The energy is mounting. People are worried, distressed, and angry, and they should be. We have a rogue government in power that is completely ignoring the voice of it's people. Our own constitution calls for us to rise up and overthrow a government that does not represent us. We have been assembling in beautiful marches filled with diverse peoples...but we get almost no coverage, and when the march is done, we all go home and our elected official pour another martini and go to bed. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO DIRECT ACTION, CIVIL DISOBEDIANCE? We need to do more than march. We need to follow in the footsteps of generations past , sit our asses down and NOT BE MOVED. Yeah, it's a scary climate to get arrested in right now. But we aren't going to change anything by waving a little sign. Come on folks...let's get our act together. Form affinity groups. If we pass a freeway onramp, take the onramp. Sit down. If we all sit down, thousands of us, that's news. Link arms. Surround buildings. Tag. Bring back the banner drop. We must be willing to take risks in order to begin seeing change. The time is now. Turn off American Idol, and take to the streets.

the reason mister 1967 that people aren't doing that stuff...is that it DOESN'T WORK.

i personally got sick of seeing my sisters get beaten with truncheouns for your sick ass FAKE ASS NON REVOLUTION as soon as i saw it happening. real resistors are coming up with new effective valid strategies for esisting the system and NOT TELLING PEOPLE LIKE YOU about them so you can show up and ruin them. that shit got X and King assasinated. think about it. you do the same dull shit for thirty years and the state amasses power? how long do you have to beat your head agains the same brick wall until it falls on you? notice how the collapse of communism just made the capitalists stronger?

abandon hopeless strategies and utilize creative intelligence, or be relegated to the same sort of false self righteousness as the Fascist Corporatists we oppose. you have the right to get arrested, yeah, sure. while you sit there in the States prisons with cops sneering at you i hope you think about the people who are still free and using valid means to change the world. and i am not talking about sliming up to the rules like the greens and the others who think that the system will ever work for anything but itself. but the rhetoric and strategies of 1964 will only do things that seem eerioly reminiscent of yetsryear in the modern day.

that's what happened to direct action my leftist friend. people started thinking of new things to do and left you playing RATM all by yourself.

ps

peace

(hmm..thanks for jumping to conclusions, but I'm young and FEMALE)

There are a number of points that you made that I would like to comment on.

The first is about the "fake ass revolution." Social change is real, and it is happening all around us. The strategies of Ghandi and King did not get them assasinated, the reactions to their politics by hateful individuals did. Non violent civil disobediance works. It worked in the south, and helped to end segregation and Jim Crow laws. It workded to ened the Vietnam War. It works now as civilians go to places like Palestine. I am by no means saying that civil disobediance is the only or most effective way to bring change. However, I am saying that we should not forget the effectiveness of this tactic and relegate it to some dusty place in history. The strike is an effective and crucial form of non violent civil disobediance still being effectively used by workers the world over. I agree that we need to find effective creative strategies to overcome oprression and tyranny. Grassroots community education, community radio, zines, web sites, arts education, music, and writing are all ways to do this. The point of civil disobediance is solidarity. Therefore, if done right...when hundreds and thousands sit together and are arrested together they create effective bargaining power and sentences are usually much softer as the system does not want the extra work required for all these "political prisoners." Jail negotiations are part of the strategy. I am really confused about your comment stating that "the collapse of communism made capitlists stronger." Umm...no shit. I'm not understanding how that is relative to this conversation. The majority of our nations population is waiting and wanting to do something...let's give them a chance to do more than just stroll down the street with a "Matt Damon Opposes the War" sign. And by the way, I'm not much of a RATM fan...

Lots of hostility there from "Marc", yeah "peace" brother, after you've vomited your bile for someone daring to suggest something different. Marches can be part of change, but they're not enough. A diversity of tactics as suggested by the sister that posted above is the best chance for success and unfortunately when you do something effective the authoritarians are going to try and hurt you.

But if you keep on the move and keep them guessing they won't have time. We must use our instincts and our intellects. Full Spectrum Dominance of the means of dissent must be our means. When they line up with weapons of mass pacification we must be somewhere else. When they lie on their news we must talk to people in cafes and bars and at work and on the internet.

We are all learning to use our Force. They don't know what they're doing. But we are learning all the time.

Maybe it will be a General Strike. Maybe it will be an NVDA (shouts out to the Quakers for the last one). Maybe it will be standing in the hot sun listening to celebrities (but I don't think so).

Now, don't explode Marc. Just because you don't control us all doesn't mean it won't be something you don't like. Some sisters choose to take the risk. Who are you to stop them. Besides, the risk is much less than they would like you to believe.

Well put, Resistor. THe Lady makes an important point that i think everyone can see. I hope no one (including himself) takes [marc] the cynic too seriously.

At the protest after the "state of the union" in front of the federal building, there were hundres of people. We could have easily shut down that intersection. There were only a handful of cops on bikes & a couple of patrol cars hiding behind some bushes.

When ever i'm at a demonstration where there is traffic present, like Hollywood & Highland not too long ago, the first thing i think is: Shut It Down! By staging Die-Ins, with the help of the friendly folks at NION, we did it. We had 2 Die-Ins in the street and managed to block traffic momentarily with only minor scolding from a couple of working class oppressors.

