My better judgement in reading through this thread tells me to stay away but I can't. Do your protests of the war have much to do with the poor people of Iraq? the soldiers that may be killed? Or are you liberals taking every pot shot you can at the republican party. Sure sounds that way to me. Shame on you
If the security and freedom of the United States and elsewhere in the world involves war with Iraq, Syria, Iran, or South Korea, and no one else has the courage to stop terrorism we should fight to our death rather than be held hostage by a dictator. Peace doesn't mean there is no war. Peace is when we are not afraid to go to the shopping center. Peace is to worship as we choose, peace is when we can live life as a evey human being is intitled to live.
hell bent on war
Repubs?
Tori --
I, for one, have never mentioned the Republican party, because I don't think the democrats are any more courageous in denouncing corporate imperialism than the republicans are. Clinton was a gung-ho avatar of globalization, just as Bush is. The Vietnam War was largely the brain child of Democrats (going back as far as Truman, then later JFK, LBJ).
You're certainly right to point out that Iraqis do not have the freedoms you mention. Nor do the citizens of the many countries ruled by U.S.-supported tyrants (as Saddam was, when he first came into power -- in fact, the U.S. first sponsored a coup by his Ba'ath party in 1963.) Of course that does not justify Saddam -- nor is anyone saying it does. But it does throw into serious queastion the right of the U.S. govt. to expect to be taken seriously in its newfound role as defender of people against tyrants.
The issue of whether Saddam poses an immediate (or even not-so-immediate) threat to the U.S. has been discussed here at length. I've read the data pretty carefully, and as far as I can see, there is as yet not a bit of legitimate evidence connecting him to Al Queda. Lots of people assume that such evidence will at some point show up; but "invade first, get evidence later" is hardly a legitimate method in my opinion.
Again I assert: the presence of a tyrannical monster like Saddam is nothing more than a convenient excuse for the U.S. govt. to continue on its imperialist agenda. To put this conflict in terms of whether or not Saddam is a genocidal maniac who deserves to be brought to justice is, in my opinion, to entirely miss the point of what's going on. Of course he is. The point of what's going on, though, is imperial expansion and global corporate domination.
There is absolutely no evidence of sincerity in U.S. claims to have suddently developed a soft spot for the victims of tyranny. History shows this absolutely: to cite just a few random examples from the top of my head (apolgoies if I get a few dates wrong): 70s-80s-90s U.S. support of the Suharto regime in Indonesia; U.S. toppling of Allende in Chile and replacing him with the neo-fascist Pinochet; U.S. support of Pol Pot in Cambodia 'til the early '70s, when he suddenly became "our" enemy and thus was regognized as the bloodthirsty despot he'd been all along; U.S. support of Marcos in the Phillippenes for many many years; the 50s-era U.S. support of a coup in Guatemala, which instituted a pro-corporate, neo-fascist dictator; U.S. support for the apartheid regime in South Africa; the illegal police action in Vietnam.... the list goes on and on, and the record extends back at least as far as the beginning of the 20th Century (with the original annexation of the Philippenes).
That, not any respect for Saddam [as I've already said, I will rejoice if he is taken out, even under the current circumstances] or any desire to cast stones at (or support) either Republocrats or Demoblicans, represents the primary reason why I oppose this war.
I, for one, have never mentioned the Republican party, because I don't think the democrats are any more courageous in denouncing corporate imperialism than the republicans are. Clinton was a gung-ho avatar of globalization, just as Bush is. The Vietnam War was largely the brain child of Democrats (going back as far as Truman, then later JFK, LBJ).
You're certainly right to point out that Iraqis do not have the freedoms you mention. Nor do the citizens of the many countries ruled by U.S.-supported tyrants (as Saddam was, when he first came into power -- in fact, the U.S. first sponsored a coup by his Ba'ath party in 1963.) Of course that does not justify Saddam -- nor is anyone saying it does. But it does throw into serious queastion the right of the U.S. govt. to expect to be taken seriously in its newfound role as defender of people against tyrants.
The issue of whether Saddam poses an immediate (or even not-so-immediate) threat to the U.S. has been discussed here at length. I've read the data pretty carefully, and as far as I can see, there is as yet not a bit of legitimate evidence connecting him to Al Queda. Lots of people assume that such evidence will at some point show up; but "invade first, get evidence later" is hardly a legitimate method in my opinion.
Again I assert: the presence of a tyrannical monster like Saddam is nothing more than a convenient excuse for the U.S. govt. to continue on its imperialist agenda. To put this conflict in terms of whether or not Saddam is a genocidal maniac who deserves to be brought to justice is, in my opinion, to entirely miss the point of what's going on. Of course he is. The point of what's going on, though, is imperial expansion and global corporate domination.
There is absolutely no evidence of sincerity in U.S. claims to have suddently developed a soft spot for the victims of tyranny. History shows this absolutely: to cite just a few random examples from the top of my head (apolgoies if I get a few dates wrong): 70s-80s-90s U.S. support of the Suharto regime in Indonesia; U.S. toppling of Allende in Chile and replacing him with the neo-fascist Pinochet; U.S. support of Pol Pot in Cambodia 'til the early '70s, when he suddenly became "our" enemy and thus was regognized as the bloodthirsty despot he'd been all along; U.S. support of Marcos in the Phillippenes for many many years; the 50s-era U.S. support of a coup in Guatemala, which instituted a pro-corporate, neo-fascist dictator; U.S. support for the apartheid regime in South Africa; the illegal police action in Vietnam.... the list goes on and on, and the record extends back at least as far as the beginning of the 20th Century (with the original annexation of the Philippenes).
That, not any respect for Saddam [as I've already said, I will rejoice if he is taken out, even under the current circumstances] or any desire to cast stones at (or support) either Republocrats or Demoblicans, represents the primary reason why I oppose this war.
Last edited by David on Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
Food for thought...
Jessica took awful beating
By OWEN MORITZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Pfc. Jessica Lynch was beaten more severely than first reports indicated, doctors said yesterday.
