|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
Dubya's Holy War | from Arminius - Sunday, August 01, 2004
accessed 2467 times Dubya’s Holy War
By Mike Hess
http://politics.hesswebdesign.com/
8/1/2004
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. “ - Theodore Roosevelt
It seems every time the TV is turned on there are images of Arab extremists blowing up soldiers in Iraq. Not many “News” organizations question why are U.S. troops over there in the first place, why they are still there, the actions they are committing there, and most importantly… who sent them there?
George “Dubya” Bush argued we were going into Iraq to remove Weapons of Mass Destruction from the hands of a mass murderer. Not many deny Saddam once sought and had WMD, but many dispute whether he still had them at the start of “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. One thing is for sure the only people who have used Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq during “Operation Iraqi Freedom” are the coalition forces. American and British forces have been using Depleted Uranium (DU) shells in “Operation Iraqi Freedom”.
It seems that the coalition is flouting the United Nations resolution, which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction. Depleted Uranium is capable of contaminating land, causing ill-health and cancer among soldiers using the DU shells, the targets being hit by DU shells, and civilians near spent shells, leading to birth defects. It is strange to say you are going to bring liberation to a people, but then proceed to contaminate their country with Weapons of Mass Destruction you said you were going to remove. U.N. weapons inspectors didn’t believe there were any weapons of mass destruction, and some of the U.S.’s own intelligence sources believed that Saddam was not a risk to the U.S. and did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction. So if Weapons of Mass Destruction weren’t the reason, what was?
Maybe it was Iraqi Liberation? Most likely not, Bush senior turned his back on the Kurdish when they revolted (after being told they would receive U.S. military support), but sadly, Bush senior back out, and Saddam massacred thousands of Kurds, and thousands more fled to other countries. So was Dubya planning to fix this problem? Most likely not. He says he has installed a democratic government in Iraq and is helping rebuild Iraq. There is neither a democratic government in Iraq, nor has anything been even close to the organized and stabilized level it was when Saddam was in power.
It seems the only things that get constant attention are things related to oil production. Power plants that were damaged in Iraq have still not been rebuilt. People get a few hours of power a day, not even enough for the bare necessities of a “modern country” the U.S. is suppose to be shaping. When Saddam was in power, Iraq had some of the most equality for women in the Middle East. However, with the arrival of coalition troops and the Coalition Provisional Authority and now the new Iraqi government, they have been under a de facto house arrest, afraid to leave the house. So much for “Liberation”? Only time will tell.
So if it wasn’t liberation or Weapons of Mass Destruction, what was it?
Many believe it was for oil, but the support of this is minimal but rational. The vice President Dick Cheney still has close ties to Halliburton and other companies, and Bush has deep connections in the oil industry. However, the president doesn’t seem to have much say in how the contracts are awarded. The evidence is weak at best to say Bush attacked Iraq for oil. It makes much more sense that many other high government officials backed the war for that reason though; people like Cheney would prosper from an occupation of an oil rich country. Bush’s owns reasons for war may lay much deeper than that. So if it wasn’t oil, liberation, or Weapons of Mass Destruction, what was it?
Dubya has said he was instructed by God to strike at Saddam. "God told me to strike at Al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.” At a private meeting with an Amish group, reported by the Lancaster New Era, he said: "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job." This is eerily reminiscent of what Hitler said decades earlier: "I am convinced that I am acting as an agent of our Creator. I am doing the Lord's work.”
Bush believes the world is black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. He seems to ignore the rest of the world and its “grayness.” In his own speeches Bush talked about “crusades” and “infinite justice”, “evil doers” and “axis of evil”. He finally finalized it with “You are either with us or against us”. Bush isolated many of his own citizens because of this. Often times he ignored his own cabinet and intelligence agencies unless they told him what he wanted to hear.
He is not waging a war on terror; he attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and willingly used the misinformed populace to further his own political agenda instead of coming clean saying that there was no evidence to link Iraq to 9/11. Dubya ignored the worldwide community, creating rifts in long standing alliances with other countries. Creating these rifts makes the United States weaker, and if they continue to grow bigger the U.S. will be fighting a war alone, a war that cannot be won alone, the true war on terror. So his mentality has been figured out, but where did the idea of Iraq being evil and a threat to the U.S. come from?
This is something only Dubya himself can answer, however it seems logical for that Bush Sr. may be responsible for Dubya’s hate of Iraq. Bush Sr. hated Saddam, attacked Saddam, and was targeted by Saddam for assassination. Bush Sr.’s hate for Saddam may have been passed to Dubya, who wanted to follow in his fathers footsteps and wanted to be as good, and possibly better, than his father. Dubya went to some of the same schools, joined some of the same aristocratic “secret” societies, and worked with some of his father’s old business partners. So now that the information that possibly drove him to attack Iraq and his mentality came from, what can be done to stop him?
How does one stop a madman? The U.S. is lucky enough to have a republic system that usually works. If the overwhelming majority does not want an official as president, the Electoral College should reflect that majority. It is most likely that blood will continue to be shed by Dubya if he is not stopped in the next election, and imagine what he could do without having to fear another election. The world has seen what a man can do when believing he is on a crusade and is no longer questioned, you have only to look at Hitler. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from must see
Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 10:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7516705476148472744&q=alex+jones+documentary+duration%3Along+is%3Afree
(reply to this comment)
| from
Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 07:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Great you hate G.W. Bush and the U.S.A and you think the war was a mistake. now all you need to do is strap a bomb to your self and kill some of our boys so you can "bring them home". your not American stop writing about things you know nothing about.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Lance
Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 03:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
I freely admit that I was naively for this war when it first set out(Much to the abhorrence of Joe H.). Content in my own thirst for patriotic blood to be spilled; thinking that this war had something to do with freedom.
Now I know that you can not force freedom upon people starring into a double barreled shotgun.
Thus far 30,000 Iraqi civilians and 2000 brave American soldiers have lost their lives while oil companies have profited with record breaking quarterly earnings.
