Free enterprise at the peace rally

[lex_jenkins]

...separate posts...

[lex_jenkins]

...does it take to say...

[lex_jenkins]

...absolutely nothing at all?

[Allen Herbert]

To stand up and say no to the most powerful nation in the world.

 

Yes, that is the face of a fool. Does it matter how rich the nation is? It is the truth that matters. Do not let politics get in the way of commen sense. Forget politics,forget nations,forget rich. If you give the man a big bomb will he use it....think about it.

[Allen Herbert]

Okay we give in to the hostage thing. I have a hostage so now i rule the world. Get real! even the Russians have worked that one out. I wish the 'do goods' would think about the serious issue of poverty and disease in the world. Rally for what, to give a killer more time...get real. Stop massaging your egos and look at the millions who are dying because they have nothing to eat. You are truly a serious sad bunch of self-lovers...hipocrits of the worst kind.

[Sanford]

So, what do you think of the picture otherwise?

[Allen Herbert]

Very witty. Just having my weekly rant before they give me my injection.. Well, it is the sort of photo i would have taken. So it is very good!

[kens]

What picture?

[jesse_hutton]

Hey Allen,

 

Drink much lately? Yeah, it's apparent that you are all for people dying of hunger, and we are all egotistical peace-lovers. Back in the real world, many leaders do terrible things, not just Saddam. If Bush decides to invade Iraq, a lot of inocent people will die, and it will be a terrible thing. Besides that, international law will be further eroded by US actions (another terrible thing), and social programs in our country will fall under more stress, another terrible thing (does your state too have a huge budget crisis thanks to Dubya? Is your state university losing 89 million in funding?). Your simplistic view that Saddam is an evil guy who would drop a nuke on us if he could only get his hands on one is rediculous, because he's obviously very much interested in his own self-preservation (as most people who are not wallowing in desperate hopelessness are), and such an act would easily provoke a war that he would lose (a war that none of us would then protest, by the way). You see, however, it's unlawful, unethical, and uncivil to invade a country because you don't like them (or because you want their oil). With the Administration's blatant contempt for the position of the international community and the UN, that is about what it amounts to. Your simplistic, paraniod view is exactly what the conservative media (and the Administration) wants you to believe, but it's still rediculous. Stop being a dupe, and get a clue...

[Jeffrey L.T. von Glück]

If we wanted their oil, we would have taken it after the first Gulf War. For those who claim the U.S. is acting unilaterally, at last count there are around 40 nations on board--except, of course, France, Germany & Belgium--including Muslim countries. As for the rest of the UN member-states, half of them resemble the patrons in the bar scene of Star Wars. Hell, I wouldn't lose any sleep if Burkina Faso, Angola, Burma (Myanmar) and North Korea don't go along. We're in a new world geopolitically post-9/11, so if a preemptive strike is needed to thwart a madman and preserve U.S. national security, then so be it. Wouldn't it have been better to have stopped Hitler before he invaded Poland?

[jesse_hutton]

Look at the facts, Jeffery. Iraq is so weak that it couldn't defeat Iran in over ten years of fighting, and that was _with the help of the US_. That was also before 10 years of sanctions. They have practically no military strength (except for the weapons of mass destruction that nobody can find...). It's really pathetic to compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler, and your interpretation of the count of countries that are for an against us is a little one sided. Many smaller countries don't support the war, but their governments _must_ because the US says "or else".

 

This new geo-political world you suggest is a sham that you want to use to change the rules of law. In this new world, can you attack anyone just because you 'feel' threatened? That would be a worse world IMHO.

[cd thacker]

Lex -

[cd thacker]

L . . .

[cd thacker]

O . . .

[cd thacker]

L!

[raymond_tai]

What me worry?<div></div>

[Jeffrey L.T. von Glück]

Jesse,

The comparison with Hitler is certainly apposite: both are (and were) mass murderers--often of their own people--with expansionist policies (remember, Iraq invaded Kuwait). If you really believe the Iraqis have no weapons of mass destruction simply because Inspector Hans "Clouseau" Blix and his hundreds of inspectors roaming around a country the size of California can't find them, then I have a really fine bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

As for changing the rules of law, international law is based on custom and useage and changes and evolves with the dynamics of the times. In the Middle Ages it was customary to suspend warfare on the Sabbath and on feast days observed by the Church; with changes in the methods of warfare and political circumstances, that custom is obviously no longer observed. And remember, UN Security Council resolution 1441 gave Saddam yet another "last chance" to disarm.