Besides two broken legs and a broken arm, the 19-year-old Army truck driver suffered fractures to her right foot, right ankle and a disk in her spine, and had a gash on her head.
Lynch underwent spinal surgery Thursday to repair the fractured disk that had been pressing painfully on a nerve, doctors at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany reported yesterday.
"The prognosis for her recovery is excellent," said Col. David Rubenstein, the medical center commander.
Officials have refused to say why so many of Lynch's bones were broken, but it's likely she was tortured. An Iraqi man who told the Americans where to find her urged the troops to hurry, saying she was being tortured. He later described a scene where the helpless woman was being slapped by a black-clad member of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's thuggish Fedayeen.
Jessica took awful beating
By OWEN MORITZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Pfc. Jessica Lynch was beaten more severely than first reports indicated, doctors said yesterday.
Besides two broken legs and a broken arm, the 19-year-old Army truck driver suffered fractures to her right foot, right ankle and a disk in her spine, and had a gash on her head.
Lynch underwent spinal surgery Thursday to repair the fractured disk that had been pressing painfully on a nerve, doctors at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany reported yesterday.
"The prognosis for her recovery is excellent," said Col. David Rubenstein, the medical center commander.
Officials have refused to say why so many of Lynch's bones were broken, but it's likely she was tortured. An Iraqi man who told the Americans where to find her urged the troops to hurry, saying she was being tortured. He later described a scene where the helpless woman was being slapped by a black-clad member of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's thuggish Fedayeen.
Food
I'm utterly and heartfelt-ly (?) glad she's back, and the people who did that to her must be apprehended and tried as war criminals and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. The specific individuals probably can't be found, but their leaders and commanders no doubt can be.
By the same token, if it's at all possible to locate that courageous hospital worker who apparently tipped off the rescuers that she was there, that person should be immediately given escort out of the country if he or she desires, and rewarded for heroism.
By the same token, if it's at all possible to locate that courageous hospital worker who apparently tipped off the rescuers that she was there, that person should be immediately given escort out of the country if he or she desires, and rewarded for heroism.
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
Here is another viewpoint...
Old Europe, Old Ideologies: Anti-Americanism, Anti-Semitism and the Politics of Victimhood
The countries of France and Germany -- that is, Old Europe, as so
brilliantly described by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld -- are the
centers of European anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and opposition to
the War on Terror. They are also countries that overwhelmingly display
hostility to Israel and provide a great amount of moral and financial
support (via their domination of the European Union) to the Muslim
terrorist campaign against Israel.
France and Germany are also the countries that, over the past
century, have received the largest amount of largesse that America has
given to the world. As I will demonstrate below, all of these factors are
closely related in explaining current French and German hostility to
America and are representative of a systemic and at times visceral
hatred of the United States of America.
It was an eerie experience being an American in Europe on
September 11, 2001. The anxiety of the moment, however, was
mitigated in many ways by the reactions of Europeans. Even the
notoriously churlish and haughty French seemed to let down their guard
for a while. Indeed, one French newspaper had a headline that stated
``We are all Americans now.``
Large-scale demonstrations in support of America were in evidence all
over Germany. It seemed as if Old Europe had finally matured.
But within two weeks of 9/11 the old anti-Americanism was back
to the forefront. At first, criticism of America was delivered in an
oblique fashion. The Old European mantra of the day was ``We hope
America won`t use 9/11 as an excuse to start a war.`` When this talking
point was given to me on a daily basis by my German colleagues I
always responded by saying that America had no choice because war
had already been declared on her. The incredulous looks given to me by
the Germans spoke vast amounts about how little Old Europeans
comprehend about geopolitics and how myopic their worldview has
become.
Germans in particular were embarrassed that the planning for 9/11
was discovered to have been conducted by the terrorists in Hamburg.
Later on, Germany was revealed to be the main parts and equipment
supplier for Saddam Hussein`s weapons of mass destruction building
program. The French, of course, have longstanding commercial ties to
Saddam.
The more that the murky world of Muslim terrorism was examined
the more connections were found between the terrorists and Old Europe.
Every time new details were brought out about these ties there was a
corresponding increase in anti-American (and anti-Israel) rhetoric. What
else could the Old Europeans do? Having neither international law nor
the facts on their side, the Old Europeans were left with only two
possibilities: admit they were wrong, or try to discredit the United
States. Of course, Old Europe chose the latter, and morally
reprehensible, alternative.
Although it may be difficult for people who weren`t abroad at the
time to understand it, the swift American victory in Afghanistan was a
complete shock to Old Europe. The pundits and politicians of Old
Europe were predicting American casualties of Verdun proportions.
Then America defeated the Taliban using an extremely small force
utilizing a plan devised by CIA veterans of the Afghan-Soviet Union
Wars of the 1980`s. It was not only a brilliant victory, it also
demonstrated to Old Europe that America was more informed about the
region than they were.
Then Old Europe`s worst possible nightmare became reality: Kabul
was liberated and on live TV thousands of Muslims were dancing in the
streets praising America and waving American flags.
It wasn`t supposed to happen like this, according to Old Europe.
America was supposed to get bogged down like the Soviets in the
1980`s. Of course, what Old Europe forgot was that America -- unlike
the Soviet Union, or unlike the Germans in World War II, or unlike
France during the time of Napoleon -- came to Afghanistan as a
liberator, not a conqueror.
America was shown to be tough, resolved and above all else,
intelligent. America showed the strength of a virtuous people fighting a
noble cause. America displayed that she had the will to carry through
with the task at hand. In sum, America refused to be a victim.
It was here that America and Old Europe parted company, perhaps
irrevocably.
