Vern you stated that people are dying right now because of the war in Iraq. Its true and it is very sad. Any loving and feeling person should have this view. However one has to bare in mind that people have been dieng for more than 15 years because of Saddam. He has been killing any possible thread to his regime, he has been killing woman, children and men for years, and those who have not been killed have been living in terror and angst every possible day.
The oil for food agreement, Saddam has used for his own welth not for the people.
People die right now. If we did not go to war against this dictator, thousands would die, murdered, in Iraq anyway each year, as they have been. The difference is that those who díe now do so, so that the people of Iraq can get their country and freedom back, the ones that would die without the war would do so, so that saddam could stay in power. To me that is an important difference.
Peter
hell bent on war
-
peter danielsen
- Posts: 921
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 3:45 pm
Dear Vern and tom.d.stiller ~
Thank you for your affirmations on the nature of the exchanges on this thread. The points you make about the outgrowths of debate and discussion couldn't be said any better. There are certain segments of the population, with whom platitudes and catchy terms and phrases work very well in forming public opinion. The administration and the media rely on them. There are so many things I want to say and respond to in your posts, but can't due to the amount of time I have today. Although it is not the final determining factor of who we are and become, I feel that our personal backgrounds play an undeniable part of how we view the world. I know that all teachers do not raise their families as mine did, nor that teachers are the only ones who do raise their families as mine did. As a "relatively" brief synopsis of my own background, which relates to this thread and forms the personal, historical context out of which I speak:
Discussion and views were held precious in my home, as well, Vern. From a family of four, both my parents were school teachers who valued travel, and getting to know other people and their customs/mores/politics/whatever were prioritized high above material belongings and trappings. We were the last on our block to get a TV. Our car was a red, Nash Rambler ~ a small, but well-constructed, economical station wagon that served travel well ~ for many years, long past others getting newer and "better" cars. With three months off every summer, when decisions were made regarding vacations, we got out maps and encyclopedias, and each presented our destination of choice and the reasons for it. Then we took a family vote, each one counting the same as the next. It created a strong sense of feeling one's autonomy in the ever-expanding childhood world, as well as reasoning, negotiation, and compromise. Teacher's salaries have never been sufficient to their job, and are low in comparison to other professionals. Travel was funded by "sacrifices" in other areas. We tented in campgrounds, remote areas, and occasionally someone's backyard. We picked up a Mexico-borne hitchhiker [the prospect of doing that in those days much safer], who ended up traveling with us and showing us "hidden" aspects of his native land, until we dropped him off at his destination.
They ultimately traveled to many countries, Russia three times, when Russia was considered the nemesis of the United States. As a family, we traveled to all of the 50 states, except Alaska and Alabama, the latter I caught up with later. Several years after I graduated, I went on one "Around the World" tour with them, traveling to a variety of countries. I am always open to discussion, even on issues where I may feel personally uncomfortable. With regard to people in other areas, and the politics determing their lives, my interest only deepens.
I find it more than a little significant that, prior to taking office, George W. Bush had never traveled once, anywhere abroad. This is a man from a family who could well have funded his travel, and whose own "allowance" and/or earnings could have easily funded the same. The implicit and explicit message in this has to do with the obvious manifestation [and lack, thereof] of priorities and where this man's interests lie [and now lie].
A couple things I find significant that I heard on the radio [NPR, as always, in that I don't get BBC] this morning were:
(1) The ex-post-facto [in that I already knew] confirmation that the war in Iraq is an undeniable economic opportunity for a number of U.S. companies, "after" the war.
(2) The administration confirming that even if Saddam is dead, the mission would not change......[when the mission is supposedly regime change].
(3) "Even 'smart' bombs can be dumbly directed." There are unconfirmed reports this morning of one "straying" into Iran. Who knows how "accidental" this really may have been?
Along with what you've already noted, Vern, regarding the alleged 40 countries now publicly in support, is that a number of them receive U.S. aid. NPR's broadcasters spoke about this a couple days ago, as to how there were those who were saying nothing publicly, and who allegedly supported the U.S. silently, waiting to see what the U.S. would end up doing, how it was faring, and how the other countries would respond. Then, and only then, would they jump on the bandwagon publicly [not wanting to stop the aid from coming]. This reminds me of my own personal stance regarding friendship. If you're going to be one, you need to be one no matter who is around. If you ignore me, slam me, change your friendliness according to who is present from one time to the next, or say nothing in the face of controversy, don't expect to come to me behind the scenes and expect your words of support to have much merit.
As I read through your two long entries, Vern, from the Reality Check people, they reenforced a number of my beliefs, one of which is that the humanitarian outcomes of this war will be only "collateral gain" [my phrase], that will work well with the media blitz that is sure to accompany and follow. To fawn concerns over the welfare of the Iraqi people, when the U.S. government is the one who has been imposing life-robbing sanctions for 12 years, is akin to the abusive mate, who beats his partner to a bloodied pulp and then cries, apologizes, carries them to the hospital for treatment, and acts ignorant and innocent in the presence of hospital personnel's questioning. Your inclusion of this, which encapsulates much of the dishonesty surrounding the humanitarian concerns:
"Q: Why has Saddam Hussein never been indicted with crimes against humanity for his well documented use of weapons of mass destruction on his own people?