Back to the Wilshire Fed Bldg the other day; though there were not as many people as there were at Hollywood & Highland, there was one quite elderly woman who was on my wave length. We were all crossing the streets, when legal, chanting, and carrying on, but she was walking a little slower than the rest of them, and slower than me, which is what caught my attention. Finally she simply stood still in the street until she was breaking the law. This being the most beautiful thing i had seen in a while, i squeezed through the crowd and joined her. As she slowly made her way to the curb, 2 bike cops confronted me. they asked me if i knew what i was doing was illegal, I implored if they knew that a war on Iraq would be illegal. They looked as if they'd been had, then they kindly asked me not to break the law in front of them. Finally, they asked me to get out of the street, to follow them to the curb. By that time i was no longer breaking the law, the light had changed. I turned around and walked away from the cops, toward my fellow protesters, and was congradulated. Though her & I had only stopped 2 seperate directions of traffic, we had won. This happened by chance, because of 2 strangers with a common cause. Imagine what we could do with a bit of organized civil-disobedience.

Give up roll over and play dead. Please!

Whenever you hear someone from the opposite camp advising you that your actions are ineffective that means one thing for certain. THEY ARE EFFECTIVE.

When Lyndon Johnson had a mere 100,000 people marching in the Mall in D.C. he knew it was over. A week later he lost the Primary to McGovern in New Hampshire and shortly thereafter withdrew from the Primary Race.

Civil disobedience is one very vocal and prominent way to make your views known. Try as they might the mainstream presswhores cannot ignore nearly half a million people in D.C. and 2 to 3 hundred thousand in San Francisco. This means the message gets out.

Large numbers of people turning out demonstrate that widespread acceptance of this war is not a true statement. That’s what really galls BA and the other Chickenhawks.

Preached defeatism is a tactic used to make you lose heart and give up. Realize that when the side supporting death and destruction tells you to give up they fear your reaction. Stand up for your beliefs. Stand up for Civilization.

True marches are not the only response but they are one the other side would rather have you not do. It reminds them too much of their crimes.


VIVA LA RESISTANCE’!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Stand up for Civilization."

Curious statement. Which Civilization are you referring to?

From the boston tea party to the WTO in Seattle to Republican Party opperatives storming the Miami vote-counters, Direct action clearly has a place in swaying the tide of American history.

'nuff said.

Simple - If you have to ask you would not understand the answer.

BA - no one ever looks silly standing up for what is right. And people know the difference between a hate spewing sociopathic bigot like FearaCON and that which right and just. Oh, they may at times become confused, and lose their way, such is the “divine comedy”. However, deep down inside people know what is right and what is wrong. I’m philosophic about such matters. I’m sure you’ve noticed.

I have to ask because what you are saying is contradictory.

You propose that people should stand up for civilization. I concur. The Middle East and it's thuggish despotisms have enslaved and disenfranchised and terrorized for too long. The time has come to stand up for civilization, and to put the barbarians to the sword. The 'peace' advocates are apologists for murder, rape, chattel slavery, suttee, the denial of political and religious freedom, etc. The 'war' advocates want to liberate the people of the middle east from the yoke of despotism.

Now if you stand for civilization, I must suppose you are in favor of action against Saddam Hussein.

I am glad we are in agreement.

Pvt. Fido: "...put the barbarians to the sword."

Now is that any way for a "civilized" man to talk?

Maybe we can have them "drawn and quartered", or maybe they can be "keel hauled", or have them "walk the plank".

...You are such a fuckin' clown-puppy, no one takes you the least bit seriously....you are our happy idiot-dog, busily licking your balls, chasing your tail, and barking noisily from the corner of the room...of little use except for a good kicking now and again.

BushBlower: "It's fascinating to see the Left moaning and groaning about loss of freedoms in this country, while, at the same time, sending 'human shields' over to Iraq and begging GWB to 'leave Saddam alone.'"

Umm, what the fuck is this supposed to mean? I've read it a few times, and it doesn't make any sense! What is facinating? What does one have to do with the other? Who on "the Left" is "sending" human shields? Whoever said "leave Saddam alone"? Did you actually write that, or is there a monkey bangin' on your keyboard?

I love it! Moron dribbles nonsense on the board and pats himself on the back at the same time as if he left something pithy....what a fuckin' loser!

What BA means, KPC, is that he finds it amazing that the people who claim that their rights are being taken away here in the United States are the same people lining up to defend a government that denies many more rights to it's own citizenry.

I hope this helps.

Who's from the Left is "sending" human shields to "defend" the Iraqi "Governement"?

Answer: No one! Figments of the BushBlower and Pvt. Fido's sperm-addled brains

Our rights ARE being taken away, not a claim, a FACT. NO ONE stating that FACT is defending the Iraqi government. That is your little strawman, without which you would have nothing but your limp dick to stroke.

Time for you to retire to some dark corner for a little self-administered tongue bath for the balls, huh doggie?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2693289.stm

http://www.rense.com/general34/human.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/iraq/anti_war_iraq.html

http://www.uksociety.org/human_shield.htm

I guess you should switch the TV from Nickelodeon once in a while, KPC, and put the bong down, what kind of example is that for your daughter?

Looks like a dog just pissed on your shoes again.

Looked at your links, sounds like people of conscience to me, no where does it mention that these "human shields" are being "sent" by "the Left" as BushBlower claimed and you stupidly defended.

...so, I saw a little broke dick doggie tryin' to lift his leg around hear, but my shoes are still bone dry!

Now, where are those slippers?...don't make me take a paper to you again! (Pvt. Fido is a loyal dog, but he's stupid as a box of rocks, violence is all he understands.)

You got proven wrong again, KPC. This really is remarkably easy. Now just slink off and accept your inferiority.