As for a preemptive strike, that can be justified as a legitimate act of self-defense under the right circumstances which many believe we have now with Saddam. Is it not better to neutralize him now than wait for a catastrophe to happen?

Needless to say, I'll bet Al Gore is happy he lost the election. No matter how Bush handles this, he'll be excoriated from the left and right.

[lex_jenkins]

Okay, here's my semi-serious observation about the role the U.S. is assuming on the international front.

 

We are becoming the New Roman Empire.

 

It's that simple. Rome didn't set out to conquer the world just for the fun of destruction or for the spoils of war or just because it could. Its goal was to civilize its neighbors to standards acceptable to Romans. Rome was surrounded by discordant and often hostile neighbors. Ignoring them would mean being overtaken by them. Rome merely took the most expedient action and struck first.

 

I'm not interested in debating the morality of ancient Rome or our Neo-Roman aspirations. Yes, other cultures will be diminished by our influence. But that doesn't mean we're interested in genocide. The Romans didn't usually engage in the mass slaughter of entire peoples just for the hell of it. (And, yes, I'm well aware of the exceptions.) For the most part Rome left the existing peoples are their diverse cultures intact, as long as they swore allegience to Rome and kept the bickering to a minimum.

 

Contrast that with an enemy sworn to exterminate us. Not just our culture or belief system but us, very personally, because they refuse to share the world with anyone who differs even slightly.

 

A very difficult choice is upon us. Either concede that conquest and a a cultural change is necessary to ensure our survival, or surrender and die. As a newspaper friend of mine was fond of saying, in life there are always choices; sometimes the choices stink, but there they are - choose.

[jesse_hutton]

"The comparison with Hitler is certainly apposite: both are (and were) mass murderers--often of their own people--with expansionist policies (remember, Iraq invaded Kuwait)."

 

One had the means and, in fact, _did_ take over most of Europe, and one invaded a small neighboring country that is perhaps the size of Rhode Island, and to which there is allegedly some "historical right" to...By this account we should include Indonesia with the comparison to Nazi Germany for having invaded East Timor, and, ohh, how about _ourselves_ for having invaded the Philippines and Panama, just to name a couple examples. Nobody is saying that Saddam hasn't killed his many of his own people, but just take a look at our buddy Turkey, which is right next to Iraq. They have a very large Kurdish population that has suffered a greater amount of killing and persecution from the Turkish government than those in Iraq have from Saddam. Oh, and Turkey invaded Cyprus, so they too have expansionist policies and should be included in the comparison (and maybe the axis of evil?)...

 

"If you really believe the Iraqis have no weapons of mass destruction simply because Inspector Hans "Clouseau" Blix and his hundreds of inspectors roaming around a country the size of California can't find them, then I have a really fine bridge in Brooklyn to sell you."

 

Well, you seem to know that they do. Why not prove it? Has the value of _proof_ become so depreciated? There were inspectors in Iraq for most of the 1990's (up until 1998, I believe), and they were damn sure at the end of it that he had no weapons of mass destruction. Now there are inspectors there again, and that is the right path to take. It actually is quite difficult to make nuclear bombs and chemical & biological weapons. It takes a lot more than a mobile trailor and some chemistry equipment, so we can be pretty sure that they don't have the means to produce these things.

 

"As for changing the rules of law, international law is based on custom and useage and changes and evolves with the dynamics of the times. In the Middle Ages it..."

 

Look, what you are trying to describe with the Middle Ages has nothing to do with Law. Since WWII many people and countries have been trying to establish some international laws and institutions (ie. the creation of the UN) in order to help define what are acceptable actions. The whole point of having them is to avoid war. And _all_ countries have to play by the same rules. It's a basic moral principle ("do unto others...").

 

"And remember, UN Security Council resolution 1441 gave Saddam yet another "last chance" to disarm."

 

That security resolution was very careful NOT to authorize force, and the part about "serious consequences" was a compromise on the part of the other states to appease the US. Now, it doesn't look like Bush will try to go to the UN again, but even if he did, he probably will not get France's (who has veto power) vote. Germany is also a member of the security council now, and is against war. Now the message from the white house to the UN is, "give us your blessings and another resolution or risk becoming irrelavent," and there's all this talk about "going it alone." Neither International Law nor international opinion is on our side.

 

"Is it not better to neutralize him now than wait for a catastrophe to happen?"