What soon became apparent was that Old Europe`s friendliness
toward America in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was not based upon
the outrage of putative allies who believe that an attack on one NATO
member is an attack on all. No, Old Europe was glad that America was
finally a ``victim,`` and that perhaps this terrorist wake up call would
entice America to abandon its ``simplistic`` approach to foreign affairs
and follow the lead of Paris and Berlin. When the French newspaper
said, ``We are all Americans now`` what they were really saying was,
``At last, the Americans are victims; they`re just like us.``
The politics of victimhood plays an ever-increasingly important
role in Old European affairs. Of course, the French are always fond of
blaming all of their troubles on America. According to Sorbonne
sophisticates, the presence of McDonald`s in France is responsible for
the weakness of the French agricultural industry, and American culture
is responsible for the decline of everything in general. (This is usually
said by a professor of literary criticism in a Parisian cafe while he is
reading Faulkner, listening to Chet Baker and smoking a Marlboro.
Cowardice and collaboration may be French characteristics, but
consistency surely isn`t one of them.)
Now you might think that after having committed the most barbaric
atrocities in all of world history and being responsible for the deaths of
millions of people, the Germans would be somewhat reluctant to play
the victim card. Think again. According to the Germans, they are also
victims.
One of the best-selling books in Germany today is titled Der Brand
(The Fire) by the historian Joerg Friedrich. This book is an account of
the bombing campaign against Germany in World War II. Friedrich goes
into great detail, cataloguing the deaths in each city bombed and giving
graphic accounts of the deaths of people during the bombing. Friedrich
goes on and on in the book about how babies were boiled alive in the
bombing and how relatives were many times unable to give proper
burials to their loved ones who died.
According to Friedrich, the Germans were all victims. Of course,
he fails to mention that Germany invented the aerial bombardment of
civilian populations, that Hitler was elected to office and was wildly
popular among the vast majority of Germans, and that Germany, in
announcing a policy of total war, in essence abrogated the Geneva
Convention and declared its entire civilian population to be combatants.
No, according to Friedrich, the Germans were victims and Winston
Churchill was a war criminal, no better than Hitler. In an interview on
the BBC on December 5, 2002, Friedrich even stated that Germany
invaded Russia in order to bring Christianity to the Bolsheviks, so by his
twisted logic, even the SS killing brigades were victims, perhaps
religious martyrs.
The politics of victimhood is a convenient way for Old Europeans
to revert to their old modes of thinking without causing irreparable
political damage. With the possible exception of the Free Democrat
Party`s Juergen Moellemann -- the most openly anti-Semitic mainstream
German politician since Adolf Hitler -- no German politico can legally
express overtly anti-Semitic sentiments. German leaders, however, are
able to (and do so quite frequently) say that they are ``anti-Zionist,`` the new Old European code word for anti-Semitism. German leaders quite
freely express extreme opposition to the State of Israel (always
prefacing their remarks with words to the effect of ``some of my best
friends are Jews``) and complete solidarity with the Palestinian terrorists,
who in the terminology of Old Europe are really ``freedom fighters.``
How do they do this? It is because in the bizarre and obscene Newspeak
of Old Europe, the Palestinians are ``victims.`` Israelis murdered by the
Palestinians are never afforded the same status by the Old Europeans.
Whenever America and Israel stand up to the forces of Muslim
terrorism, and refuse to be victims, it irritates the Old Europeans
because it reminds them of their past and present moral failures.
Germans did nothing to stop the rise of Hitler. Indeed, he was handed
the dictatorship by plebiscite. And the French also did nothing to stop
the rise of the Nazis. We know that in 1936, if just one French soldier
had fired shots over the heads of the German forces attempting to
remilitarize the Rheinland, the occupation would have stopped because
Hitler had given the order to retreat at any sign of resistance. And the
pusillanimity of the French when the Germans invaded, along with their
subsequent close collaboration, are a shame upon the honor of France
that will take generations to expunge.
Old Europe has always lacked, and continues to lack, the will to
resist evil. Old Europe`s moral failings are explicit and numerous. And
Old Europe cannot abide the fact that America has the strength and
determination to stay the course in the War on Terror. Every American
victory in the present struggle is a reminder of German and French
complicity in the worst horrors of the past century. I particularly enjoyed
the numbed expression on the face of German Foreign Minister Joschka
Fischer when his British counterpart, Jack Straw, reminded everyone (in
his response to Colin Powell`s testimony about Iraqi non-compliance to
UN Resolution 1441) that the refusal of Europeans to take seriously a
little problem in the 1930`s led to a big problem in the 1940`s.
Now you see why Joerg Friedrich and his fellow revisionists are so
eager to defame Winston Churchill posthumously. Churchill`s legacy is
a constant reminder to the Germans that he was right, and they were
wrong, about the true nature of Germany during the Nazi period. And
we must never forget that Churchill was a supporter of Israel all the way
back to the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917. And to top it all off,
Churchill`s mother was an American.
It is a very human trait to treat badly those who do the most for
you. The old joke goes, ``No good deed goes unpunished.`` This is tied
in very closely with the extreme anti-Americanism exhibited by Old
Europeans.
The French deeply resent the fact that America has pulled their fat
out of the fire twice in the past century. Germans deeply resent the fact
that their democracy and their prosperity are the result of American
generosity, a generosity so profound in the wake of German atrocities
and war crimes, that America will always possess the position of moral
superiority to the descendants of Kaiser Bill and Hitler. And considering
what the Germans did to the Jews, Germany has forever ceded the right
to criticize anything that Israel does.
There`s another old joke that goes, ``The Germans will never
forgive the Jews for the Holocaust.`` It`s a sick joke, to be sure, but one
that perfectly exemplifies the attempts by the Germans and their Old
European collaborators, the French, to assume the mantle of
victimhood.
If the leaders of Old Europe were invited to go on Oprah`s show, it
would probably be one that centered on the theme of the loss of self-
esteem. While Old Europe may have become irrelevant in terms of
political and military power, Old Europeans have always prided
themselves on being so much more intelligent than Americans, so much
wiser in the ways of the world and possessed of a cynical subtlety rather
than the gee-whiz naive optimism of Americans.