People of Concience. That's rich.

Oh, and by the way, Pvt, Fido...from your own link;

"It isn’t a matter of groundswell support or sympathy for Saddam Hussein. Rather, the new anti-war movement zeroes in on the fear that any campaign against Iraq – especially the expected urban warfare on the streets of Baghdad – would imperil the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians."

What was that idiocy again...Human Shields being "sent" by "the Left" to protect the Iraqi "government"...was that it?

From the boston tea party to the WTO in Seattle to Republican Party opperatives storming the Miami vote-counters, Direct action clearly has a place in swaying the tide of American history.

'nuff said.

So SIMPLEton - let me see if I have got your logic right. The Middle East is a quagmire of Barbarian Sheikdoms, Kingdoms, and so-called Republics who happily kill each other at the drop of a hat? So, therefore it follows, in your logic, the way to civilize them is go over there and kill them? Gee, why didn’t I think of that - when you say it it sounds so reasonable. The way to solve all our problems and bring freedom and civilization is to kill people. So, the more dead bodies the more freedom and more civilization. Right? It’s so simple. Maybe that’s why you thought of it.

More formally: Civilization is one of those amorphous terms that is variable in definition. To some degree it depends upon the writer and their point of view. My Encarta Dictionary Def. 2 defines it as:

2. ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY an advanced level of development in society that is marked by complex social and political organization, and material, scientific and artistic progress.

This serves as a basic definition but does not go far enough as it is constrained by a materialist viewpoint. One might well add advanced spiritual development, refinement in social relations wherein mutual respect of each others rights overweighs one’s individual desires. Artistic development would be at a high level and valued for the contribution it makes to the tone of a society.

If we are ever going to make it as a real civilization we must cease solving our problems with crude physical violence. The only difference between a club and an Atom Bomb is the numbers of people killed. Isn’t technology grand?

Do not make the mistake of taking this to mean I am a pacifist. I am NOT. However, armed force as a solution to problems is the logic of a barbarian. If one must act in defense or to protect others I can be quite ruthless in my viewpoint.

However there is nothing in the current problem with Iraq that has provided sufficient threat or provocation to warrant killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

The solution to the Middle East is going to be a slow evolution but could be speeded up if the Federal Government of the United States did not conduct it’s foreign affairs with the Fortune 500’s quarterly earnings report in mind.

If the “Human Shields” do manage to get themselves killed - they should all be awarded Darwins. Posthumous of course.

And to answer my own question - I do not consider Western Culture civilized. A bunch of barbarians with bombs.

Hello, “Kyon”.

The Western “civilized” argument in the Middle East is older than Saddam, that is for certain. Yet, it is powerful--for those desperate to be righteous in way and deed--to distinguish themselves from “Other”. Arguably, a bunker-buster nuke, or mustard-gas attack blindly parts one from civility.

What is truly refined? Would the UK & US-led “no-fly” zone interpretation be the work of gracious leaders-- now that the Northern “no-fly” humanitarian support of the early 1990’s is over?

Or should the UN be held out for public scrutiny for not pressuring US/UK bombing raids in Iraq? After all, the “no-fly” zone are not Security Council authorized (and never were)-- yet, we bomb.

A decade ago, when the northern humanitarian support was issued for the Kurds Bush sr. stranded -- it was not issued for the south. France originally part of the coalition (France.UK. US) left it in 1998. Why? Is France more civilized than the US & UK? Some argue this case.

I think it is not unfathomable to say that the “no-fly” zones are illegal. They are, however, accepted by many with little reservation. Does this make for an elevated position in the world?

we are all american brothers and sisters. Please be kind to one another.
we must all hang together or we will all hang separatly.
civil disobedience works. ask rosa parks.
viva la revolucion

The Ship of Fools

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2246037.stm


#1. The irrelevant KPC. Look, Junior, you said the Left wasn’t sending anyone to act as human shields in Iraq. I linked you to a site of an organization that is doing just that. So you’re wrong, as usual.

#2. The preposterous Diogenes. Whether or not you personally consider Western cultures civilized matters not one bit. The fact is that they are, and are so empirically. The Middle East has not developed culturally, economically, artistically or politically since the Middle Ages. The West has made monumental leaps forward in the same time. Name any field of human endeavor and I will show you a western person leading the way. Name any innovation, and you will find a Western person inventing, modifying and perfecting it. When was the last time you flew on a jet plane made in Saudi Arabia, drove an Iraqi car, typed idiocies on an Iranian computer, had an Egyptian MRI or even had a cold Syrian beer? Never? Wow, there’s a shocker.

You make the argument that we Westerners will never be truly civilized until we solve our problems without a resort to violence. Neat-O proposition there, Mr. Spock, but tell me, when the barbarians come, with bombs strapped to their chests, will you feel the same? And your claims of personal ferocity ring hollow. You sound like the endless line of other sunshine patriots who say they’d join if their nation were attacked, blah blah blah.

The ‘current situation’ in Iraq is this: A regime that was granted a cease fire by the United Nations is in open defiance of the provisions of that cease fire. Even the Mr. Magoo-like Hans Blix has reported that the Iraqis are engaged in advanced NBC weapon procurement – a direct violation of the cease fire (see UN resolution 707) – and are actively concealing the evidence of this work. The United Nations resolution 1441 says that Iraq was to be given one last opportunity to come clean, and they have squandered this opportunity. So the war's back, on boys.

