we do for living their life.

It does seem, however, that there are some differences in basic values that make for a difference in the value that is placed on human life, though. The willingness to sacrifice theirs, out-of-hand, much moreso than we have here. We are schooled to value life moreso than in some other cultures. Using ourselves as human bombs is quite unlikely in our culture. However, if you follow that idea to its logical conclusion, torturing and parading their conquests would not hold as much meaning to them, as it does for us, either.

My point is that avenging the deaths of our comrades is breeding ground for torture and other war atrocities. War, period, is a breeding ground for such things. The world flag that David speaks of is the one I'm interested in carrying, too. The one that recognizes the humanity ~ good or bad ~ in everyone, and that does not see one society as superior to others.

Paula ~ It concerns me that you would consider my opinions as unhealthy. To me, accepting and embracing the status quo, simply because that's what it is, with the path that's finally been taken, is far more unhealthy. The majority being in the majority does not necessarily make the majority "right;" it only makes them the majority. David is unquestionably a better spokesperson for the peace perspective. He has read more and retained more than I have, and is better than I am at verbalizing the statistics.

There will always be certain people from whom you can better accept certain messages, either because of how they support them, how they phrase them, their personal/professional background, or because of their personal appeal, or whatever. Modern-day politics relies on this. However, in many ways, the only difference in David's and my messages is semantics. He has more information at his fingertips, and is an excellent speaker and communicator. I am an excellent listener, and have read and heard many things. I get the concept, but turning around and relating that concept and supporting it with the detailed information, is not my personal strength. It doesn't mean I didn't understand the concept correctly, or that it's invalidated because I can't "support" it as well as the next guy.

My beliefs are deeply held and I'm a Jefferson fan. I don't believe that the way the U.S. is in the world today was at all the intent of the original founders. If it was, then I'm forced to embrace the longtime conspiracy theory.

Some additional facts related to me today by another man who has been a longtime follower of U.S. activities in the world said, "Well, you were aware that George Bush, Sr. and Saddam split 50/50 a 25% kickback from OPEC, right?" Saddam is estimated to have 10-20 billion in untraceable accounts (Swiss, etc.) from that. And that George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush was one of the largest financiers of Adolph Hitler." Someone had told me about these previously, but I had him repeat them, so I could write them down, as the details would have started shifting around in my head by the time I got here to relate them.

And guess what? There's more than idle speculation that the U.S. is responsible for the AIDS epidemics in Africa and elsewhere, as a means of depopulation, with this premise being around since the 80's, via a combining of viruses in Bethesda, Maryland and then inserted into the smallpox vaccines that were taken there to innoculate the people. There are many more things of this nature out there. The more you learn, the "less" you want to know. After learning so much, certain previous assumptions become tainted.

Remembering that those in Germany were labeled and ridiculed as anti-government, etc. if they verbalized against the growing status-quo ought to give someone pause for thought.

While you speak of solidarity and my concerns with U.S. attitudes around the world [our being the biggest, overall bully that I'm aware of], Paula, would you be interested to hear what a former-military woman in my office had to say? While talking about the British casualties [it was 8 British and 4 American at that point, I think you'll recall about when that was], her comment was, "Doesn't that just make you feel 'proud'?" I looked at her stunned and the other woman there seemed confused as well. I said, " 'Proud'!?!?! Why would that make anyone feel 'proud'!" And in her sweet, little, you'd-never-guess-she'd-ever-been-military way, she said, with total sincerity, "Well, yeah.....our troops have so much better equipment and are so much better trained than the British." So, even though some British feel my views are unhealthy and anti-American, I responded that in the first place, there's nothing to say that it was their equipment or them doing the flying when they were mixed crews, and that I saw NO source for 'pride' in any case, we're fighting together and it's tragic, regardless of the details!!!" She rattled on about how she knew that if this, that, and the other...then this, that, and the other could be concluded as to whose equipment and who was piloting, etc........all military "knowledge" on her part....and she remained a "proud American." We were at the front desk, where I had to remain, and for professional image, continuing it further was not an option. She left the area. Shall I also get behind that brand of pride and support, Paula? After all, it's "my" country!!

Jet ~ If you're still around. After detailing my position, and your accusing me of recanting and then reembracing what I'd originally said, my addressing in detail your allegations of this [along with your perception of my being anti-American and bitterly so] would have required my revisiting my every post and rehashing everything I've said. I don't know how I could make myself clearer on my position[s], though it seems I still keep trying. While you are accusing me of not re-addressing, what I have already at length expressed myself on, I found it curious that you didn't answer my one, simple question that I had asked only once and you had never answered previously, to me or to anyone else, or even when I asked it now [as a pilot, were you militarily trained?]....and, instead, chose to depart the Forum.

