hell bent on war

vern.silver · Post by **vern.silver** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 12:05 pm

My own two cents worth;

1. Vietnam was mentioned and Ho Chi Minh compared to Hitler:

More than 20 years ago I read a history about Viet Nam and the war- it may be of interest that Ho Chi Mihn was a US ally in World War Two against the Japanese. He and the Vietnamese people were promised that after the war, Vietnam would be returned to Vietnamese control. However, it being a French Colony, during the division of the 'spoils' after the war, it was returned to france. Ho Chi Mihn was not a communist at the time, but after the 'west' refused to aid them, he turned to support where he could find it. One wonders if promises had been kept if 50,000 americans need have given their lives.

2. After watching a movie called 'Cuba' starring Sean Connery on Canadian History television, one of the panelists in the discussion which followed noted that the first country to recognize Castro's cuba was the USA. When he subsequebtly went looking for aid, The US then turned it's back on them. Again, Castro turned for support where he could find it and the Soviet Union stepped in. 50 years later, embargo's still exist. If you work for a Canadian company who trades with Cuba you are banned from entering the USA. Recently, a Canadian who worked for a Canadian subsudiary of a US company that traded with Cuba was imprisoned in the US when a promotion caused him to move to the US. It is not illegal for Canadian companies to trade with cuba.

After 50 years, the US still has sanctions against Cuba. In less than 30 years trade with Vietnam are normalizing. The difference? In Cuba, Castro nationalized many businesses owned by US businessmen.

3. The US as a land of Democracy and Free speach:

Tell that to Susan Sontag, Bill Maher and all the others who had questions or oppsong views about 9/11 and why it happened. Also anyone one who speaks out against the war against Iraq. We saw it in this thread with one of the responses being that the US should pull back and defend itself and forget about everyone else.

Great! and at the same time Pull back thier corporations bent on 'Globalization' which is more about taking advantage of the poverty, poor labour/health and safety/environmental laws, and corrupt governments of other nations than about spreading democracy and freedom. Globalization is about a cheap labour market - nothing more!

4. Anti-proliferation and disarmament:

It seems much of the concern regarding the 'arms' race is at preventing those nations who do not have 'weapons of mass destruction' from having them while those that do seem to have no problem 'proliferating'. Whether it's smart bombs, cruise missles 'star wars' whatever. Which country is the largest distributer of arms/armaments/chemical and biological agents? Is it a matter of keeping power?

5. The unilateral right to strike first:

President Bush has stated that a nation should have the unilateral right to strike first at any nation they believe is an imminent threat. He of course was refering to his 'axis of evil' and it was a popular view in the grim days after 9/11. But think what that means. With the call for war against Iraq, following Bush's doctrine, wouldn't iraq be justified in 'attacking' the US or any ally premptively (if it could)?

6. The rush to War:

The need to go to war to disarm Iraq may come. After all, the disarmament was part of the terms that Iraq agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. But why the rush? Sure, there is the argument that at some point, the UN resolutions must be upheld or they mean nothing. It's been almost 11 years - so why will a few more months make that much difference when there is still a chance that a peaceful resolution may be found. The US cannot be afraid that the Iraqi's are building up arms to defend itself against an attack - if this was happening they would know it and use it to push for war.

Could it be that there is a US presidential election in 2004? We know how easily Bush won the last election.

The US is THE global power. As the Most Powerful Country in the world, it needs to show more restraint and more tolerance for the views of others and other nations. Regarding countries that oppose it's rush to war as uninformed, duped, or an enemy ('those not with are against us') is wrong. Especially for a Nation that touts democracy and free speach as a fundamental right and as champions of the same.

Let us hope that this is not a country simply scraming out for revenge picking an easy target because the one they were after has gotten away from them.

One last point. I recommend seeing "Bowling For Columbine' by Michael Moore.

Vern

margaret · Post by **margaret** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 2:02 am

vern.silver,

Just had to let you know I agree with your comments. Perceptions of recent history are always coloured by the accounts recorded invariably by the victors. Our western version of so-called civilisation may not be the best or the only way.