There will be killing, but far less than your dire predictions. The Iraqi regime hangs by a thread. The people most eager to sing the praises of Saddam today will be the first to throw flowers at American liberators. And I wonder what Diogenes will write then?

#3. Not with Alexander. Hey sonny boy, why don’t you look up the relevant UN resolutions? I believe you’ll find that the UN asked for assistance to stop the Iraqi regime from massacring the Kurds and Shiites and in resolution 688 asked its member nations to assist it in the humanitarian effort there. Handing out Ho-Ho’s to Kurds is somewhat tricky with Iraqi helicopter gunships firing at you, so the UK, France, and the US established the no-fly zones. The UN did not establish them, yet understood that they were necessary to implement its resolution, and HAVE NEVER ASKED THAT THEY BE DISSOLVED. And as far as ‘bombing’ is concerned, the aircraft of the US and UK only bomb when they are fired upon or 'painted' by missile radar, which is frequently. The targets are almost exclusively AAA sites – radar tracking facilities and missile launchers.

The reason France left the no-fly zone agreement in 1998 is that they were bought off by Saddam Hussein. Ever since that time they have been receiving Iraqi oil at cut-rate prices. NO APPEASEMENT FOR OIL!!

From the boston tea party to the WTO in Seattle to Republican Party opperatives storming the Miami vote-counters, Direct action clearly has a place in swaying the tide of American history.

'nuff said.

Simple Simon, my comments raised concern about the moral issues in policy decisions and what impact do these decision have on one’s disposition.

Your decision is to enter with epithets, and straw.

Right,
UN Security Council Resolution 688 (5 Apr 91)
UN Security Council Resolution 687 (3 Apr 91)
UN Security Council Resolution 678 (29 Nov 90)

these are the resolutions-- and as I pointed out, which you reiterate,
the UK, France, and US formed coalition placed a “no-fly” zone. yourbbc post is a “summary” (as you will note “no-fly” zone is not in 688). see: http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm
I am not disputing 1991/92 need to keep Kurds from being killed for resisting Saddam. I remember we, the US, said helicopters okay, but no fixed-wing. Then things got messy and a relief (688) resolution was formed. (I also understand, that without Turkey’s okay every six months, the Northern gig would not occur.)

Your argument is that because the UN never asked to dissolve the “coalition” or refused UK/FR/US involvement-- it therefore is valid. But, your circular reasoning does not address why the UN did not accept allegations that Iraq was “in breach” for firing on planes in early Nov. 02. Early drafts of what was to become res. 1441 had direct mention of “no-fly” zone, but such direct implication was refused-- never entering the final draft. There are multiple statements from UN members to suggest that some see this UK/US coalition as a questionable use of enforcement/containment.

I attempted to address the issue of morality, which shapes civility (according to some political statements given in the recent years). I used France and the “no-fly” zone -- the UN-- and posed the question: does this define development?

you sight oil.

You say oil is why France no longer participates in the maneuvers-- I know France was pretty sensitive to the “no-fly” zone issue that arose in the 2nd week of November. http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/actu/articletxt.gb.asp?ART=29748

Is it true that the US has doubled our oil shipments from Iraq as means to counter the shortage caused by Ven. strikes?
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4591794,00.html
here is a differnt scoop:
http://english.pravda.ru/comp/2001/01/25/2153.html

Please feel free to not address my real inquiry, and continue with your tactics. After all, I intended to say hello to Kyon.

Well SIMPLEton,

Either the West is civilized or it is not. You may bluster and pound your “manly” chest all you want but it only weakens your argument. By the way if you are so gung ho about this war - when does YOUR unit ship out? Or are YOU just a leetle Chickenhawk like all the clowns in the Whore House (except Colin Powell)? I served my time in hell. I walked the walk and I sure as hell don’t have to answer to you junior. Both of my Discharges have a couple of big words on them you may not recognize because they have more the one syllable but here goes: “HONORABLE DISCHARGE”.

However, I did not put on a uniform to kill children and be the enforcement arm of Bush and his Band of Chicken Hawks. I did not put on a uniform to enrich the business interests of men who did not have the courage to serve. I wore a uniform to protect children and prevent unnecessary loss of life. I wore with full knowledge and awareness that I might have to make that “last full measure of devotion” should duty require. However I did not sign on to die for good ol’ “Arbusto”.

You destroy your own arguments; you ASSUME that technology and civilization are an identity. They are not. Civilization is the cultural advancement and sophistication of a society not mere technologic prowess. (By the way you dishonestly twist my statements by your Arab Culture analogy. I did not at any time assert that I considered them any more civilized than the West.) By your logic whoever can build the biggest bombs and kill the most people is the most civilized. Technologic amenities are just that amenities. A civilized culture may have them but it is not a requirement.

How civilized was the Third Reich? Using technology as a standard by which to measure civilization the Third Reich was more civilized than the Allies. In many ways Nazi Germany was technologically superior to the Allies. The German Tiger was so superior to American and British Tanks that the only way they could defeat the German Mechanized Divisions was to deprive them of fuel. The Fire Bombing of Germany worked to take out their industrial production only because the Allies were able to put more planes in the air than the Germans could shoot down - not because they were out matched in technology. It was only in the closing months of the war that the U.S. was able to field a fighter that was a match for the Me-109.
With what the Germans had on the drawing board had the narrowly won “Battle of the Bulge” gone the other way, which it nearly did, the Germans may well have bought enough time to field weapons which that Allies could not beat. The Me-262 which saw limited action at the end of the war could blow any allied fighter out of the sky. Another 50 to 100 of them and German Air Superiority would have cleaned the skies of Allied Bombers. The difference was razor close. Technology does not equal civilization.