 

I'm not saying that we should wait for a catastrophe to happen. I'm saying Iraq _will not attack us_. If you're so unsure, there is plenty we can do to prevent aggression against our country, such as improveing our internal security mechanisms and persuing policies that reduce tension in explosive regions like Israel. But, one has to draw the line somewhere before taking the army and openly invading another country.

[jesse_hutton]

I shouldn't have said that "Iraq _will not attack us_." I'm certainly no expert on what they will or will not do, nor am I clairvoyant. I should have said "the likelyhood of Iraq attacking us is so small as to be laughable."

[Jeffrey L.T. von Glück]

"One had the means and, in fact, _did_ take over most of Europe, and one invaded a small neighboring country that is perhaps the size of Rhode Island, and to which there is allegedly some "historical right" to".

 

The same could be said of Nazi Germany and its historical claim to the Suedetenland of Czechoslovakia and even Austria. It really becomes a matter of degree. And I would include Indonesia as a comparison for its suppression of the legitimate rights of self-determination of the largely Catholic populace of East Timor. American involvement in the Philippines was the result of the peace treaty concluding the Spanish-American War whereby Spain ceded Puerto Rico and the Philippines to the U.S. Whatever you think about the merits of that war, under prevailing international law Spain's cession to the victors, the U.S., was entirely legitimate. Regarding Panama, I presume your're referring to Operation Just Cause to remove Noriega; that case is more problematic.

 

However, it never ceases to amaze me how the left in this country is so quick to condemn human rights abuses committed by right-wing dictatortships--e.g. Nicaragua under Somoza, Iran under the shah, Haiti under the corrupt Duvaliers, etc.--but are characteristically silent on human rights abuses committed by leftist regimes--e.g. Nicaragua under the commandantes, Castro's Cuba, Mugabe's Zimbabwe (that's off the radar screen entirely), Kim Jong "Mentally" Ill's North Korea (whose regime is more akin to a cult than a government), to name just a few. It seems that it's OK for the U.S. to intervene against a right-wing regime, but never a left-wing one. Which makes the left's attitude toward Iraq all the more puzzling since Saddam's Ba'ath party regime is more of a traditional fascist regime that the left abhors. No one on the left is creaming about the horrific human-rights abuses of the Iraqi regime.

 

"Well, you seem to know that they do. Why not prove it? Has the value of _proof_ become so depreciated? There were inspectors in Iraq for most of the 1990's (up until 1998, I believe), and they were damn sure at the end of it that he had no weapons of mass destruction."

 

I believe Colin Powell amply laid out the case in this regard. Those who chant the "let-the-inspections-work" mantra would not believe Saddam had WMDs if Colin Powell brought a captured cylinder of VX nerve agent and laid on the floor of the Security Council. How do we know where it really came from? would be their cry.

 

"The whole point of having them is to avoid war. And _all_ countries have to play by the same rules. It's a basic moral principle ("do unto others...")."

 

In a perfect world this makes sense, but if the UN does not live up to its obligations, then the U.S. and her allies must act without explicit UN sanction. There have been only two officially "sanctioned" UN wars since the end of the Second World War: Korea and the first Gulf War.

 

I think what irks the Germans and the French especially is that the U.S. can act unilaterally and no one is really in any position to stop us. One of the reasons you see the smaller European countries backing the U.S. is the heavy handed manner in which Germany and France are trying to ram down their Franco-German hegemenous version of the European Union the other nations' throats. France is no longer a serious world power but the French cannot acommodate themselves to this status. Giving France a veto on the Security Council in this day and age is absurd; of course, Germany is a nonpermanent member of the SC and so has no veto. Just yesterday there was a news report that France and Germany are threatening Romania, Bulgaria and Albania (a Muslim country) that if they support the U.S., their membership in the EU will be blocked.

 

"That security resolution was very careful NOT to authorize force, and the part about "serious consequences" was a compromise on the part of the other states to appease the US."

 

But the other SC members knew full well what "serious consequences" meant. Para. 2 of 1441 states, inter alia, that the SC decides "to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations..." How many "final" opportunities shall Saddam be accorded? And if the "serious consequences" are not forced disarmament, what are they? Do we say that now, we *really*, *really*, *really* mean it?

 

"I should have said 'the likelyhood of Iraq attacking us is so small as to be laughable.'"

 

I don't think anyone is in fear of Iraq attacking us. What is feared is that his WMDs will fall into the wrong hands and their horrors visited upon our shores.

 

Unfortunately, I think this war is inevitable and I only hope it's over as quickly as possible with as few casualties as possible, especially since I have friends and relatives in the military who will be over there and may not come home.