As it's nearing 4 in the morning, and I have a 9 AM appt, but I wanted to at least respond to a few things while I had some time available, I need to stop at this.

P.S. to anyone concerned with my position. I am for the troops, whom I want to see come home as soon and as safely as possible. I am deeply grateful to them for what I know they believe they are fighting for. Because I feel they have in many ways been duped does not mean I don't care what happens to them, or that I want democracy to disappear. I want democracy to return in its purest form and original intent. I am not for the administration of this government and corporate agendas. David has outlined that Western expansionism and exploitation are not unique to this current administration, with which I agree. I'm far too tired to keep trying to re-express myself. If you, Paula, or anyone else for that matter, wishes to view David as the reasonable one, and me as extremist and anti-American, that's fine. I know where I'm at in my thinking. David knows where I'm at in it, as well.....as do Vern, tom.d.stiller, Byron, Margaret, Jo, and some others. My belief is that we have had exposure to a wider variety of information, perhaps, than some.

Before I close, Linda.....my listening to NPR alone does not equate with getting unreliable/skewed/incomplete information. The "owned" networks tend to be repeating the same thing as one another, and flipping channels only brings you in to the same movie at a different scene.

Well, ironically, it's exactly 4 in the Morning....now 4:01, after I typed that. So, goodnite all, and sleep peacefully.

~ Elizabeth

[lizzytysh]

Jo ~ I'll address your powerful post tomorrow night, after I've had some sleep.

Paula ~ I'll address your "get involved" edict then, too, as I forgot to in this long one.

[David]

Lizzy --

Your portrayal of what war does to the minds, psyches, and souls of the warriors is eloquent and true. I concur one hundred percent.

In that sense, of course, war ITSELF is the atrocity, as much as any individual acts committed within its context --those acts merely make manifest what's already there. This reognition leads us, I think, to have to question this entire notion of "rules" of war, or "acceptable" or "legal" behaviors during war. If (as I would suggest) war, in and of itself, is an obscene abomination, then how can it be redeemed by the veneer of "civility"? How can anyone, anywhere in the world, codify a set of rules whereby some kinds of mass slaughter are considered within the bounds of acceptable behavior, and others are not? (I'm not talking here about the difference between "self-defense" and "aggression," but the actual "rules of combat" that allegedly legtimize certain kinds of killing while outlawing others, whether it's being done by the "aggressor" or the "defendor.")

I think it's very, very arguable that ALL acts of war share the same putrid and irredeemable moral landscape. Once war "is," then ethics and morality "are not" -- the entire concept, in other words, of "rules of war" is a moral and ethical impossiblity. If you'll forgive a nightmarish analogy: we don't talk about "rules of rape." We acknowledge that the act, in and of itself, is one violence and terror, that it's a breach of basic moral standards, and it's simply not to be countenanced at all. (Although I must add that it's taken humanity a hell of a long time to come to this very basic understanding, and some humans still don't get it.)

This, then, I think, is where that earlier dialogue I had with --was it Linda? Paula?-- about "human nature" comes in. Advocates of the concept of "rules of war," I believe, will tell us that human beings are at our nature aggressive and predatory, so the best we can do to try to set limits on the extent to which these "natural" behaviors will be allowed -- being human, we'll never get rid of 'em, so all we can do is try to contain 'em somehow. Pacifists, though, insist on staking out higher ground [if I may use a rather bizarrely ironic bit of military terminology!] -- they hold out for the hope that humans can UN-learn their warriorlike tendencies, summon the "better angel of their nature," and negotiate rather than slaughter their way through conflicts.

[David]

p.s. Lizzy --

From what I've been able to glean, ol' Preston wasn't exactly one of the "largest financiers" of Hitler as he's been accused of being. I don't have the article right in front of me now, but a newspaper investigator here in Chicago --a man who is no fan of the Bushes, but did want to pursue the truth-- found that he was an investor --maybe a part-owner, I don't remember-- in one of the several companies that continued to do business with the Nazi war machine long after it was revealed what they were about. But his role was not as major as the roles of some of his corporate brethren.

I believe the analogy was to someone who might have held a controlling share of Lockheed stock during the Vietnam War, and thus could be called a "financer" of the military-indstrial complex during that conflict. Certainly there's some moral culpability in terms of being an active participant in the corporate/state war megalith, but to single that one individual out seems, to me, to obsess with one particular tree and miss the forest.