By the standard you present 16th Century England, because of more advanced technology (Rack and “Steel” Thumbscrews), was more civilized than Golden Age Greece. Laughable.

So, a culture that behaves barbarically, but has Nuclear (not nookuelur) Weapons is still a barbarism.

As for the need to make a military conquest of Iraq you have not made your case. Is Iraq reluctant - well yeah. And your point? The fact is that the inspectors are in place and Iraq has largely been cooperative. Fact is with sanctions and the enforcement of illegal “No Fly Zones” which were never authorized by the U.N. Resolution following the Gulf Massacre I, while allegedly bombing only “military targets”, the U.S. and U.K. have destroyed the water system in those areas. One Military man commented that if we were bombing military site with the HUNDREDS OF TONS of bombs dropped there should not even be an outhouse left standing. By UNESCO estimates about 500,000 Iraqi children have died as a result of the destruction of civilian Infrastructure, contamination by U.S. Depleted Uranium munitions which were never cleaned up and the use of “Sanctions” by the U.S. to block the purchase of water systems equipment to rebuild reservoirs, sanitation, and water purification infrastructure. Let me state that again in case you did not understand the first time A HALF A MILLION CHILDREN have died as a direct result of U.S. Actions. Are you proud of that? Just in case you were curious these actions by the U.S. are all made in contravention of the Geneva Conventions.
Do you honestly think people who have had the children killed by ordnance stamped “Made in the U.S.A.” are going to welcome their beloved liberators with open arms? How about small arms fire. Yeah we can out gun them and kill them. I guess that must be what you consider civilization. You have been watching Faux and listening to Rush too long. You have ceased thinking for yourself.

Read these if you have the balls to confront the truth:

The Gift that keeps on Giving:
Gulf War Vet and MD: http://www.rense.com/general7/gulf.htm

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

Fighting the real War on Terrorism: http://www.rense.com/general32/real.htm

Iraqi’s Welcome: http://www.rense.com/general30/wont.htm

Dead and Dying Children: http://www.rense.com/general7/gulf.htm



Your ignorance is abysmal and appalling. Tell me do you believe everything FAUX “NEWS” tells you? Does Rush do your thinking for you so you don’t have to? Wanna’ buy a bridge kid?

This proposed war by Bush and the other Chickenhawks infesting the Whore House is about money and power. Saddam Hussein is an evil bastard but he does not represent a threat to the United States. Killing another half a million people to get one evil bastard is not going to make us right. We are supposed to be the good guys - not Conquistadores looking for loot through a sea of blood.

P.S.: Do you get paid per line or by the word?

I made a mistake put in the wrong link for the Gulf War Vet and MD Here is the correct one: http://www.rense.com/general33/terr.htm

Read what the Doctor sent over to clean up the mess found. You won't hear this on "Rush". He omits unpleasant truths that destroy his case. In any event he is a coward.

So...Pvt. Fido....THAT'S who "the Left" is? "Voices in the Wilderness"????

So when we here talk about media dominated by "the Left", you are really saying media dominated by..

..."Voices in the Wilderness"...???

Yes, they OWN the media, sending out their orders to "the Left", those conspiritors hunched over their nefarious plans at the worldwide headquarters of...

..."VOICES IN THE WILDERNESS"...

...whatta fuckin' clown you are....HOOOOOOWEEEE! You have like ZERO credibility, dude...you wanna try for negative numbers?

You kids make me laugh.

Not With Alexander: I have made no circular arguments nor set up any straw men. It is true that the UN didn’t explicitly establish the no fly zones, but it is equally true that they asked for WHATEVER help member nations could provide to help enforce resolution 688, and approved of their establishment. I must reiterate, if the UN has a problem with the no fly zones, why haven’t they ONCE requested their deactivation? As for your memory, you are correct. We initially approved the Iraqi use of helicopters in the no fly zones – because we knew how damaged the Iraqi road system was and believed them when they said they needed to use helicopters to transport medical personnel, food, fuel, etc. Once it was clear that they were actually using helicopter gunships to murder the Kurds, helicopters were prohibited
You bring up morality, and point to the establishment and maintenance of the no fly zones as evidence of immorality. Yet it is SPECIFICALLY because of the no fly zones that the Kurds operate autonomously, without fear of the Iraqi army. So successful have they been, that the Iraqis have turned to assassination and the employment of terrorists. Yet you would have the no fly zones deactivated in the interest of morality. You really should brush up on your personal morality, son. Making it easier for a dictator to murder people isn’t the best example of moral behavior.
And please don’t trot out The Observer and Pravda and pretend that you’re actually providing news. The National Enquirer says that Tommy Lee is selling his house because it’s haunted. And Hillary Clinton is having Mumia’s love child.
Your friends the French have traded for Iraqi oil and don’t want their cozy business relationship disturbed. The Germans have a rather uncomfortable habit of providing advanced weapons technology to Mr. Hussein. So much for principled, moral stands.