Well, the results are coming in and it now appears that Americans
are smarter and better educated than the Old Europeans, especially the
Germans. Last year the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development released the results of the PISA study (Program for
International Student Assessment), an extensive study of educational
systems throughout the world, that showed a systemwide failure of the
German educational system. In fact, Germany scored significantly lower
than America in every single category.
It has been particularly amusing to see those Old European
collaborators, the French and the Germans, get outfoxed by America
and her allies from New Europe. The pacifism of Old Europe is a
smokescreen. It`s not pacifism; it`s an attempt at European domination
by passive aggression. Old Europe thought that by admitting into the EU
club the newly liberated countries of Eastern Europe, the Old European
hegemony would extend from London to the borders of Russia. What
they forgot was that New Europe is now part of NATO, and the New
Europeans realize that it was America that liberated them from the
shackles of Soviet communism. And there are many New Europeans
who haven`t forgotten what the Germans did to them not so many years
ago.
Old Europe also forgot that England is a nation that has always
valued its independence and eccentricity. The distance between London
and Washington is, metaphorically speaking, much closer than that of
London and Paris. And while Joerg Friedrich may consider Winston
Churchill to be a war criminal, he is a hero to almost all Americans who
would concur with the great man`s dual assessments that ``of all the
crosses I have to bear, the heaviest is the cross of Lorraine`` and ``the
Germans have either been at our feet or at our throats.``
Old Europe will continue to hate America and Israel. Anti-
Semitism will continue its phenomenal rise in Old Europe. (If you don`t
believe me, check out the official statistics posted on the website of the
Bundesamt fuer Verfassungsschutz (Office for the Protection of the
German Constitution). Old Europeans will continue to protest the War
on Terror and denounce American foreign policy as being too
shortsighted and hawkish, conveniently forgetting that hawks have the
ability to see further than any other animal. Chancellor Schroeder and
President Chirac will continue to blame America for their own bungling
of the German and French economies.
But as they look at their maps of Europe, the leaders of Old Europe
can`t be pleased by what they see. To the east, the south and the west,
Old Europe finds itself surrounded by the countries of New Europe --
vital, morally courageous and pro-American.
The only thing that Old Europe is a victim of is itself.
Old Europe, Old Ideologies: Anti-Americanism, Anti-Semitism and the Politics of Victimhood
The countries of France and Germany -- that is, Old Europe, as so
brilliantly described by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld -- are the
centers of European anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and opposition to
the War on Terror. They are also countries that overwhelmingly display
hostility to Israel and provide a great amount of moral and financial
support (via their domination of the European Union) to the Muslim
terrorist campaign against Israel.
France and Germany are also the countries that, over the past
century, have received the largest amount of largesse that America has
given to the world. As I will demonstrate below, all of these factors are
closely related in explaining current French and German hostility to
America and are representative of a systemic and at times visceral
hatred of the United States of America.
It was an eerie experience being an American in Europe on
September 11, 2001. The anxiety of the moment, however, was
mitigated in many ways by the reactions of Europeans. Even the
notoriously churlish and haughty French seemed to let down their guard
for a while. Indeed, one French newspaper had a headline that stated
``We are all Americans now.``
Large-scale demonstrations in support of America were in evidence all
over Germany. It seemed as if Old Europe had finally matured.
But within two weeks of 9/11 the old anti-Americanism was back
to the forefront. At first, criticism of America was delivered in an
oblique fashion. The Old European mantra of the day was ``We hope
America won`t use 9/11 as an excuse to start a war.`` When this talking
point was given to me on a daily basis by my German colleagues I
always responded by saying that America had no choice because war
had already been declared on her. The incredulous looks given to me by
the Germans spoke vast amounts about how little Old Europeans
comprehend about geopolitics and how myopic their worldview has
become.
Germans in particular were embarrassed that the planning for 9/11
was discovered to have been conducted by the terrorists in Hamburg.
Later on, Germany was revealed to be the main parts and equipment
supplier for Saddam Hussein`s weapons of mass destruction building
program. The French, of course, have longstanding commercial ties to
Saddam.
The more that the murky world of Muslim terrorism was examined
the more connections were found between the terrorists and Old Europe.
Every time new details were brought out about these ties there was a
corresponding increase in anti-American (and anti-Israel) rhetoric. What
else could the Old Europeans do? Having neither international law nor
the facts on their side, the Old Europeans were left with only two
possibilities: admit they were wrong, or try to discredit the United
States. Of course, Old Europe chose the latter, and morally
reprehensible, alternative.
Although it may be difficult for people who weren`t abroad at the
time to understand it, the swift American victory in Afghanistan was a
complete shock to Old Europe. The pundits and politicians of Old
Europe were predicting American casualties of Verdun proportions.
Then America defeated the Taliban using an extremely small force
utilizing a plan devised by CIA veterans of the Afghan-Soviet Union
Wars of the 1980`s. It was not only a brilliant victory, it also
demonstrated to Old Europe that America was more informed about the
region than they were.
Then Old Europe`s worst possible nightmare became reality: Kabul
was liberated and on live TV thousands of Muslims were dancing in the
streets praising America and waving American flags.
It wasn`t supposed to happen like this, according to Old Europe.
America was supposed to get bogged down like the Soviets in the
1980`s. Of course, what Old Europe forgot was that America -- unlike
the Soviet Union, or unlike the Germans in World War II, or unlike
France during the time of Napoleon -- came to Afghanistan as a
liberator, not a conqueror.
America was shown to be tough, resolved and above all else,
intelligent. America showed the strength of a virtuous people fighting a
noble cause. America displayed that she had the will to carry through
with the task at hand. In sum, America refused to be a victim.
It was here that America and Old Europe parted company, perhaps
irrevocably.