When all of this is over, we can have an interesting and provocative discussion on whether or not Thomas Jefferson's slave-ownersip (as well as that of Washington and a lot of the other Founding Daddies) strips him of moral authority in terms of being a visionary for freedom or human justice. I'm hearing, increasingly, that it should -- "There's no such thing as a good slave-owner," as a professor of African-American history at one of our colleges in Chicago has been saying lately, "and there's no such thing as a 'good' document [i.e., the original Costitution] that endorses slavery."

Discussion for another time, no doubt --

[lizzytysh]

This is to Paula and all my other detractors who feel me to be anti-American and unhealthy in my continuing, firm, peace stance.

This article [now much further below] was sent to me this morning by a dear friend. I don't think anyone will have difficulty in reading my mind as to how many more things I expect to see of this nature as the days go on and body bags mount. If you do have difficulty, simply refer to earlier postings I've made in reference to this war. The spin doctors here in the U.S. are already scrambling as to what was and wasn't said regarding the length and nature of this war. It's being reframed by the minute. Robin Cook also knows what he heard, and at a much higher level. Who would like to be the first to call him "anti-British"? I don't know what the most appropriate, understated British term would be but I am deeply sickened, galled, and outraged by the "whoops"-factor in the "excellence" of U.S. war planning. Saw it in Viet Nam and seeing it now. Who pays the price? As duly noted in many places, there is a glaring absence of family and friends of the politicians and administration at the bowels of this war, "heart" being way too lofty a term. As one of the U.S. administrators [would have to find the paper, which I haven't been able to yet, to tell you for sure which one] was quoted regarding the families of the dead and POWS, "I can't imagine what these families must be going through." Well, guess what, Big Guy, maybe you oughtta wait until you can before you put everyone else's families in that position.

And, did anyone notice how some U.S. troops are wearing dark-green camouflage in the desert? The article on MSN questioned, "Why are some troops donning woodland [italics mine to emphasize that woodland and desert are not the same] camouflage?" and responded to its own question with "According to published reports, the Pentagon simply goofed [italics mine for focusing on the interesting word choice for such life-saving measures as camouflage] by not anticipating [italics mine as my way of saying, "Uh. EXCUSE me!?!"]the demand for sand-colored desert fatigues, formally known as battle-dress [italics mine to emphasize the operative phrase for all things must be in order if we hope to come out of this alive] uniforms.

When Army and Marine units were preparing for deployment, several discovered [italics mine to refer readers back to "excellence" of U.S. war planning] that they lacked enough desert BDUs too outfit each soldier with the requisite three outfits. The UPI reports that the Army's 4th Infantry Division, headquartered at Fort Hood, Texas, chose to dress all its troops in the more traditional green fatigues [italics mine to emphasize, "you know, the ones that will be far more likely to get you killed, all of you that is]--commonly referred to as woodland BDUs--rahter than have only some don desert dress. Homogeneity is generally preferred among military commanders [italics mine to emphasize what an interesting priority that is under these lethal circumstances]. As time goes on, it seems to me that Bruce Willis's movies Lethal Weapon I, II, and III ought to be renamed U.S. Military Commanders I, II, III.

If my seeming bitterness makes you uncomfortable, wait until you watch that of your own country's and other country's leaders, and more citizens here and around the world grow in response to this tragic, blood-letting fiasco. As Saddam has promised "his" people [whomever they might be considered to be at this point], the best is yet to come.

Candice ~ Sometimes the most humanitarian thing that another country can do is to not interfere, when interfering serves primarily, if not exclusivley, one's self-interests.....and/or when doing so, will end up with humanitarian losses in far more areas and in far greater numbers [other countries/the entire region/worldwide with avenging attacks]. IF interfering is deemed the only route, then doing so to all extents possible via diplomacy, inspections, and other such peaceful measures. As you've said [via the writer], sometimes relatively fewer casualties in the short run result in much fewer in the long run. Likewise, it is with inspections and diplomacy, the relatively fewer casualties in the short run, while inspection and diplomatic measures are taking place can result in much fewer casualties in the long run. The world concensus seems more clearly in the corner that the inspection, diplomatic, and peaceful measures were the way to go with this conflict.

"In today's 'Sunday Mirror,' which is one of the biggest Sunday Newspapers in Britain. It is also one of the biggest weekday newspapers as well.

Robin Cook was our Foreign Secretary until a short time ago, until Jack Straw was given the job.

Our Press are showing more concern over the US Leadership's War Plan, such as it is.

COOK: BRING OUR LADS HOME

Mar 30 2003

Let's send Rumsfeld and his hawks to war instead

By Robin Cook


This was meant to be a quick, easy war. Shortly before I resigned a Cabinet colleague told me not to worry about the political fall-out.

The war would be finished long before polling day for the May local elections.