Diogenes: why don’t you tell me your MOS and units of assignment? I’m always up for a laugh. Your writing style, paranoia, and pompousness reminds me much of Sheepdog – maybe you boys were both on the same boat in the Coast Guard. I’ll bet it was hell. So what was it, D? 98C? 98G? 71L?
First of all, pal, you better brush up on your Oath of Enlistment:
"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD."
Now, exactly where in here does it say that Diogenes has the right to pick and choose when and what to fight for? You tender your service for the good of the country. It is not for you to decide what that good is; it is for you to serve. If you cannot do this, then there’s the door - and good riddance.
You run that idiotic ‘chickenhawk’ canard up the flagpole and expect it to get a salute. That stupidity has been discredited so many times it just doesn’t fly anymore. So go call Paul Begala and get your next sound bite. I know: George W. Bush is really dumb. Yeah, that’s a good one.
You make one valid point in your whole rambling missive: Civilization and technological advancement are not necessarily the same thing. So, in the interest of education, let us put aside technology and look at the lives of the peoples of the West compared to the Middle East. Let’s look at quality of life, life expectancy, infant mortality, treatment of women, children, foreigners, and persons of different religions. Let’s examine the governmental systems and rights of the common man. Let’s look at economic systems, education, and freedom of expression. Or would you rather just concede now?
Your analysis of WWII history also leaves something to be desired. First of all, the ME 109 was an aging design and was easily bested by the more advanced American and British fighters (P-51, P-47, Spitfire). The FW-190, especially the ‘D’ model, was a far better German fighter, perhaps the best design of the war. The ME 262 was an impressive design, but it had a number of fatal flaws. First was the fuel mixture that it used which was unstable and incredibly flammable. Second was the plane’s lack of maneuverability, especially at low altitudes. Third was its need for exceptionally long take off and landing runs – most ME 262’s were ‘cherry picked’ by loitering allied fighters waiting for the planes to take off or land.
Finally your understanding of the situation in Iraq is questionable at best. The Iraqis don’t have the luxury of being ‘reluctant’ as you say. They have been told to demonstrate to the world that they do not possess NBC weapons and that they are not attempting to conceal them. The penalty for failure to comply with the inspectors is a resumption of hostilities. The President has gotten two votes authorizing his use of force since September 11, 2001, and is acting in compliance with the Liberation of Iraq Act of 1998. When will you Lefties ever tire of old lies? DU? Why is it that only Iraqi children die of DU poisoning? Didn’t we shoot any DU in Kuwait? Golly that’s a mystery.
The corrupt regime of Saddam Hussein is coming to an end. Chances are excellent that we won’t even have to use military force to end it. If we do, the victory will be swift and complete, loss of civilian life minimal. And yes, the people who have had relatives killed by ammo stamped ‘made in the USA’ will welcome us as liberators. Same as the Germans and the Japanese at the end of WWII.
P.S. I don’t get paid to do this. I kick you around for fun.

NEGATIVE NUMBERS IT IS!!!!

KPC you really are a silly little turd. Tell me, from what side of the political spectrum do you assume "voices from the wilderness" hail? From where do they receive their funding? Who handles the logistics of their activities? Would you say they are Thatcherites? Or maybe supply-side Reagan fans? Nope. They are Leftists. Communists. Much like yourself. You've been called on the excrement that spills from your mouth and now you start your typical piss and moan retreat. Soon, no more KPC on this thread. You won't be missed.

I just wanted to make sure I understood that fucked up circuitry known as FidoLogic.

"The 'Left' is sending out human shields to protect Hussein"

Translation: "A few dedicated members of 'Voices in the Wilderness', a group working to end economic sanctions against Iraq through non-violient means, have decided to travel to Iraq to bring attention to the suffering that any proposed war will bring to the people of Iraq."

Notice how our resident broke dick doggie, Pvt. Fido, attempts thru his cricible of self-inflicted paranoia, to paint this as the "Left", (pls note the capital "L"), sending out it's minions to protect SH....complete and udder horse shit. But, not only are they the "Left", no no no no no no....not good enough...they are COMMUNISTS...and YOU are a communist...and you...and you....all you are COMMIES because YOU DON'T THINK LIKE PVT. FIDO!!!!! So, since you are commies, everything you say is a lie, everything you refer to is questionable...you can be dismissed out-of-hand because,...well...because you're COMMIES!! That's what we do to Godless COMMIES! You don't REASON with a COMMIE.....ya PUT 'EM TO THE SWORD!

You are one FUCKED UP lil' doggie....go fetch my slippers, will ya?

Simple Simon,

Honey, you need to lighten up. A little self-righteousness can really get those fingers tapping, eh?

what does, "here's a different scoop" mean to you?
Do you think it means -- as Monty Python used to say, "and now for something completely different."

I can only imagine you don't get what I am writing.
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/01/31/42821.html

love, sonny boy "not with Alexander"

"You tender your service for the good of the country. It is not for you to decide what that good is; it is for you to serve. If you cannot do this, then there¹s the door - and good riddance." --Simple Simon

Oh my God - I know exactly what you mean! That is so right. It is so beautiful I just want to cry tears of joy.

Well Simpleton,
You would seem not to be teachable and would seem to be in love with evil. For evil it is what you would advocate. Blind obeisance to a would be tyrant and his war of conquest. And the FACTS of the Chicken Hawk nature of the cowards who would have a nice little war of conquest expending the lives of our brave young men and women for their own petty personal aggrandizement is beyond dispute. You may fume and obfuscate but “facts can inconvenient things”. With the exception of Colin Powell none of them ever SERVED in Uniform or placed their life at play for this country. Bush does not count as he spent most of his time a DESERTER and would have stood Court Martial were he not the privileged son of a prominent and powerful politician.
You quote the Oath of Allegiance but strangely omit the fact that a soldier is under the positive obligation to disregard illegal orders. “I vas chust followink orders” is not an excuse for War Crimes. But I suppose you have never heard of Nuremberg. Following illegal orders is also proscripted under the UCMJ. The Geneva Conventions are binding upon the American Military as a matter of Constitutional Law. I suppose such niceties elude you but perhaps the gallery will appreciate it.
By the way notice those words in the oath “SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION”? I suppose their import is lost on you. ???
You answer none of my questions and respond only vitriol unsubstantiated by any facts. By your failure to acknowledge the FACT that U.S. War Crimes have resulted in the deaths of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocents you would embrace EVIL. I therefore name you for what you are EVIL. You avoid the issue of DU not by disproving any of the facts which are copiously documented but by childish taunts and obfuscation. Further U.S. Gulf War Vets appear, in some large number of cases, to be suffering from DU Poisoning. Take a spin over to Gulfwarvets.com for PLENTY of documentation.