A: Eric Margolis, foreign affairs analyst: Two reasons. Some of his worst crimes occurred during the 1980's and when there was no international mechanism for indicting such criminal acts and in fact the United States even today refuses to go along with a criminal court for such crimes. The other reason is that Iraq was an ally of the United States and Britain in its war against Iran. And so long as it fought Iran, the west was happy to hush up the crimes that have been committed by Saddam. And by the way I must add that the infamous gassing of the Kurds may have been done by the Iranians and not the Iraqis, so says the CIA desk chief for Iraq.
Peter Mansbridge: Most people accept the belief that it was done by Saddam Hussein himself, partly on the testimony of the people who were there at the time who survived the gas attacks.
Margolis: Well, the Kurds were caught in a battle between the Iranians and the Iraqis both of whom were using chemical weapons so it's a moot point."
*************************************************************
Regarding the blatant disregard for the U.N., etc. by the United States, a political cartoon I saw shows two people listening askancely, one with suspiciousness and the other with stunned hopelessness in their face, with the radio broadcast saying: "President Bush said today it was clear that nothing short of a complete and utter disregard of U.N. Resolutions would stop Saddam Hussein's complete and utter disregard of U.N. Resolutions." Your facts as to who are the others ~ and why ~ and what their alignments in terms of aid with the U.S. is, outlines so effectively the convoluted nature of this and other natures, and whereas, I do not condone Saddam's tactics with the people living in Iraq [some reportedly "his" and others, per political alignments, not "his" ~ and the former reportedly not being abused], I suggest the "axis of evil" undergo a significant, geographic shift.
*************************************************************
There is so much to be known about this and other wars that only the serious researchers [such as the Reality Check] will uncover. It is being focused upon by some of the commentators, commenting on the significant protests worldwide, that the protests are not intended to be pro-Saddam, but anti-Western [American] expansionism, and that it is fully and reasonably anticipated that the U.S. will not go in, free the Iraqis, and leave them to live in their new and happy, newfound democracy. With that, I refer to the above #2, "the administration confirming that even if Saddam is dead, the mission would not change......[when the mission is supposedly regime change]."
The Dylan Thomas poem, "Was There A Time" is very appropriate to all of this, Tom, and I appreciate your signature of love. Without seeming maudlin, which following my comment regarding yours could seem to some, I also sign off with
Love, to everyone,
Elizabeth
Thank you for your affirmations on the nature of the exchanges on this thread. The points you make about the outgrowths of debate and discussion couldn't be said any better. There are certain segments of the population, with whom platitudes and catchy terms and phrases work very well in forming public opinion. The administration and the media rely on them. There are so many things I want to say and respond to in your posts, but can't due to the amount of time I have today. Although it is not the final determining factor of who we are and become, I feel that our personal backgrounds play an undeniable part of how we view the world. I know that all teachers do not raise their families as mine did, nor that teachers are the only ones who do raise their families as mine did. As a "relatively" brief synopsis of my own background, which relates to this thread and forms the personal, historical context out of which I speak:
Discussion and views were held precious in my home, as well, Vern. From a family of four, both my parents were school teachers who valued travel, and getting to know other people and their customs/mores/politics/whatever were prioritized high above material belongings and trappings. We were the last on our block to get a TV. Our car was a red, Nash Rambler ~ a small, but well-constructed, economical station wagon that served travel well ~ for many years, long past others getting newer and "better" cars. With three months off every summer, when decisions were made regarding vacations, we got out maps and encyclopedias, and each presented our destination of choice and the reasons for it. Then we took a family vote, each one counting the same as the next. It created a strong sense of feeling one's autonomy in the ever-expanding childhood world, as well as reasoning, negotiation, and compromise. Teacher's salaries have never been sufficient to their job, and are low in comparison to other professionals. Travel was funded by "sacrifices" in other areas. We tented in campgrounds, remote areas, and occasionally someone's backyard. We picked up a Mexico-borne hitchhiker [the prospect of doing that in those days much safer], who ended up traveling with us and showing us "hidden" aspects of his native land, until we dropped him off at his destination.
They ultimately traveled to many countries, Russia three times, when Russia was considered the nemesis of the United States. As a family, we traveled to all of the 50 states, except Alaska and Alabama, the latter I caught up with later. Several years after I graduated, I went on one "Around the World" tour with them, traveling to a variety of countries. I am always open to discussion, even on issues where I may feel personally uncomfortable. With regard to people in other areas, and the politics determing their lives, my interest only deepens.
I find it more than a little significant that, prior to taking office, George W. Bush had never traveled once, anywhere abroad. This is a man from a family who could well have funded his travel, and whose own "allowance" and/or earnings could have easily funded the same. The implicit and explicit message in this has to do with the obvious manifestation [and lack, thereof] of priorities and where this man's interests lie [and now lie].