What soon became apparent was that Old Europe`s friendliness
toward America in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was not based upon
the outrage of putative allies who believe that an attack on one NATO
member is an attack on all. No, Old Europe was glad that America was
finally a ``victim,`` and that perhaps this terrorist wake up call would
entice America to abandon its ``simplistic`` approach to foreign affairs
and follow the lead of Paris and Berlin. When the French newspaper
said, ``We are all Americans now`` what they were really saying was,
``At last, the Americans are victims; they`re just like us.``
The politics of victimhood plays an ever-increasingly important
role in Old European affairs. Of course, the French are always fond of
blaming all of their troubles on America. According to Sorbonne
sophisticates, the presence of McDonald`s in France is responsible for
the weakness of the French agricultural industry, and American culture
is responsible for the decline of everything in general. (This is usually
said by a professor of literary criticism in a Parisian cafe while he is
reading Faulkner, listening to Chet Baker and smoking a Marlboro.
Cowardice and collaboration may be French characteristics, but
consistency surely isn`t one of them.)
Now you might think that after having committed the most barbaric
atrocities in all of world history and being responsible for the deaths of
millions of people, the Germans would be somewhat reluctant to play
the victim card. Think again. According to the Germans, they are also
victims.
One of the best-selling books in Germany today is titled Der Brand
(The Fire) by the historian Joerg Friedrich. This book is an account of
the bombing campaign against Germany in World War II. Friedrich goes
into great detail, cataloguing the deaths in each city bombed and giving
graphic accounts of the deaths of people during the bombing. Friedrich
goes on and on in the book about how babies were boiled alive in the
bombing and how relatives were many times unable to give proper
burials to their loved ones who died.
According to Friedrich, the Germans were all victims. Of course,
he fails to mention that Germany invented the aerial bombardment of
civilian populations, that Hitler was elected to office and was wildly
popular among the vast majority of Germans, and that Germany, in
announcing a policy of total war, in essence abrogated the Geneva
Convention and declared its entire civilian population to be combatants.
No, according to Friedrich, the Germans were victims and Winston
Churchill was a war criminal, no better than Hitler. In an interview on
the BBC on December 5, 2002, Friedrich even stated that Germany
invaded Russia in order to bring Christianity to the Bolsheviks, so by his
twisted logic, even the SS killing brigades were victims, perhaps
religious martyrs.
The politics of victimhood is a convenient way for Old Europeans
to revert to their old modes of thinking without causing irreparable
political damage. With the possible exception of the Free Democrat
Party`s Juergen Moellemann -- the most openly anti-Semitic mainstream
German politician since Adolf Hitler -- no German politico can legally
express overtly anti-Semitic sentiments. German leaders, however, are
able to (and do so quite frequently) say that they are ``anti-Zionist,`` the new Old European code word for anti-Semitism. German leaders quite
freely express extreme opposition to the State of Israel (always
prefacing their remarks with words to the effect of ``some of my best
friends are Jews``) and complete solidarity with the Palestinian terrorists,
who in the terminology of Old Europe are really ``freedom fighters.``
How do they do this? It is because in the bizarre and obscene Newspeak
of Old Europe, the Palestinians are ``victims.`` Israelis murdered by the
Palestinians are never afforded the same status by the Old Europeans.
Whenever America and Israel stand up to the forces of Muslim
terrorism, and refuse to be victims, it irritates the Old Europeans
because it reminds them of their past and present moral failures.
Germans did nothing to stop the rise of Hitler. Indeed, he was handed
the dictatorship by plebiscite. And the French also did nothing to stop
the rise of the Nazis. We know that in 1936, if just one French soldier
had fired shots over the heads of the German forces attempting to
remilitarize the Rheinland, the occupation would have stopped because
Hitler had given the order to retreat at any sign of resistance. And the
pusillanimity of the French when the Germans invaded, along with their
subsequent close collaboration, are a shame upon the honor of France
that will take generations to expunge.
Old Europe has always lacked, and continues to lack, the will to
resist evil. Old Europe`s moral failings are explicit and numerous. And
Old Europe cannot abide the fact that America has the strength and
determination to stay the course in the War on Terror. Every American
victory in the present struggle is a reminder of German and French
complicity in the worst horrors of the past century. I particularly enjoyed
the numbed expression on the face of German Foreign Minister Joschka
Fischer when his British counterpart, Jack Straw, reminded everyone (in
his response to Colin Powell`s testimony about Iraqi non-compliance to
UN Resolution 1441) that the refusal of Europeans to take seriously a
little problem in the 1930`s led to a big problem in the 1940`s.
Now you see why Joerg Friedrich and his fellow revisionists are so
eager to defame Winston Churchill posthumously. Churchill`s legacy is
a constant reminder to the Germans that he was right, and they were
wrong, about the true nature of Germany during the Nazi period. And
we must never forget that Churchill was a supporter of Israel all the way
back to the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917. And to top it all off,
Churchill`s mother was an American.
It is a very human trait to treat badly those who do the most for
you. The old joke goes, ``No good deed goes unpunished.`` This is tied
in very closely with the extreme anti-Americanism exhibited by Old
Europeans.
The French deeply resent the fact that America has pulled their fat
out of the fire twice in the past century. Germans deeply resent the fact
that their democracy and their prosperity are the result of American
generosity, a generosity so profound in the wake of German atrocities
and war crimes, that America will always possess the position of moral
superiority to the descendants of Kaiser Bill and Hitler. And considering
what the Germans did to the Jews, Germany has forever ceded the right
to criticize anything that Israel does.
There`s another old joke that goes, ``The Germans will never
forgive the Jews for the Holocaust.`` It`s a sick joke, to be sure, but one
that perfectly exemplifies the attempts by the Germans and their Old
European collaborators, the French, to assume the mantle of
victimhood.
If the leaders of Old Europe were invited to go on Oprah`s show, it
would probably be one that centered on the theme of the loss of self-
esteem. While Old Europe may have become irrelevant in terms of
political and military power, Old Europeans have always prided
themselves on being so much more intelligent than Americans, so much
wiser in the ways of the world and possessed of a cynical subtlety rather
than the gee-whiz naive optimism of Americans.