You still haven’t said when your unit ships out.???? CHICKEN HAWK.

I seem to recall this document that has this odd little phrase in it. I doubt that you would recognize it but I’ll give it a try:

“...We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guard for their future security... ” Thomas Jefferson (Emphasis added)

Of course there is also that trifling little document that begins: “We The People....”
Under which the Congress has the sole authority to declare war. Now they may well have abrogated and failed to assert their legal rights and duties but I would refer to the Oath they take to support and defend the Constitution - as well as the one Bush took when he and his Junta took office. It would appear that his word is of no value and he has no intention of fulfilling his solemn OATH.

You failed to refute my analogy. The P-51D did not hit the runway in any numbers until the last year of the war. Yes the Spitfire was as maneuverable as the Me-109 but it lacked the firepower and top end of the 109. The Me-262 was the first practical Jet Interceptor. Was it touchy? Yes. You indirectly prove the force it represented by your “Cherry Picking” example. Once in the air it was more than a match for anything the Allies could field. As with all early designs one could have expected rapid development in the heat of war. But that is neither here nor there - it is speculation. Your quibbles do not refute my point.

As for your “comparative” “study” in Social Anthropology (and applied Bigotry) all I would add is “do we have to destroy the village to save it”?

Of course I know what your answer is: KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL, KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well I'm glad you're on board, KPC.

Not with Alexander, I'm sorry if I got a little excited above. I should have checked your links first. Thanks for being so cool.

Diogenes, you ignorant slut;

The Chicken Hawk canard is foolish for the following reason: The Constitution (which you profess such fondness for) has put the authortiy over military matters in civilian hands. Not in the hands of retired military men, but in civilian hands. It is incumbent on the President and members of Congress to decide if and when we as a nation go to war. The brain-dead appelation of 'Chicken Hawk' was designed to stifle debate and to discredit those that advocate for war. If only military men can say if we go to war, then you are advocating military rule.

And I find it funny that you accuse me of changing the subject when it comes to DU. Why are there no problems in Kuwait with DU? Why are there only Iraqi problems? Aren't you at least a little curious by the selective nature of DU poisoning?

When our conversation turns to Social Anthropology, now, of course we see the slimy Leftist come out when presented with an argument that he is losing. Rather than continue the civilized vs. barbarian discussion he would rather call me a racist. You are a coward, Diogenes, and wrong on the facts. You should have just conceded with grace instead of being such a punk.

And finally, my unit ships out when they tell us to. I suspect that we'll never get to know what esteemed position of trust you held in our armed forces. Oh well, at least we know it was hell.

In the article "watchdogs for Saddam" are mentioned.

That was for Diogenes. AKA Kyon " the dog."

I was really hoping to string him along.

Maybe Diogenes doesn't know his own name.

Subtlety is so easily lost in threads like these. Sorry, if I yanked
your chain, Chief (?).

oh, well. I'm exposed....
-------------
And may we please leave the Coasties out of the equation, they can "ride in the trough" too.

Not all"left" thinkers are duped by Saddam.-- and some of us are more than willing to toe-the-line if given the option.

I wish we could separate the regular political bullshit that comes with a Administration change from the very real threat that Saddam and his cohorts are and will continue to create.

Saddam does not disarm because Saddam is anti-peace.
Saddam is a fascist as they come.

We will prevail, god willing.

(Scorpion-watchdogs! Ha! Someone must love sci-fi from the 50's)

Quack quack!! Excuse me, do you have any Grey Poupon?

Non, desole. Je bois du cafe.
demandez au chien

bye-bye

I wonder what it is about NeoCons that they automatically assume that anyone who is not for wholesale slaughter and empire building is automatically a leftist? If there is one thing I learned in the service it is what it is like to live under a Socialist Economy. It taught me a healthy detestation for totalitarianism regardless of the end of the political spectrum. I see no significant difference between a Communist Totalitarian State and a Fascist Totalitarian State. Neither is really workable, neither is free, and I sure as hell don’t want to live in one. I despise both. It is one of the more irksome canards robotically repeated by Hawks, such as yourself, that there is no one on the Right who opposes this senseless war of aggression. It is a lie. Goebbels would approve. Just remember “War is Peace” and “Ignorance is strength”.