Halliburton is making mince meat of fine American soldiers, and destroying the credibility of my great nation all around the world.
This wanton corruption must end! And it must end soon! For the first time since this war started both democrats and republicans are asking the same important questions that should have been asked all along, and Bush is finally be revealed as the true psychopath that he is.
Something must come of this war besides bloodshed.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Baxter
Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 07:58
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I know this is totally off, but I don't think that DU shells can be classified as WMDs. Illegal munitions, yes; they may spread radiation, however this is not their purpose. They were used in the war simply because they are the most effective penetrative shells anywhere. Cluster bombs are ultimately more destructive and indiscriminate than DU shells. Pardon me for splitting hairs; also if the UN does indeed classify them as WMDs.
(reply to this comment)
| from Shackled
Monday, August 02, 2004 - 22:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Saddam massacreing Kurds is not Bush SR's fault. They each made their decisions so to use the argument of Bush SR's actions causing atrocities is flawed.
You wrote: "There is neither a democratic government in Iraq, nor has anything been even close to the organized and stabilized level it was when Saddam was in power."
"Organized and stabilized" as in running a dictatorship and torturing it's athletes for failing to win a gold medal? You really think 1 month is enough time to stabilize a government in a country coming out of war? This is also in reply to your argument of power plants not supplying enough electricity and equality for women. You say, "The US is suppose to be shaping". I say the US is shaping. It takes time to fight a war and even longer to rebuild. And who said the war on terror only means those responsible for 9/11. Isn't terror terror? If a country is deemed a threat of terror then I'd include it in the war on terror.
To a pacifist I say show me where this utopia lies. Don't just preach ideals that sound good to the ear but don't face up to reality. Call me whatever you want but I will back the man that enables me to live a life with choices. It's up to each individual to take use of that freedom. Before you condemn the US of being a bully remember that there will always be a world power. Would you prefer China? How can you accept the benefits your government provides when you are appalled by the actions of it. To me a pacifist likes the ideals and dreamy lifestyle and will also accept the benefits of it's current government while all along opposing them in words. You might call those who sacrifice their lives in service to this government brainwashed yet you forgot that without them you'd be serving someone far worse. The US keeps it's enemies in check by military strength. Why is that wrong? Would you prefer to lose a war and be anothers bitch?
(reply to this comment)
| from Shaka
Monday, August 02, 2004 - 18:58
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Just thought it was interesting what Nietzsche had to say about war.
From "Thus Spoke Zarathustra: On War and Warriors"
We do not want to be spared by our best enemies, nor by those whom we love thoroughly. So let me tell you the truth! My brothers in war, I love you thoroughly; I am and I was of your kind. And I am also your best enemy. So let me tell you the truth!
I know the hatred and envy of your hearts. You are not great enough not to know hatred and envy. Be great enough, then, not to be ashamed of them. And if you cannot be saints of knowledge, at least be it's warriors. They are the companions and forerunners of such sainthood.
I see many soldiers: would that I saw many warriors! "Uniform" one calls what they wear: would that what it conceals were not uniform!
You should have eyes that always seek an enemy- your enemy. And some of you hate at first sight . Your enemy you shall seek, your war you shall wage- for your thoughts. And if your thought be vanquished, then your honesty should still find cause for triumph in that. You should love peace as a means to new wars- and the short peace more than the long. To you I do not recommend work but struggle. To you I do not recommend peace but victory. Let your work be a struggle. Let your peace be a victory! One can be silent and sit still only when one has bow and arrow: else one chatters and quarrels. Let your peace be a victory!
You say it is the good cause that hallows even war? I say unto you: it is the good war that hallows any cause. War and courage have accomplished more great things than the love of the neighbor. Not your pity but your courage has so far saved the unfortunate.
"What is good?" you ask. To be brave is good. Let the little girls say, "To be good is what is at the same time pretty and touching."
They call you heartless: but you have a heart, and I love you for being ashamed to show it. You are ashamed of your flood, while others are ashamed of their ebb.
You are ugly? Well then, my brothers, wrap the sublime around you, the cloak of the ugly. And when your soul becomes great, then it becomes prankish; and is your sublimity there is sarcasm. I know you. In sarcasm the prankster and the weakling meet. But they misunderstand each other. I know you. You may have only enemies whom you can only hate, not enemies you despise. You must be proud of your enemy: then the successes of your enemy are your successes too.
Recalcitrance- that is the nobility of slaves. Your nobility should be obedience. Your very commanding should be an obeying. To be a good warrior "thou shalt" sounds more agreeable than "I will". And everything you like you should first let yourself be commanded to do.
Your love of life shall be love of your highest hope; and your highest hope shall be the highest thought of life. Your highest thought, however, you should recieve as a command from me- and it is: man is something that shall be overcome.
Thus live your life of obedience and war. What matters long life? What warrior wants to be spared?
I do not spare you; I love you thoroughly, my brothers in war!
Thus spoke Zarathustra.
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From Baxter
Tuesday, August 10, 2004, 21:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
I personally love this particular segment of Neitzche. But your posting it here might say something about you, Shaka, that you were previously unwilling to admit.
'You say it is the good cause that hallows every war? I say it is the good war that hallows every cause'
I think you, like a lot of us, aren't really too concerned about the cause you fight for; you just want to get in the fight. You shouldn't feel moved by the moral condemnations of others to furnish yourself with moral justification. Neitzche focused much of his literary work arguing against this very thing. You fight for what you want to fight for, not because you necessarily need to believe in it, but because you seek your own conflict.