[jesse_hutton]

Jeffrey,

 

The greatest risk we face as a nation from the threat of terrorist attacks comes from the willingness of the terrorists who commit those acts. If there are people who are fanatical, desperate and enraged enough, they will find a way, as 9/11 unfortunatly illustrates. In light of that, invading Iraq is one of the worst things we could do, especially if it is without the consent of the UN. I realize that most pro-war people would claim that we would just be "backing down to terrorism," and legitimizing it, but that is not the case. Not going to war is the right thing to do, because not only are there effective ways of dealing with Iraq without bombing it (continued inspections and what ever other remedies the UN can come up with), but the very act of invading it simply adds more fuel to the fire of terrorist willingness. Therefore, we are chosing a very costly remedy (for all partys involved) to a problem, and it is simply going to make this very problem worse in the long run. Common sense argues against this kind of action, though I know it's exactly the sort of short-term fix that looks great for politicians and other short-sighted folks who will feel better for a brief moment.

 

"if the UN does not live up to its obligations, then the U.S. and her allies must act without explicit UN sanction."

 

I would argue that the UN is precisely living up to it's obligations: it's trying to ensure a peaceful solution to an international conflict. It is not meant to be the organization of rubber stamp aproval for what ever intentions the US Administration du jour happen to be. I also don't think that it's absurd that France has veto power in the UN; they have consistently been a strong advocate in the construction of the UN, the EU, and in the larger international community. There's no doubt that the fact that they can't stop US action like this irks them, but one cannot explain all international relations by whatever personal jealousies and frustrations one wants to attribute to any of the various actors. And, there is more to the position against a US war with Iraq than one's simple distaste for American unilateralism.

 

"However, it never ceases to amaze me how the left in this country is so quick to condemn human rights abuses committed by right-wing dictatortships...but are characteristically silent on human rights abuses committed by leftist regimes..."

 

Nobody is failing to condemn the human rights abuses of Iraq. What I was suggesting was that this criterion is wholly inadequate for justifying or understanding US actions. If anything, as I implied with the example of Turkey, our support for nations with respect to this notion is so unbalanced that it makes a mockery of itself. However, that is not to say that it's not extremely important. We _shouldn't_ support any country that has serious serious human rights violations. But, as a justification for war, it is simply insufficient, and surely when the party wanting to invoke this justification is seemingly breaking international law in what is sure to be a high civilian casualty war, and applies the concept so "selectively" in the first place (to the point where shows no real committment to it). About leftist selectivism: it's funny because I always assumed that people on the right weren't interested in human rights abuses unless there was conquest to be done and money to be made...By the way, I completely agree with you about the seriousness of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor--it just poped into my head as an example, and I wrote it, but I admit that it was rather serious (even approaching genocide, as you well know) and perhaps a valid comparison with Nazi Germany if one ignores the difference of scale. But, note that the US suported Shuarto throughout the whole thing!

 

"I believe Colin Powell amply laid out the case in this regard. Those who chant the "let-the-inspections-work" mantra would not believe Saddam had WMDs if Colin Powell brought a captured cylinder of VX nerve agent and laid on the floor of the Security Council."

 

That's not an excuse. They need to offer up some proof that he has the weapons before they (I mean the Administration) decide to attack Iraq. Perhaps the weapons inspectors could be used to verify any claims to WMD's? That is their job after all.

 

"But the other SC members knew full well what "serious consequences" meant."

 

It's language that was a compromise between the two sides. It does NOT authorize the use of force, even if it does mention "serious consequences." The logical next step is to decide on an action from within the UN. As I already stated, I don't think asking for another security resolution authorizing force will work, but that is what is necessary if one wants to invoke the authorization of the UN for this war.

 

The whole idea that the US alone has the right to be cop, judge and executioner is understandably offensive. It just doesn't work in an international system, and it should never be allowed to operate where leaders (one man in our case) can weild this power so wreaklessly (which is not in the constitution) and exempt from all accountability. I, however, remain optimistic and hope that you're wrong and that war is not inevitable. It would be a merical it if were avoided, but one can still hope...

[Jeffrey L.T. von Glück]

Jesse,

 

I think this thread is dead; we're the only ones watching or posting. I'll respond offline...after I dig out of 2 feet of snow!

[eliot]

Did anyone get photos of the man punching the horse at the so-called "peace" rally. Too bad the PETA people weren't there. But I understand there were plenty of people with cameras waiting for the police to react to being goaded so they could claim "police brutality". Talk about a bunch of thugs.