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:28 am

Vern ~ I'm impressed by the way you outlined and supported your points. As you probably know, I also agree with them. Listening to former-U.S. President Jimmy Carter on N.P.R. this morning, I heard him say that he has foundations[?] in 65 countries worldwide and he has found through his work with them, that the period we are in now has the greatest anti-American-government sentiment in his lifetime. I've heard a lot about Bowling for Columbine. We are also as great of victims of propaganda as the citizens of any country we're dealing with. The closing comment spoken by Carter [can't recall if it originated with him, or if he was quoting someone ~ I was trying to listen and finish getting ready for work] was to the effect of, "We can never achieve peace by killing each other's children." By killing each other's children.

~ Lizzytysh

elazar · Post by **elazar** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:28 am

dear vern,
i think forieign ~as well as national~policy is a delicate art.
to master it is to be a successfull president,who leads the nation with
a vision.these have been few and far between,and some of the points you
mention reflect this.
thats all i have to say.i´ve heard it all before.so have you.(heard all i would say.)

margeret,when thomas jefferson wrote the constitution,"the land of opprotunity"was that to only the white,wealthy,males.we are on the right path,i believe,having come so far.

saluté
elazar

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 6:16 am

That's a good point, elazar. Ask the chattel and suffragettes.

Andrew McGeever · Post by **Andrew McGeever** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:02 pm

Dear Eeey,
If my recent post on the "Hell-bent On War" string was "piffle"(sic), how would you categorise the subsequent posts (e.g. that from vern-silver)?
Re "piffle", as far as I'm aware it's origin is unknown, at least according to the Chambers Dictionary. Such words have a fascination for me: "hobo","conundrum" and "contraption" have all been employed in my writing, but I'll keep "piffle" in my vocabulary book for now.

Vous etes fort en traduction de Francais en Anglais.

Andrew.

Byron · Post by **Byron** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:27 pm

piffle n. & v. colloq. n. nonsense; empty speech.
v. intr. talk or act feebly; trifle.
piffler n. {imitative}
'The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English'
Ninth Edition
Clarendon Press . Oxford
1995
pp 1034

I get the feeling that praise is not on the menu?

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:54 pm

I didn't like the way it was applied, but the word itself I thought was pretty cool. Had to look it up, as I'd never heard it, and it had an onomatopeia sound. I was surprized to find it was a legit word, and thought the same as Andrew did, [that I'd try] to remember it for possible use later.....has a rather gentle sound for an insult, if one feels compelled to do so. A pacifist's dream

and not even a 50 cent-er.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 4:14 pm

I thought piffle was a word that everyone knew. Hasn't anyone ever said to you "that is complete and utter piffle". It could just be me.

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 am

Nope. It could be a British thing, too....don't know. All I know is that it was a first for me.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:26 am

What about drivel. Have you heard that word. i.e. "you are talking complete drivel".

We seem to have quite a nice selection of words for rubbish.

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 1:09 am

~ true, we do.....perhaps because there are so many varieties of it in our worlds. Yes, drivel I do know.

linmag · Post by **linmag** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 3:35 am

I like the word piffle. It's satisfyingly explosive, very good for venting one's feelings. I didn't think it was very much in use nowadays, though. It always makes me think of choleric edwardian gentlemen, a bit like balderdash. I'm delighted to see that it still has a loyal following.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:28 pm

Balderdash is a beautiful word Linmag - I know what you mean about piffle you can just see a rotund gentleman with a handlebar moustache coughing gently as he spits the word out.

Gobbledegook is another beautiful word.

My favourite word of all time when I was a kid was Etiopia. I loved the sound that word made.

elazar · Post by **elazar** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 2:48 am

piffle!
the word hugs the teeth and rolls off the tongue as it roams into the air.followed by a respective silence.pondering,then a shake.oookkaayy!

my favorite word is rendezvous.

saluté
elazar