This probably sounds totally patronising, and if so I apologise. I just think that the notion of soldiers requiring a political standpoint is and has always been a little absurd. take whatever standpoint you wish, but remember that you fight because you yourself wish it, not for someone else's cause.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Shaka
Tuesday, August 10, 2004, 22:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
In most cases you would be right. But in this particular one I would say that is not true. It's true that I am not adverse to war, in fact there was a time before this all started when I was dying to go fight just to kick some ass. But over the last few years I have developed a particular loathing for many of the denizens of the Middle East and what they stand for. I admit that even if there had been no cause whatsoever for war I would still be signing up. But I do have very strong feelings on the subject of the majority of Arabs/Muslims in the world as anyone who knows me personally can attest to. I frequently annoy the people around me when I turn on the news and start screaming at the headlines when the Middle East is involved (heh heh, sorry guys, can't help it). But like you said though, I don't require a political standpoint to fight. I guess it's just an added incentive that I happen to agree with this one.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Monday, August 02, 2004, 21:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Until the 18th century it was generally accepted that war was a way of life, and attacking another country for profit was not deemed immoral. This thought pattern seems to prevail in underdeveloped countries, whereas the general consensus in civilized countries is: profit alone is not reason enough to waste lives. Governments of civilized countries generally have to think up reasons that aren’t related to profit to get their population psyched up about war.
I believe the change of attitude is an improvement, similar to the change of attitude about women (before the 19th century they had very few rights) and a host of other mentality changes that have come about with progress.(reply to this comment) |
| | From anovagrrl
Tuesday, August 03, 2004, 06:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
There's a part of me (the idealist) that agrees with your analysis and conclusion, and there's another part of me (the realist) who says, "Drop the pretenses and convoluted rationalizations. Empires such as the U.S. fight wars when our economic survival and strategic interests are at stake, and that's a good enough reason."
"Economic survival" is a slightly different spin on "war for profit," but the bottom line is essentially the same: exploitable resources, whether it be land & potable water or sources of energy (oil, cheap labor) are worth fighting and dying for IF one perceives access to these resources and the production of profits as being critical to one's national survival and "way of life". "Fighting for freedom" isn't simply a case of assuring some form of elected government; it is fundamentally about assuring access to free markets.
The perception that free markets (and the profits they generate) are necessary for survival are, of course, a debatable point, but the very fact that we can sit here and have this electronically-facilitated discussion with people all over the planet is largely dependent on the production of profits. For the moment, at least, the macro forces of the global social economy have trumped my ideals about peace & economic justice.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From anovagrrl
Saturday, August 07, 2004, 19:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good point, but I would counter that a high GNP isn't the only measure of prosperity, particularly if income re-distribution isn't compatible with your cultural values. Is it necessary to have a more even distribution of wealth for the poor to believe they have a significant stake in the economic future of their country? I am making the Machiavalian argument that Iraq is the first of many "oil" wars that will be fought in the next 10-15 years as the U.S. secures its hegemony over access to finite oil reserves in the face of unabated consumption. Frankly, I have had difficulty understanding why such a large segment of the working poor in the U.S. are convinced they will be more secure and prosper as a consequence of a free market in Iraq, but the fact is, many middle and low income working people in this counry believe the Anglo-American empire should be defended in this way.(reply to this comment) |
| | From pharmaboy
Tuesday, August 03, 2004, 01:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Read up on Nietzche's thoughts on morals, then Wolf, to understand what he was really saying here.
Death is necessary for the continuation of life. Wasting lives? If anything we have an overpopulation problem. Europe is an example: stiffling, decadent, old and nevrotic. War, for the sake of war, is cleansing. Nietzsche talks about the nobil war, enemies not seeing each other as "the bad guys" vs "the good guys"(in a nihilistic world those terms are meaningless, but seeing each other as both struggling for survival, the "bad" enemy is the weak enemy.
I speak from a boxers viewpoint, nothing is more exhilarating then a fight in the ring, nothing makes you feel more alive than putting all your strength against that of another man, he is not good or evil, he is just your enemy for 20 minutes. Afterwards you both respect each other more than before.
We would need a good war, just for the sake of it.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From --
Wednesday, August 04, 2004, 13:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you believe that death is neccessary to prevent over-population, then you probably would not object if, instead of killing smart trained soldiers (on either side), we killed off all diseased, retarded and old people. That would bring the numbers way down. Really, now! Is overpopulation a good excuse for war? Try some better logic.
And if in war, all that was at stake were a few little bruises and possibly a shiner or missing teeth, then yes, your simplistic comparison of war to boxing would fit the bill. But until boxing starts killing innocent people or murdering thousands of people in an instant, let's stick to comparing apples with apples, shall we?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Tuesday, August 10, 2004, 21:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
The logic which you present is based on a moral standard, and that moral standard is a human construct, based not on actual logic, but on the social-political arguments of men.
Hunter-gatherer societies for thousands of years remained small self-sufficient, self-regulating, highly mobile social units with a good standard of health and survivability because they operated on much the same principles as most other species. Their existence demanded a high level of fitness, and those that could not survive did not. this was cruel only by our own later-established human moral standards, not corroberated by the rest of nature. Conflicts were as prevalent then as they are now, but they were smaller and the technological facilities to exploit them limited.
It is only with the advent of the newly social man, the exponential growth and proliferation of technology that we see man not only furthering his capacity for destruction, but finding the necessity to impose contradictory moral constructs upon himself. In any case, these constructs have done nothing to aleviate the rising levels of human violence imposed by man upon man. Today man has come still no closer to the ideal of harmonious co-existence that fuelled the optimistic notions of those thinkers who thought up these moral limitations. Conflicts continue, and perhaps it can be said that only the holistic benefits have decreased. We are no longer self-regulating, and the competition is now no longer between small mobile groups whose misfortune in battle can be remedied by simple relocation, but between massive factions who seek to monopolise all the resources at the expense of those who cannot compete. This present condition is both the direct and indirect result of the human society based on that 'moral logic' to which you portend.
This moral standard is dependent upon the assumption that man is set above the animals. It argues that human life, above all other is somehow sacred. What gives any human the right to make such an assumption? The rest of nature exists under continuous threat; even the assumption that we do not also exist under such conditions appears an arrogant delusion.
Conflict will not require a moral excuse for it's occurence now or ever. All human evolution, and all evolution requires casualties. Whether or not this be smart trained soldiers or the old and the sick is totally irellevent.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Tuesday, August 03, 2004, 11:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
Note that I didn’t mention Nietzche in my comment, because I know in what context the above paragraph was presented in his book.