I just hope those who expected a quick victory are proved right. I have already had my fill of this bloody and unnecessary war. I want our troops home and I want them home before more of them are killed.

It is OK for Bush to say the war will go on for as long as it takes. He is sitting pretty in the comfort of Camp David protected by scores of security men to keep him safe.

It is easy to show you are resolute when you are not one of the poor guys stuck in a sandstorm peering around for snipers.

This week British forces have shown bravery under attack and determination in atrocious weather conditions. They are too disciplined to say it, but they must have asked each other how British forces ended up exposed by the mistakes of US politicians.

We were told the Iraqi army would be so joyful to be attacked that it would not fight. A close colleague of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted the march to Baghdad would be "a cakewalk".

HAWK: Rumsfeld

We were told Saddam's troops would surrender. A few days before the war Vice-President Dick Cheney predicted that the Republican Guard would lay down their weapons.

We were told that the local population would welcome their invaders as liberators. Paul Wolfowitz, No.2 at the Pentagon, promised that our tanks would be greeted "with an explosion of joy and relief".

Personally I would like to volunteer Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz to be "embedded" alongside the journalists with the forward units.

That would give them a chance to hear what the troops fighting for every bridge over the Euphrates think about their promises.

The top US General, William Wallace, has let the cat out of the bag. "The enemy we are fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed".

War is not some kind of harmless arcade game. Nobody should start a war on the assumption that the enemy's army will co-operate. But that is exactly what President Bush has done. And now his Marines have reached the outskirts of Baghdad he does not seem to know what to do next.

It was not meant to be like this. By the time we got to Baghdad Saddam was supposed to have crumpled. A few days before I resigned I was assured that Saddam would be overthrown by his associates to save their own skins. But they would only do it "at five minutes past midnight". It is now long past that time and Saddam is still there. To compensate yesterday we blew up a statue of Saddam in Basra. A statue! It is not the statue that terrifies local people but the man himself and they know Saddam is still in control of Baghdad.

Having marched us up this cul-de-sac, Donald Rumsfeld has now come up with a new tactic. Instead of going into Baghdad we should sit down outside it until Saddam surrenders. There is no more brutal form of warfare than a siege. People go hungry. The water and power to provide the sinews of a city snap. Children die.

You can catch a glimpse of what would happen in Baghdad under siege by looking at Basra. Its residents have endured several days of summer heat without water.

In desperation they have been drinking water from the river into which the sewage empties. Those conditions are ripe for cholera.

Last week President Bush promised that "Iraqis will see the great compassion of the US". They certainly do not see it now. They don't see it in Baghdad. What they see are women and children killed when missiles fall on market places. They don't see it in Basra. What they see is the suffering of their families with no water, precious little food, and no power to cook. There will be a long-term legacy of hatred for the West if the Iraqi people continue to suffer from the effects of the war we started.

Washington got it wrong over the ease with which the war could be won. Washington could be just as wrong about the difficulty of running Iraq when the fighting stops. Already there are real differences between Britain and America over how to run post-war Iraq.

The dispute over the management of the port of Umm Qasr is a good example. British officers sensibly took the view that the best and the most popular solution would be to find local Iraqis who knew how to do it. Instead the US have appointed an American company to take over the Iraqi asset. And guess what? Stevedore Services of America who got the contract have a chairman known for his donations to the Republican Party.

The argument between Blair and Bush over whether the UN will be in charge of the reconstruction of Iraq is about more than international legitimacy. It is about whether the Iraqi people can have confidence that their country is

being run for the benefit of themselves or for the benefit of the US.

Yesterday there was a sad and moving ceremony as the bodies of our brave soldiers were brought back to Britain.

The Ministry of Defence announced that they were to be buried in Britain out of consideration for their families. We must do all we can to ease the grief of those who have lost a husband or a son, cut down in their prime.

Yet I can't help asking myself if there was not a better way to show consideration for their families.

A better way could have been not to start a war which was never necessary and is turning out to be badly planned."

This article speaks for itself. Since the messages I've been giving are not palatable due to the manner in which I've been giving them, perhaps listening to someone who "knows" what they're talking about, and who "lacks" bitterness [and if you believe that!], and who isn't anti-American/government is the only way you can ingest and digest them, then only keep buying your local newspapers, as many more will be coming along soon.

Proud to be anti-American government in these Western expansionism conflicts, and Proud to be pro-American and pro-British and pro-Australian and pro-any-other-Allied troops, as they are sacrificed by those who sent them there.

Legitimately-angrily yours,
Elizabeth

Genuine anger has its place. It is a legitimate part of [and stage in] the grieving process. So are tears. I cried when I read this article.