Well, the results are coming in and it now appears that Americans
are smarter and better educated than the Old Europeans, especially the
Germans. Last year the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development released the results of the PISA study (Program for
International Student Assessment), an extensive study of educational
systems throughout the world, that showed a systemwide failure of the
German educational system. In fact, Germany scored significantly lower
than America in every single category.
It has been particularly amusing to see those Old European
collaborators, the French and the Germans, get outfoxed by America
and her allies from New Europe. The pacifism of Old Europe is a
smokescreen. It`s not pacifism; it`s an attempt at European domination
by passive aggression. Old Europe thought that by admitting into the EU
club the newly liberated countries of Eastern Europe, the Old European
hegemony would extend from London to the borders of Russia. What
they forgot was that New Europe is now part of NATO, and the New
Europeans realize that it was America that liberated them from the
shackles of Soviet communism. And there are many New Europeans
who haven`t forgotten what the Germans did to them not so many years
ago.
Old Europe also forgot that England is a nation that has always
valued its independence and eccentricity. The distance between London
and Washington is, metaphorically speaking, much closer than that of
London and Paris. And while Joerg Friedrich may consider Winston
Churchill to be a war criminal, he is a hero to almost all Americans who
would concur with the great man`s dual assessments that ``of all the
crosses I have to bear, the heaviest is the cross of Lorraine`` and ``the
Germans have either been at our feet or at our throats.``
Old Europe will continue to hate America and Israel. Anti-
Semitism will continue its phenomenal rise in Old Europe. (If you don`t
believe me, check out the official statistics posted on the website of the
Bundesamt fuer Verfassungsschutz (Office for the Protection of the
German Constitution). Old Europeans will continue to protest the War
on Terror and denounce American foreign policy as being too
shortsighted and hawkish, conveniently forgetting that hawks have the
ability to see further than any other animal. Chancellor Schroeder and
President Chirac will continue to blame America for their own bungling
of the German and French economies.
But as they look at their maps of Europe, the leaders of Old Europe
can`t be pleased by what they see. To the east, the south and the west,
Old Europe finds itself surrounded by the countries of New Europe --
vital, morally courageous and pro-American.
The only thing that Old Europe is a victim of is itself.
...
Anti-semitism is a scourge that, tragically, Germany has not yet excised. In recent years there's been a revival of a right-wing anti-Semitic movement in France, too. However that same right-wing movement (Le Penne et al.) has also been virulently anti-African and anti-Arab -- indeed, anti-immigrant in general. France also has a terrible history of imperialist abuses in Arab and North African counries. Thus, although France has certainly been extremely criticalof the state of Israel, it's a drastic stretch to say that France has been supporting Muslim movements in general -- from what I've gleaned, anti-Arab prejudice in France is at least as virulent as anti-Semitism. [Leaving aside for a moment that all of us use these terms incorrectly, since Arabs are also Semitic people.]
But my basic quesiton whenever I read things like that article is: why, oh why do apologists for U.S. imperialism somehow manage to assume that there's something automatically good about opposing any global power unless it's that of the U.S. government and the corporate monoliths it works for? Why, for that matter, do they insist on saying "anti-American" or "pro-American" [as in the final paragraphs of that article] when what they actually mean is "anti-corporate globalization" or "pro-corporate globalization"? (And, of course, to be "pro-corporate globlization" must then, by defintion, be "courageous.") Why do they insist on deflecting the debate from the real issues at hand?
I might add that --yet again-- they throw around terms like "hatred for the United States of America" without defining what those terms mean. Apparently, thinkers such as this put such value on power, and those in power, that they cannot conceive of any separation between the ruling elites of a society (whether the U.S., Israel, or any other) and the people of that society. Thus, opposition to U.S. govt. or corporate policy is "hatred" of an abstraction called "the United States of America," with the strong implication that it's the people or the actual indigenous culture [as opposed to commercialized junk and mediocrity, be it McDonald's or Britney Spears) that critics of U.S. govt./corporate policy don't like. That's the same logic as labeling "anti-Semitic" anyone who disagrees with the policy of the Isreali government: the ruling elites of a society speak for that entire society, in the minds of writers like these, so any distinction between a government (and the elite powers it serves) and the general popuation is not to be drawn.
Ideed, a craven and boggle-minded adoration of power permeates that kind of writing -- you can almost see the snappy salute and hear the marching of the jackboots in the cadence of the prose. Writers like the author of that article are gloating, pure and simple, at unfettered American power, and indulging in cheap-shot name-calling ("victimhood;" equating opposition to Israeli govt. policies with "anti-Semitism," etc.) at anyone who is presumptuous enough to resent the rise of an international imperialist monolith that can run roughshod over everything and everyone in its way that does not dance to its tune. "We win! You lose!" Is this what the author's vaunted "American civilization" is supposed to be about?
"We" who love our power are "good"; "they" who resent and oppose our power are ungrateful and "bad". The adoration of state power and global domination that runs through articles such as this makes one wonder how sincere the writers really are in their denunciation of historical figures such as Stalin, Hitler, et al.
As for America pulling France out of the fire in WW II -- yes, America played a vital part in pulling France out of the fire in WWII. But guess what : Many, many more more Russian soldiers died defending Europe, than did American soldiers; had it not been for the Soviet army, France would probably not have been liberated. Our boys didn't do it alone. That's a bit of history they kind of forget to teach in most of our schools these days.
Actually, I've seen excerpts from that article before. I can't say for sure, but I think it might have been written by either Andrew Sullivan or Charles Krauthammer -- two columnists whose chest-beating glee over the possibility of a U.S. with utterly no constraints on its ability to be a bullying 500-pound gorilla in the world is perversely admirable for its blatant and unapologetic honesty. I'll give them credit for not pulling their punches.