I know what you mean, though. I used to fight with my best friend, and we’d hurt each other sometimes, but it was all in good sport and we never left with hurt feelings. War, however, is never a friendly or creative sport.
You might want to think about your example and ideally choose a better one. Europe has seen more war than most of the rest of the world in the last 200 years, so if war is “cleansing”, Europe should be lively and invigorated, the opposite of your description. Also, most European countries have a declining population.
I agree that overpopulation is one of the world’s major problems, but America’s wars have not helped the problem. Economic development is the solution to overpopulation; the more developed a country becomes, the less each couple needs dozens of kids to do the work a machine could do. Taking care of so many kids is a lot of work, and once a country becomes more developed people inevitably stop having as many kids.
Lastly, I agree that “bad guys” and “good guys” are redundant terms. One more reason why Bush’s mentality sucks.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From
Thursday, August 05, 2004, 07:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Starting to have bigger generations is not the answer as that would repeat the cycle we face now, that of an upside down pyrimid. Where the young have to work harder to keep such a massive amount of old folks One of the things that can be done to balance this out to lower the age to vote to 14, so that they have a more equal share of votes and the old cannot always win by majority- which if happens will always work in the olds favour.. I also believe that when you are younger you have more fire in your belly and a much more positive outlook which is needed for real change in a society. Another is multi-culturism allowing in immigrants and asylum seekers and treating them with the equality and repect we should show ourselves, but that will only happen when the "fear of the barbarian" subsides, and our culture and attitude becomes less racist and ghetto like and more open minded. (reply to this comment) |
| | From pharmaboy
Wednesday, August 04, 2004, 00:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Europe has an extremely high percentage of the population over 65, and there is really not much space for young things to grow and expand. It's not something you write about, come and live here and you'll feel it. They are so set on preserving the old that they forget to invest in the new. Isn't it better to go out with a bang or to slowly stiffle?
Since the two world wars there has been an explosion in technology and progress, whether this is a good thing or not I don't know but at least it brought change.
"I shall teach you the overman, man is something to be overcome"
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Wolf
Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good subject, poor argument.
(reply to this comment)
| from Shaka
Monday, August 02, 2004 - 00:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
I find it very interesting that your hate for Bush causes you to insinuate things like Iraq was better off under Sadaam. No matter how bad things are or will be in Iraq, the vast majority of Iraqis will always say that they are glad Sadaam is gone. Maybe you find some similarities between comments Bush and Hitler have made, but I think Hitlers acts of genocide and Sadaam's systematic slaughter of Kurds and his own people to be far more similar. Even if we haven't found any WMD, everyone knows that Sadaam had them at one time and used them as his murder of thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons shows.
You can bitch about US involvment in foreign affairs till you're blue in the face, but if the US and her military weren't around this planet would be far deeper in the shitter than it already is. Nobody likes the higher powers who keep control. It's like people who whine about cops and the power they have over them, but if those very same "pigs" weren't there to keep order, madmen like Sadaam would rule the streets and the whiners would be screaming for the very same people who they saw only as a nuisance. If the US were to pull out of Iraq now, the resulting bloodshed would cause most of the "freedom fighters" (terrorists) to plead for foreign intervention.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From roughneck
Thursday, August 05, 2004, 21:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hang on a second, are you talking about the New Deal or World War 2? If the former, you have an example of the way government dollars *should* be spent if deficit spending must be done. That is, in the interests of the common wo/man, not merely the interests of multi-billion dollar a year corporations whose former owners hold political office. If the latter, surely you aren't suggesting that FDR planned the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in order to reap the economic benefits of a wartime economy, are you?
In case you can't tell the difference, World War 2 involved enemies that presented a clear and present threat to the United States, something that Gulf War 2 did not. Paying to defeat Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo was worthwhile and unavoidable, whereas spending 127 Billion dollars so far to defeat Saddam Hussein and subjugate Iraq is and was neither.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From roughneck
Friday, August 06, 2004, 07:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Let's see: an expanding empire (Japan) makes a surprise attack on the US Pacific fleet and you say war wasn't unavoidable? As for worthwhile, of course that's always debatable provided you have the proper people on the ends of the argument. :) My view is that this was one case where it was "us or them", and the US was justified in going to war in this instance. My point: Japan, and it's empire in the Pacific (to say nothing of the rest of the Axis) presented a real, present, and ongoing threat to the United States, and this is what differentiates the second world war from the second gulf war.
If you can suggest any unbiased reading on Tojo (preferably online), I'd sure be interested. :)(reply to this comment) |
| | From dan
Friday, August 13, 2004, 05:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
you imbargo oil to an island and then notice a build up of troops in the region. they knew the japanese were coming they knew it was either the philipines or hawaii. it was only a surprise to people in the states who always live in a buble of denile.
911 was not a suprise to those of us that were waiting for it. most of my collegues saw it and just packed their bags waiting to go to work. this was not unexpected. when and where, that is all we didn't know. we knew they were coming.
to think that if we sat back and waited for iraq to plan out their attacks on us we would be safer now is absured. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Shackled
Saturday, August 07, 2004, 18:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, the Japanese ambassador to the US did deliver a letter of war to the US before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Teddy's response was, "This means war". However, this isn't concrete, Teddy either needed a reason to get into the war or he didn't understand the seriousness of the letter. When Tojo was captured he wrote his side of the story that wasn't allowed to be translated until the 90's. I forget where I read it but I'll ask my friend. Him and I were doing some research on the generals of WW2. The reason I disagreed with it being "worthwhile and unavoidable" is because while Hitler and Mussolini were incharge Tojo was merely a puppet. He was incharge of the military but he didn't make the final decisions and it wasn't his choice to attack Pearl Harbor. The one who should've been hanged was Emperor Hirohito but Macarthur knew that doing that would greatly hinder relations with the Japanese people because the Emperor was revered as a God. There is actually more history behind why Japan attacked P.H. and I'm sure you can find it online if you're interested. (reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Sunday, August 08, 2004, 09:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
For someone who takes the niggling details of history so seriously, you'll undoubtedly be interested to note that the US president during World War 2 was not Theodore ("Teddy") Roosevelt (who became president in September 1901 after the assassination of President McKinley) - but was rather Franklin Delano Roosevelt, (often referred to as "FDR") who was elected in 1932. An easier way to tell them apart is that Teddy was Republican, and Frankie was a man-of-the-people Democrat.