A couple things I find significant that I heard on the radio [NPR, as always, in that I don't get BBC] this morning were:
(1) The ex-post-facto [in that I already knew] confirmation that the war in Iraq is an undeniable economic opportunity for a number of U.S. companies, "after" the war.
(2) The administration confirming that even if Saddam is dead, the mission would not change......[when the mission is supposedly regime change].
(3) "Even 'smart' bombs can be dumbly directed." There are unconfirmed reports this morning of one "straying" into Iran. Who knows how "accidental" this really may have been?
Along with what you've already noted, Vern, regarding the alleged 40 countries now publicly in support, is that a number of them receive U.S. aid. NPR's broadcasters spoke about this a couple days ago, as to how there were those who were saying nothing publicly, and who allegedly supported the U.S. silently, waiting to see what the U.S. would end up doing, how it was faring, and how the other countries would respond. Then, and only then, would they jump on the bandwagon publicly [not wanting to stop the aid from coming]. This reminds me of my own personal stance regarding friendship. If you're going to be one, you need to be one no matter who is around. If you ignore me, slam me, change your friendliness according to who is present from one time to the next, or say nothing in the face of controversy, don't expect to come to me behind the scenes and expect your words of support to have much merit.
As I read through your two long entries, Vern, from the Reality Check people, they reenforced a number of my beliefs, one of which is that the humanitarian outcomes of this war will be only "collateral gain" [my phrase], that will work well with the media blitz that is sure to accompany and follow. To fawn concerns over the welfare of the Iraqi people, when the U.S. government is the one who has been imposing life-robbing sanctions for 12 years, is akin to the abusive mate, who beats his partner to a bloodied pulp and then cries, apologizes, carries them to the hospital for treatment, and acts ignorant and innocent in the presence of hospital personnel's questioning. Your inclusion of this, which encapsulates much of the dishonesty surrounding the humanitarian concerns:
"Q: Why has Saddam Hussein never been indicted with crimes against humanity for his well documented use of weapons of mass destruction on his own people?
A: Eric Margolis, foreign affairs analyst: Two reasons. Some of his worst crimes occurred during the 1980's and when there was no international mechanism for indicting such criminal acts and in fact the United States even today refuses to go along with a criminal court for such crimes. The other reason is that Iraq was an ally of the United States and Britain in its war against Iran. And so long as it fought Iran, the west was happy to hush up the crimes that have been committed by Saddam. And by the way I must add that the infamous gassing of the Kurds may have been done by the Iranians and not the Iraqis, so says the CIA desk chief for Iraq.
Peter Mansbridge: Most people accept the belief that it was done by Saddam Hussein himself, partly on the testimony of the people who were there at the time who survived the gas attacks.
Margolis: Well, the Kurds were caught in a battle between the Iranians and the Iraqis both of whom were using chemical weapons so it's a moot point."
*************************************************************
Regarding the blatant disregard for the U.N., etc. by the United States, a political cartoon I saw shows two people listening askancely, one with suspiciousness and the other with stunned hopelessness in their face, with the radio broadcast saying: "President Bush said today it was clear that nothing short of a complete and utter disregard of U.N. Resolutions would stop Saddam Hussein's complete and utter disregard of U.N. Resolutions." Your facts as to who are the others ~ and why ~ and what their alignments in terms of aid with the U.S. is, outlines so effectively the convoluted nature of this and other natures, and whereas, I do not condone Saddam's tactics with the people living in Iraq [some reportedly "his" and others, per political alignments, not "his" ~ and the former reportedly not being abused], I suggest the "axis of evil" undergo a significant, geographic shift.
*************************************************************
There is so much to be known about this and other wars that only the serious researchers [such as the Reality Check] will uncover. It is being focused upon by some of the commentators, commenting on the significant protests worldwide, that the protests are not intended to be pro-Saddam, but anti-Western [American] expansionism, and that it is fully and reasonably anticipated that the U.S. will not go in, free the Iraqis, and leave them to live in their new and happy, newfound democracy. With that, I refer to the above #2, "the administration confirming that even if Saddam is dead, the mission would not change......[when the mission is supposedly regime change]."
The Dylan Thomas poem, "Was There A Time" is very appropriate to all of this, Tom, and I appreciate your signature of love. Without seeming maudlin, which following my comment regarding yours could seem to some, I also sign off with
Love, to everyone,
Elizabeth
-
Sore Loser
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 4:05 am
-
Sore Loser
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 4:05 am
-
Byron
- Posts: 3171
- Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:01 pm
- Location: Mad House, Eating Tablets, Cereals, Jam, Marmalade and HONEY, with Albert
Sore Loser, if you believe we'll believe what you believe when what you believe is what you say others believe then you'll believe anything as well! If I believe what you say you believe that others believe then I'll believe anything as well. In other words Sore Loser, you're talking as much rubbish as I've just written. If you want me to believe what you believe then you'll have to do a hell of a lot better than that.