But my basic quesiton whenever I read things like that article is: why, oh why do apologists for U.S. imperialism somehow manage to assume that there's something automatically good about opposing any global power unless it's that of the U.S. government and the corporate monoliths it works for? Why, for that matter, do they insist on saying "anti-American" or "pro-American" [as in the final paragraphs of that article] when what they actually mean is "anti-corporate globalization" or "pro-corporate globalization"? (And, of course, to be "pro-corporate globlization" must then, by defintion, be "courageous.") Why do they insist on deflecting the debate from the real issues at hand?
I might add that --yet again-- they throw around terms like "hatred for the United States of America" without defining what those terms mean. Apparently, thinkers such as this put such value on power, and those in power, that they cannot conceive of any separation between the ruling elites of a society (whether the U.S., Israel, or any other) and the people of that society. Thus, opposition to U.S. govt. or corporate policy is "hatred" of an abstraction called "the United States of America," with the strong implication that it's the people or the actual indigenous culture [as opposed to commercialized junk and mediocrity, be it McDonald's or Britney Spears) that critics of U.S. govt./corporate policy don't like. That's the same logic as labeling "anti-Semitic" anyone who disagrees with the policy of the Isreali government: the ruling elites of a society speak for that entire society, in the minds of writers like these, so any distinction between a government (and the elite powers it serves) and the general popuation is not to be drawn.
Ideed, a craven and boggle-minded adoration of power permeates that kind of writing -- you can almost see the snappy salute and hear the marching of the jackboots in the cadence of the prose. Writers like the author of that article are gloating, pure and simple, at unfettered American power, and indulging in cheap-shot name-calling ("victimhood;" equating opposition to Israeli govt. policies with "anti-Semitism," etc.) at anyone who is presumptuous enough to resent the rise of an international imperialist monolith that can run roughshod over everything and everyone in its way that does not dance to its tune. "We win! You lose!" Is this what the author's vaunted "American civilization" is supposed to be about?
"We" who love our power are "good"; "they" who resent and oppose our power are ungrateful and "bad". The adoration of state power and global domination that runs through articles such as this makes one wonder how sincere the writers really are in their denunciation of historical figures such as Stalin, Hitler, et al.
As for America pulling France out of the fire in WW II -- yes, America played a vital part in pulling France out of the fire in WWII. But guess what : Many, many more more Russian soldiers died defending Europe, than did American soldiers; had it not been for the Soviet army, France would probably not have been liberated. Our boys didn't do it alone. That's a bit of history they kind of forget to teach in most of our schools these days.
Actually, I've seen excerpts from that article before. I can't say for sure, but I think it might have been written by either Andrew Sullivan or Charles Krauthammer -- two columnists whose chest-beating glee over the possibility of a U.S. with utterly no constraints on its ability to be a bullying 500-pound gorilla in the world is perversely admirable for its blatant and unapologetic honesty. I'll give them credit for not pulling their punches.
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
HUAC revisited
The personalist attacks were bad enough; the implications that opponents of the war were somehow "pro-Saddam" or "pro-terrorist" were worse.
I've tried to make all of my statements here in the spirit of civilized, if often passionate, discourse: no ad hominem attacks, no ill will directed toward anyone personally, no accusations that anyone might have hidden agenas, no "if you're not with me, then you're against me" generalizations or bromides. [I do see agendas on the part of editorialists such as Sullivan and Krauthammer, and I said so bluntly -- but I was also very careful to distinguish the writer(s) of that article from the person who posted it here as a think piece.] To the extent that I've failed in this, it's been a failure of style and not intent ("half my fault and half the atmosphere," perhaps.)
But now a line has been crossed. The ugly and reprehensible tactic of red-baiting, carrying as it does the obscene whiff of the repressive 50s-era kangaroo-court McCarthyite movement in the U.S., creates an atmosphere of hate and paranoia which I, personally, cannot breathe. I thank you, I thank you for doing your duty, you keepers of truth, you guardians of beauty.
It's time for me to "try the handle of the road" and head out for less-polluted realms. I hereby take leave of this forum, sadly but with no other choice.
I've tried to make all of my statements here in the spirit of civilized, if often passionate, discourse: no ad hominem attacks, no ill will directed toward anyone personally, no accusations that anyone might have hidden agenas, no "if you're not with me, then you're against me" generalizations or bromides. [I do see agendas on the part of editorialists such as Sullivan and Krauthammer, and I said so bluntly -- but I was also very careful to distinguish the writer(s) of that article from the person who posted it here as a think piece.] To the extent that I've failed in this, it's been a failure of style and not intent ("half my fault and half the atmosphere," perhaps.)
But now a line has been crossed. The ugly and reprehensible tactic of red-baiting, carrying as it does the obscene whiff of the repressive 50s-era kangaroo-court McCarthyite movement in the U.S., creates an atmosphere of hate and paranoia which I, personally, cannot breathe. I thank you, I thank you for doing your duty, you keepers of truth, you guardians of beauty.
It's time for me to "try the handle of the road" and head out for less-polluted realms. I hereby take leave of this forum, sadly but with no other choice.
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
Dear David ~
Perhaps you'll read this before you go, perhaps you've already gone and won't. Your voice is a strong, clear one that relates in well-reasoned and friendly fashion. You bend over backwards to ensure that you do not offend. Your skills in that area are remarkable and exemplary. What seems to me to be happening is name-calling directed at some of those [and in this case, clearly and unscrupulously, at you] with strong feelings against this war and the courage to express them. The pervasive undercurrent that surfaces just long enough to throw an ugly word or accusation, but contribute nothing in the way of intelligent discussion does not merit your taking leave. I sincerely hope you'll stay. Your worth here is immeasurable, in these matters, as well as matters of Leonard and simply who you are as a person.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth
Perhaps you'll read this before you go, perhaps you've already gone and won't. Your voice is a strong, clear one that relates in well-reasoned and friendly fashion. You bend over backwards to ensure that you do not offend. Your skills in that area are remarkable and exemplary. What seems to me to be happening is name-calling directed at some of those [and in this case, clearly and unscrupulously, at you] with strong feelings against this war and the courage to express them. The pervasive undercurrent that surfaces just long enough to throw an ugly word or accusation, but contribute nothing in the way of intelligent discussion does not merit your taking leave. I sincerely hope you'll stay. Your worth here is immeasurable, in these matters, as well as matters of Leonard and simply who you are as a person.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth
David,
My Dear Sir,
You have constantly attacked capitalists and capitalism on this thread. It is your premise that the war is all about the United States Government advancing corporate monoliths is it not? And you wonder that we hear The Internationale?