You are correct in saying that Tojo wasn't the "man at the top" in Japan. But saying that Tojo was in some way not responsible for the actions taken by the Japanese Imperial Army is to say that Germany's Hoess, Himmler, Frank & Goering (et al) weren't to blame for their atrocities because they were just carrying out Hitler's orders. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Shackled
Sunday, August 08, 2004, 19:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
lol...yeah, I realized I wrote Teddy after posting and thought fuck it. The reason making a comparison between Tojo and those Germans you mentioned doesn't work, IMO, is because they could have chosen not to follow through with the orders. Hitler was not revered as a God like the Emperor was. In Japan, one would commit suicide before disobeying their Emperor. Hitler wanted to exterminate a race whereas Japan was just seeking to expand. It was the custom to treat the conquered as slaves. They were still very barbaric at that time and it was only approximately half a century since opening up to the west. I'm not saying I agree with this and they committed some major atrocities. Before WW2, more obvious now, America wanted an alliance with Japan because of their strategic location but it was to be on American terms. The Emperor wouldn't agree and saw America as an obstacle to the needs of the Japanese Empire and then declared war. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Shackled
Saturday, August 07, 2004, 19:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
One thing I forgot. Japan and US had been negotiating the situation in China for years before the P.H. attack. Tojo says that it was necessary for Japan to establish businesses in China because mainland Japan lacked necessary materials to keep the nation strong. The US wanted it's hand in China for similar reasons. This was one of the main reasons Japan attacked P.H. They knew America had a stronger fleet and a surprise attack was necessary. Japan's military did commit major atrocities, especially to the women, in China. But this also depends on how you look it. Japan was a barbaric nation and their customs were to treat the defeated as slaves. The western world had already evolved into a more humane society. The thing about history is that you never know some of the finer details and exactly why Japan and the US ended up at war might be unknown. Each countries leaders say something different. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Shaka
Monday, August 02, 2004, 09:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
I do recognize the cons of the US role on the world stage. I just look closer at what the world would be like if we weren't such a menacing force. I truly believe that we are safer as a result of the US presence overseas. We have already seen the results of our desruction of Sadaam's regime in Lybia's surrender of it's WMD. The world knows that a war with the US is not winnable (and before you start talking about Vietnam, I'm talking about now. We can't be beaten now.) Any country that has the potential to destroy the US would be annihilated themselves. And I believe that the US presence overseas acts as a deterent to other would be tyrants. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Tuesday, August 10, 2004, 22:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Here's another quotation by my favourite political commentator.
The amount of violence at the disposal of any given country may soon not be a reliable indication of the country's strength or a reliable guarantee against destruction by a substantially smaller and weaker power. And this bears an ominous similarity to one of political science's oldest insights, namely that power cannot be measured in terms of wealth, that an abundance of wealth may erode power, that riches are particularly dangerous to the power and the well-being of republics- an insight that does not lose in validity because it has been forgotten, especially at a time when it's truth has acquired a new dimension of validity by becoming applicable to the arsenal of violence as well.
Hannah Arendt
(This was written in '69) (reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Monday, August 02, 2004, 13:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
"the world knows that a war with the US is not winnable".. Nice sentiment, but who's winning the "war on drugs"? How's that pesky Bin Laden doing these days? - 'cause it seems to me the "war on terror" isn't going too great either. Fact is, the US is *not* as unbeatable as it looks. Let me qualify that by saying in the old-fashioned symmetric way of warfare where armies & navies meet and blast the bejeezus out of each other, the United States would probably win (duh). However, it's been a *really* long time since the United States deigned to pick on anyone their own size - or anyone that could fight back at all. - I can only imagine the sheer horror that would be a conventional invasion of, say, China - or even a smaller country that has weapons produced in the last decade. Once you put nuclear weapons on the table, all bets are off as far as I am concerned. Fact is, after Vietnam the US hasn't picked an honest to goodness war it stood a chance of losing - much like the strategy of the schoolyard bully. It's been BS "wars" like the war on drugs, mainly consisting of locking away gardeners, or Gulf War 1, where it was Iraq versus The World, or Nicaragua and Grenada, both of whose entire militaries wouldn't fill a medium-sized US military base. As far as I can tell, this war in Iraq is at least as much "pour encourager les autres" as any other reason. Libya, for example (as you mentioned) - With the small difference that this is another potential Vietnam, in the sense that it will end up being a sinkhole of money, men and materials, for real no gain in the end. Though of course it doesn't hurt when the second-largest-in-the-world oil reserves are located immediately below this object lesson in the consequences of defiance, right? Get used to it: US foreign policy has no objection to dictators, as long as they're "our" dictators doing what "we" want.
It seems that somehow even as US public feeling gets more jingoist, public sentiment towards the (human) cost of war has shifted somewhat since the do-or-die days of World War 2. - Unlike in 1944, large numbers of american soldiers killed will almost certainly turn the tide of public opinion against the war enough to require pulling out of this unwinnable situation (let me add that seeing as how the US is putatively a democracy, the will of the people in action is a Good Thing not lately seen.). Even more so should conscription ever be re-introduced. - Let's just hope it's not as ignominious a retreat as Vietnam was. I really can't see the US populace at large having the stomach for the brutality necessary to conduct an old-fashioned counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq (as Saddam had after Gulf War I) either. - (For the record, I do not mean to suggest that the US should acquire this brutality.) My point is that the US, as a self-proclaimed "shining beacon" simply can't resort to the same tactics as the hun and still expect to be seen as the automatic "good guys" by the rest of the world.
It's almost ironic how the US has now invaded Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts, the original casus belli being an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on flimsy pretexts (with tacit US permission via US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, which is more). Seems it's fine when we Whiteys do it, but if you Darkies invade for no good reason other than money, oil and real estate, then you're EVIL!! No wonder America is the laughingstock of the world these days. And what's worse is, you republicans are *proud* of being the lone voice crying in the wilderness "prepare ye the way of the sword". It's really a shame that you're willing to vote Bush another term in office to see through a job that never should have been started in the first place.
Far from the war in Iraq reducing the global threat of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism against America, the US now must deal with all the Iraqi Islamic crazies that Saddam had kept firmly under his thumb in addition to all the other wack-jobs it had before with IEDs, automatic weapons and a low motivation to survive. Let's face it, Saddam was on your side when it came to wanting nothing to do with the Osama Bin Ladens of the world. Yeah Saddam is and was a horrible guy, but he was the horrible guy keeping Iraq from being the fragmented bloody shithole of a failed state that it is now. I suspect the answer to asking everyday Iraqis if they miss Saddam (if you could get them to tell you the truth) might be similar to that gotten when asking an everyday Russian if they miss Communism.. Do they miss being fed, clothed, sheltered and powerful? (That's really the question after all). I don't know for sure that your assertion is true that all Iraqis want(ed) him gone, especially considering the significant degradation in their quality-of-life since his overthrow. - Even if peace breaks out somehow, I give Iraq 10 years tops before the US-friendly puppet government is overthrown in a coup and all the industry US companies own there (read: oil production) is nationalised, just like last time with the British. But apparently America's big enough to make it's own mistakes in Iraq. Tell me, if America is safer now due to US presence abroad, how many americans were being beheaded before your president started his unilateral pre-emptive war that he had to mislead congress for? How 'bout shot by fanatics? blown up by said fanatics? dangled from bridges? Or are dead soldiers and contractors not counted as american lives now?
PS Would any republicans like to tell me how exactly a highly decorated (for bravery, no less!) war hero is going to be softer on defending America than the drunk driving, coke snorting, duty deserting, bible thumping excuse for a chimpanzee candidate you're voting for? I don't know about for y'all, but in my book a war hero outranks a mere war monger any day. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Shackled
Monday, August 02, 2004, 21:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
I thought it was public knowledge that the war on drugs was a joke and never meant to succeed. I'm surprised Ruf that you would use this to support your argument. IMO, refering to the war on terror, war can take decades to win and there is no time limit to it. The very fact we're fighting it enables others to live their lives in peace. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Shackled
Thursday, August 12, 2004, 18:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, even if he meant to write Northern Ireland I still don't get it.
The war there compared to Iraq has only one similarity; it's a war.
I was talkin about US civilians being able to live in peace by taking the war on terrorism to another continent. The war in Ireland is on the same island. I guess whoever that was understood as much of what I wrote as he/she does spelling.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Thursday, August 12, 2004, 20:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
There are a few marginal similarities between the two examples.
1. Troops were originally sent into NI to stabilise the situation; they were meant to protect the people they ended up fighting. Originally the Republican Catholics greeted the soldiers not with stones and molotov cocktails but with tea and biscuits.
2.NI's escalation and deterioration into violence was the result of major errors and displays of incompetence which were interpreted as callous and brutal by the population on the recieving end.
3. The miliary intervention in NI was motivated not entirely by an altruistic desire to restore peace, at least not in the beginning; The response of the locals was due, at least in part, to an unfriendly history between both parties.
4. The Indegenous Irish population felt compelled to acts of almost unpecedented violence by the actions by what they saw as the suppression of their ethnic, cultural and national identity by foreign troops. As far as they were concerned, they were being persecuted.Bombs and sniper's bullets were only the most publicised weapons. On several occasions soldiers were tortured to death and then left in visible locations with their corpses booby-trapped.
5. The conflict did go international, although on a much smaller scale. This may be due to the fact that the Celtic Diaspora was never quite as far-reaching as the Moslem equivalent. Irish-Americans supplied most of the funding, and later most of the Guns, when the Libyan connection was broken. Irish-Americans also fought on British soil, although none were officially captured. The SAS were known to be making incursions into the Irish Republic, and it is more than likely, although never proven, that they acted against IRA training facilities elsewhere. The IRA killed servicemen in Germany and other locations outside of NI on a number of occasions, the acts themselves can only be classified as acts of terror, entailing shooting servicemen either at home or on their way to work. The most famous incident was in Gibraltar, in which an IRA cell was shot trying to set a bomb there. ANd of course, the involvement of IRA instructors hired to Shining Path in another example.
6. The IRA's campaign was always a political one. Each bomb and each killing was a political statement, to which the media were instrumental. If they had had the internet at their disposal, they would doubtless have used it to the same degree as the Iraqi insurgents do now.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Wednesday, August 04, 2004, 20:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're right, the war on drugs is a joke. In fact, in the very first paragraph of my admittedly lengthy comment above I said as much... (I distinctly recall using the term "BS") :) However, being as how you yanks have collectively spent more than 20 Billion dollars this year alone on this bit of Ha-Ha, I should say it's rather expensive for merely a joke. Perhaps I should have characterised it as a civil war as it's mainly your own citizens your government apprehends and spends huge cash to incarcerate. My point in bringing it up at all was that it is a war (albeit a pathetic one) that America will never be able to "win". But who'da thunk that if you've spent 20+ Billion a year on a war that being able to win it might be nice?
I've decided to spare you my customary rant on how, like the good old Volstead Act days produced Al Capone, the organised crime of today is very much a result of drugs being made "war" on. The prosecution of the war on drugs has merely made a lot of drug cartels very wealthy. Heck, coke's worth more than gold most places, and smaller to carry than it's worth in $100 bills. But as I promised I'll spare you the rant. I suspect that I'd merely be preaching to the choir - figuratively speaking of course. :)
The link below is just in case you're interested in the cost of this ongoing "joke". There's some other interesting war on drugs statistics (none from NORML*...even! :P ) on this page if you scroll down.