It isn't red-baiting. It's calling a spade a spade. And yes, I know Oscar Wilde said that "Anyone who calls a spade a spade should be made to use one."
My Dear Sir,
You have constantly attacked capitalists and capitalism on this thread. It is your premise that the war is all about the United States Government advancing corporate monoliths is it not? And you wonder that we hear The Internationale?
It isn't red-baiting. It's calling a spade a spade. And yes, I know Oscar Wilde said that "Anyone who calls a spade a spade should be made to use one."
-
tom.d.stiller
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: ... between the lines ...
- Contact:
Dear David,
I could repeat every word lizzytysh wrote in her last post, maybe I should, because it is hard to find more adequate words for the issue at hand.
Probably this is in vain, but at least I can say I tried:
Tom
I could repeat every word lizzytysh wrote in her last post, maybe I should, because it is hard to find more adequate words for the issue at hand.
Probably this is in vain, but at least I can say I tried:
Please come back.Why don't you come on back to the war, don't be a tourist,
why don't you come on back to the war, before it hurts us,
why don't you come on back to the war, let's all get nervous.
[...]
There is a war between the rich and poor,
a war between the man and the woman.
There is a war between the left and right,
a war between the black and white,
a war between the odd and the even.
Why don't you come on back to the war, pick up your tiny burden,
why don't you come on back to the war, let's all get even,
why don't you come on back to the war, can't you hear me speaking?
Tom
-
tom.d.stiller
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: ... between the lines ...
- Contact:
NEHOC (which is Cohen in reverse, which is Leonard's spirit turned upside down),
Throwing dirt at those who dare venture a different opinion has a certain tradition. Labelling as communism what hasn't got anything to do with it has a tradition, too. If you knew a little bit more about Communism than your rather John-Birchy textbooks provide, you would reject the thought of calling David a communist; if you knew "The Internationale" you wouldn't hear it. If you had read David's posts instead of your own prejudice, you'd never say anything like that.
Even the "Wall Street Journal", not exactly the American Edition of "Prawda", knows that there is something like corporate interest. But you prefer to ignore this elementary fact. If you had but eyes to see, and ears to hear, if you were capable of analyzing a position, or a thought, or an opinion, before you start launching verbal missiles from McCarthy's arsenal, I should redirect your attention to the many articles already posted in this thread, but I gave up the hope of making those see who are blind because they want to be.
True, there is free speech here, and I'd fight for your right to venture an opinion. When will I read your opinion? Why don't you try to share your views instead of your prejudiced invectives?
Cheers from an angry Tom
BTW: Since you forgot to insult me personally, I'm waiting for your forgiveness plea.
Throwing dirt at those who dare venture a different opinion has a certain tradition. Labelling as communism what hasn't got anything to do with it has a tradition, too. If you knew a little bit more about Communism than your rather John-Birchy textbooks provide, you would reject the thought of calling David a communist; if you knew "The Internationale" you wouldn't hear it. If you had read David's posts instead of your own prejudice, you'd never say anything like that.
Even the "Wall Street Journal", not exactly the American Edition of "Prawda", knows that there is something like corporate interest. But you prefer to ignore this elementary fact. If you had but eyes to see, and ears to hear, if you were capable of analyzing a position, or a thought, or an opinion, before you start launching verbal missiles from McCarthy's arsenal, I should redirect your attention to the many articles already posted in this thread, but I gave up the hope of making those see who are blind because they want to be.
True, there is free speech here, and I'd fight for your right to venture an opinion. When will I read your opinion? Why don't you try to share your views instead of your prejudiced invectives?
Cheers from an angry Tom
BTW: Since you forgot to insult me personally, I'm waiting for your forgiveness plea.
-
tom.d.stiller
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: ... between the lines ...
- Contact:
I know there are many people who posted to this thread who are pro-War for their own reasons, and I'm sure at least some of them won't like the way dirt has been thrown in the last few days.
My suggestion is: some of the pro-War people might call those to reason who abuse the present discussion and who mob for a general revenge on all opposition. Those aren't really your friends, even though they might seem to stand for the same position. I don't think they are.
And I'm still not willing to believe that those who with a reason and after giving thought to it decided to support the War are all happy with what some try to do now.
With some of you I had my share of diagreement, but I always felt that there was mutual respect. I'm clearly missing this minimum requirement in some of the last posts.
Tom
My suggestion is: some of the pro-War people might call those to reason who abuse the present discussion and who mob for a general revenge on all opposition. Those aren't really your friends, even though they might seem to stand for the same position. I don't think they are.
And I'm still not willing to believe that those who with a reason and after giving thought to it decided to support the War are all happy with what some try to do now.
With some of you I had my share of diagreement, but I always felt that there was mutual respect. I'm clearly missing this minimum requirement in some of the last posts.
Tom
Tom D - I have to be honest the insult has gone totally over my head I think it is more an American insult that a British one.
However it has certainly rattled a few cages so it must be very insulting. I would like to add my support to David (not because he needs it because he doesn't) but just because I feel he has been honest and passionate in his feelings and opinions and I have a lot of respect for someone like that even if I disagree with what they say. It will be a loss to us all if he does decide to go.
I am hoping he stays I still have a few more arguments I would like to have with him
However it has certainly rattled a few cages so it must be very insulting. I would like to add my support to David (not because he needs it because he doesn't) but just because I feel he has been honest and passionate in his feelings and opinions and I have a lot of respect for someone like that even if I disagree with what they say. It will be a loss to us all if he does decide to go.
I am hoping he stays I still have a few more arguments I would like to have with him