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
*National Organisation (for the) Reform (of) Marijuana Laws
As for the war on Terror, care to bet which ephemeral feeling America will declare war on next? I sure hope it isn't cynicism, cause if it is it's Camp X-Ray time for me! ;) But I ask you: if terrorists supposedly hate your "freedom" so much then isn't every civil liberty lost (however trifling they may seem to some) a blow struck for Osama? Also, why is it considered a reasonable response to terror to go make some of your own terror, ensuring that there'll be a whole new fresh crop of little terrorists motivated to do terrible things later? Someone earlier on in this thread mentioned fighting fire with fire. If I remember my fire suppression courses correctly, this is usually one of the riskier methods of fighting forest fires, requiring a lot of care and deliberation. Yes, you can fight fire with fire to an extent, but the chances of a backburn (yes, that's what the proper name is) getting out of control in a wind are usually enough to preclude willy-nilly lighting up of any old thing. Same should be for war. Careful, deliberate, and only when necessary!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Shaka
Monday, August 02, 2004, 13:27
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Like I told you before ruff, if Kerry would show any kind of decisiveness when talking about the Middle East or give any kind of a solid plan, I would vote for him instead. But he hasn't. He yaks about his medals but he doesn't say a damn thing about what he plans to do with those wackos that make up the Middle East. I guess we'll just have to see what happens. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Shaka
Tuesday, August 03, 2004, 08:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Frmrjoyish, I've felt this way long before before I ever made the decision to join the military. It's not Arabs themselves that I hate. I don't particularly like or trust them but then again, neither do they like or trust each other. The thing that I hate and want to see destroyed is an organized religion that tells it's followers that they will go to heaven for killing non-believers. I hate a religion that is forced upon people who just want to live their lives, much like the garbage we were forced to swallow, except this one usually involves torture and death. And it's not like Arabs/Muslims just want peace either. They fight with each other more than they ever fought against outside powers. And it's not just Sunnis fighting Shiites. The little sects of both larger sects slaughter each other on a regular basis. I don't see how people like that should be allowed the same rights as the other citizens of the world.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From frmrjoyish
Thursday, August 05, 2004, 06:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
I admire your passion, Shaka. Nothing irritates me more than apathy. I just think that someday you will find that the world is not as black and white as some would make it out to be.
We are not "good" and they are not "bad". History shows just as much if not more bloodshed in the name of christianity against non-christians and christians alike. You will also find many aspects of our western culture have been adopted from middle eastern culture where civilization as we know it began. Arabs gave us music, art, literature, architecture, modern mathematics, and many other things. They are far from a barbaric and savage culture as many in the west believe. It is true that now many of our respective cultural values are different but, for the most part, that does not make our culture better or more superior than theirs. Just different!
There are reasons for the tension between the middle east and the US and the US is not without blame nor is it entirely responsible either. It is complicated and requires compromise on both (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From
Thursday, August 05, 2004, 08:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes he was. ( Salah ad-in) He was a military genius during the 1100's, sultan of Egypt. He won the famous battle of Hattin, he gained a reputation for generosity and chivalry in his encounter with Richard 1 who was less so. He defended Jeruselem but lost on the third or fourth crusade. The crusades were renowned for using children to fight their battles. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From frmrjoyish
Thursday, August 05, 2004, 06:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
I admire your passion, Shaka. Nothing irritates me more than apathy. I just think that someday you will find that the world is not as black and white as some would make it out to be.
We are not "good" and they are not "bad". History shows just as much if not more bloodshed in the name of christianity against non-christians and christians alike. You will also find many aspects of our western culture have been adopted from middle eastern culture where civilization as we know it began. Arabs gave us music, art, literature, architecture, modern mathematics, and many other things. They are far from a barbaric and savage culture as many in the west believe. It is true that now many of our respective cultural values are different but, for the most part, that does not make our culture better or more superior than theirs. Just different!
There are reasons for the tension between the middle east and the US and the US is not without blame nor is it entirely responsible either. It is complicated and requires compromise on (reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Thursday, August 05, 2004, 06:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
I admire your passion, Shaka. Nothing irritates me more than apathy. I just think that someday you will find that the world is not as black and white as some would make it out to be.
We are not "good" and they are not "bad". History shows just as much if not more bloodshed in the name of christianity against non-christians and christians alike. You will also find many aspects of our western culture have been adopted from middle eastern culture where civilization as we know it began. Arabs gave us music, art, literature, architecture, modern mathematics, and many other things. They are far from a barbaric and savage culture as many in the west believe. It is true that now many of our respective cultural values are different but, for the most part, that does not make our culture better or more superior than theirs. Just different!
There are reasons for the tension between the middle east and the US and the US is not without blame nor is it entirely responsible either. It is complicated and requires compromise (reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Thursday, August 05, 2004, 06:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
I admire your passion, Shaka. Nothing irritates me more than apathy. I just think that someday you will find that the world is not as black and white as some would make it out to be.
We are not "good" and they are not "bad". History shows just as much if not more bloodshed in the name of christianity against non-christians and christians alike. You will also find many aspects of our western culture have been adopted from middle eastern culture where civilization as we know it began. Arabs gave us music, art, literature, architecture, modern mathematics, and many other things. They are far from a barbaric and savage culture as many in the west believe. It is true that now many of our respective cultural values are different but, for the most part, that does not make our culture better or more superior than theirs. Just different!
There are reasons for the tension between the middle east and the US and the US is not without blame nor is it entirely responsible either. It is complicated and requires (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Baxter
Tuesday, August 10, 2004, 22:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
WHOAH,WHOAH!
Moslem societies are not necessarily savage barbarians. Historical Moslem countries have had a legacy of tolerace and civil enlightenment often extending above the those of European nations during the same period. The Egyptian Caliphate that the Crusaders fought was an extreme example of this, and until the incursions of the Frankish invaders, was an unusually civilised and advanced nation. Christians, Jews, and even heretical sects were allowed to live in peace, whlie they could often expect persecution in Papal-sanctioned monarchies of Europe. The crusaders themselves had a positive effect on European society in that they brought much of this enlightenment back to Europe with them. textiles, craftmanship and even sanitation all benefitted from the European contact with Islam.
While the wars of that period were typically brutal in whatever hemisphere you look, it was only the contact with Frankish savagery that turned the Moslems violent to the same degree of savagery. The sacking of Jerusalem in the first crusade provided a powerful precedent against which even the brutal execution of all the captured Templars and other knights of the military orders at the battle of Hattin is incomparable.
The teachings of Islam are not even as brutal as those of the Old Testament. Islamic teaching even states that an invading Moslem Army should not even cut down the trees of the enemy, but should always be respectful even to the point of burying the fallen enemy dead ( which was a precedent in the time in which it was written). Ultimately, Islam is probably as vulnerable to criticism as any other religion, certainly any Jueo-Christian religion. But one should be mindful of presenting such broad condemnation.
And finally, much of the social unrest of which you speak is not merely the fault of 'politically infantile' Moslems; mot of the countries who suffer from this type of upheaval on a regular basis do so not only as a result of religious involvement in politics, but as the result of foreign intervention and involvement.
What people in the world can be trusted to choose their own leaders?And what gives any other nation the right to assert that it can provide a truly just and moral guiding hand?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Shaka
Tuesday, August 10, 2004, 22:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am very aware of the history of Islam. I know the difference between what they were and what they are. They, like most religions, were founded on good intentions. But the majority of them have deteriorated to a state of babarism almost unrivalred in the modern world. I am also aware of the cruelty of the crusaders. I studied the crusades religiously as a child when I could get away with reading "worldly" books. I don't like any religion, organised or not. But I think history is irrelevant in our dealings with them now in this age.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Monday, August 02, 2004, 20:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, Afghanistan is a prime example of a country that got messed up by foreign intervention. They were doing pretty well until the Soviet Union invaded. True, they were poised for a change of government, but there’s no evidence that the Taliban would’ve become so brutal if it weren’t for external violence. If you don’t believe that 10 years of fighting can screw up your psyche, ask some ‘Nam veterans.
I think you’re making a serious mistake in thinking the Muslim religion is responsible for violence against Americans. If too many Americans hold to that mentality, we will have problems for many years to come. American violence is primarily responsible for violence against Americans.
You may ask, “If it has nothing to do with the Muslim religion, why is it mostly Muslims that are attacking us?” Which countries have seen the most US military action in the last 3 decades? That’s right, primarily Muslim countries. Perhaps the Arabs are less forgiving than the Vietnamese, but it’s not about a religion; it’s about the area the US chose to attack. Now we’re reaping the consequences.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Banshee
Monday, August 02, 2004, 15:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow, that's a pretty broad statement there, to say that "Muslims have proven that they cannot rule themselves fairly and treat their own people like human beings." How can you make such a huge generalization? I think that countries like Malaysia prove that Muslims CAN in fact rule themselves, and do a good job of it. I might not agree with the way they run their government, but that doesn't mean it's not a well-run country. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From
Thursday, August 05, 2004, 07:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thats the pot calling the kettle black. Look at all the injustices America has..Death penalty, War on drugs(creating a criminal class) Limited healthcare program. ( death lottery) Having to join the army to be able to get an educatioin. Corrupt elections, Corupt media. Privatisation. High rate of violence and gun murder, being fooled and taunted into materialism. But thats okay because the bandade is *plastic surgery* and *hollywood* which is given to the world as a model which for the majority of Americans can't or don't want to live up too anyway.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Thursday, August 05, 2004, 11:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
What kind of insane perfection are you hoping for? Saying the death penalty is unjust is highly subjective. As for the war on drugs – would you prefer that our government sit back and let crack and LSD be sold freely? Healthcare should be limited. Taxpayers should not have to pay $60,000 to operate on some old guy who’s gonna die two years later anyway. Show me a country that doesn’t have corrupt elections and media. Who said privatization is a bad thing? Many services have improved dramatically after privatized. Lastly, is “bandade” some weird way the Brits spell band-aid? I sincerely hope you’re not a Brit; that would be the septic tank calling the toilet smelly.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Peter
Monday, August 02, 2004, 03:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Do you really think Iraq is better off under the leadership of the former terrorist and assasain Dr. Iyad Allawi? There is quite an interesting profile of him at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/16/1089694565543.html?oneclick=true
I don't hate the Smirking Chimp (I have actually met him in person and found him to be much less creepy and seemingly more intelligent than I expected) but I do hate his incompetence, ignorance, stupidity and hypocrisy. I agree with President Bush's speechwriter who wrote last November that: "Successful societies limit the power of the state and the power of the military -- so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite." ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html)
As Bush continues to reject any of the limits on power which he himself has argued are neccessary for the creation of successful democratic societies, one can only hope that perhaps Bush's defeat in November will help the nation gradually begin the process of repairing the damage he has caused. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Shaka
Monday, August 02, 2004, 13:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Would you be happy if the US pulled out now and in doing so, not only leave Iraqis to slaughter each other, but also weaken ourselves on the world stage, leave ourselves open to further attacks from terrorists who would see our withdrawl as a sign of weakness, and seriously damage our economy? Personally, I feel safer knowing that we're on top.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From frmrjoyish
Monday, August 02, 2004, 15:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
And Haliburton and Bectel fall in that category?? Give me a break!!
The ones who are risking the most are the soldiers followed by the taxpayers. Our "fair share" of the war bounty is death, maiming, soldiers families being improperly taken care of, their benefits seriously slashed by the same "leader" who sent them to war, and the taxpayers are seeing nothing but rising costs and decades of future debt and deficits passed on to the next generation! Meanwhile the ones who are benefitting are the wealthy corporations and the politicians who are playing with peoples lives.
Don't be such a follower! Open your eyes to what's really going on not just the "huah" crap they fill your mind with!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]