Actually if memory serves there have been some problems with DU in the area in Kuwait near the Combat Zone. However, the area is very desolate and not that many people have occasion to go there which may explain the lower incidence of problems. Tons of DU munitions were dumped into inhabited and frequented areas of Iraq. I don’t have any documentation handy so I’ll do some research. According to one report I was reading recently 2 in 5 Gulf War Vets are suffering from some degree of Uranium poisoning. Particularly in trouble are Tank Crews as the dust from DU munitions permeates the atmosphere inside. British Vets are suffering similar problems from DU exposure. The same is occurring in the Kosovo area where Tons of DU were dropped. Do spend some time over at Gulfwarvets.com; you will find it eye opening. You may try to run from this one as it really is pretty horrible. Stomach turning stuff. However, if we are to live up to our ideals then we must confront, examine, and acknowledge the truth. The more you try to explain it away and minimize it the more you condone it. Because Rush says something does not mean it is true. Rush is very good at omitting key facts while remaining “factually correct” in the limited view he expounds - resulting in a distorted and incorrect conclusion. It is classic disinformation. The best way to lie is by telling the truth, but not all of it.

And no I am not going to give you any of the details of my service. All I will say is that I was a NonCom higher than Buck Sergeant. And no I was not a “Coastie”. That narrows it down to 3 branches. You guess.

The Chickenhawk taunt is valid because what is being advocated is aggressive war by men who are unwilling to carry any burden of personal risk. Only one member of Congress has a son serving in the Enlisted Ranks. The Children of the “Elite” will not be at risk of death in this War of Conquest. The chief beneficiaries will be U.S. Business Interests who want the Oil and Gas to exploit. The government needs the control and money to keep from going into bankruptcy. Contrast the risk incurred by the current American Political Elites with what happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
I certainly do not want to live in a Military Police State. That's why I oppose the policies of the Bush Administration.

As far as my dig went - I said “bigot” not “racist”. Both have specific and distinct meanings. Look them up and compare. And your commentary on the people of the Middle East was bigoted and ignorant. To which I might add chauvinistic and jingoistic. It shows you have not traveled much. Has their culture stagnated? Well, yes. However, unless you are Asian, or Middle Eastern, their ancestors were living in Civilized comforts when your ancestors were still picking their nose and rubbing it on the uncured hides they were wearing. We know the Greek and Roman Classics today because Arab Scholars saved them and studied them while Europe was burning them for heat. It is a part of the world that has been torn by the rampages of horde after conquering horde. Their current political organization is a result of the division by the League of Nations and the British Empire. Mostly the Brits. Given the chronic political instability, a lack of education, and lack of technologic sophistication is understandable. By the way Syria is not likely to produce a “good Beer” anytime soon - Islam forbids the consumption of Alcohol. In Saudi Arabia Alcohol Smugglers are put to death.

And at least you did give one correct answer. When asked the question “when does your unit ship out”? The correct answer is always “nunya”.

Ok, Diogenes, I will concede that people across the political spectrum can be opposed to war with Iraq. And they are no less wrong than the Leftists which comprise the majority of the appeasement movement. ANSWER as you know, is a front group of a Communist organization. The meatheads that make up the ‘black bloc’ and other self-styled Anarchists are the same spoiled punks that protested ‘antiglobalization’ until that fad ran its course. Now the cool kids are against war with Iraq, so we don’t have time to throw cream pies at Bill Gates anymore.

You profess distaste for both Communist and Fascist totalitarianism. And you fail to find a difference between them. I agree with you. You should be more careful, your fellow travelers don’t have quite the same perspective on history.

DU was used in Kuwait City, and throughout the country. The region of Iraq where the vast majority of DU ordinance was expended is also an uninhabited desert. . We fought no major actions in any Iraqi city. No DU was ‘dropped’ on anything. DU is found in bullets and the APFSDS-T tank round exclusively. No bombs contain DU. The idea that tank crews are getting sick from DU doesn’t make much sense. The DU in the Sabot round is the penetrator. This penetrator is encased in a sabot and surrounded by propellant. The round itself is not radioactive. When the round contacts its target – a mile or so away – the penetrator will become super heated and some DU will atomize. The only way a tanker could come in contact with radioactive DU particles is if he dismounted his tank and went nosing around in the tank he just killed. This sort of behavior is hard to engage in during a lightning fast armored campaign.

Now, I really must insist, the label of “Chicken hawk” is NOT valid. If you say that a person cannot advocate for war unless they are serving or have served in the military, then you are giving superior political latitude to members of the military in preference to civilians. Can a man in a wheelchair be a Senator? Yes. Can he advocate for war? No. Hence he does not hold the same rights as a military person. Furthermore, you are then ensuring the very military dictatorship that you profess to abhor. Military service would become THE factor in elections. A candidate without military service would be seen as inferior to one with such service, rendering military persons a status above that of normal citizens. Eventually, the entire congress would be composed exclusively of military men and women. Is this really your desire?

Finally, your accusation of bigotry is silly. Facts are facts. I don’t give a fiddler’s fart why the Arab nations are a pack of corrupt shit holes; I just know that they are. Blaming whitey for the problem is silly. Sure Britain (and France) owned a sizeable portion of the region. But so did the Ottoman Empire, and for a helluva lot longer than the Brits or the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys (that’s the French, courtesy of Jonah Goldberg). By your own estimation the Arabic world was superior in technology and culture to the European world in the year 1000. But you see, with “the chronic political instability” in Europe at the time, “a lack of education, and lack of technologic sophistication is understandable”. How is it a valid, unbigoted observation to say that the Arabs were more advanced than the West in 1000 A.D., yet it is an invalid, bigoted observation to say that the West is more advanced than the Arabs in 2000 A.D.? I fear the Thought Police have gotten to you, my friend. Free your mind, the ass will follow.

The Oath of Service is something you should really try and live by, Simple Simon.

It says to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Have you read the Constitution? Read the part about treaties. What does it say? That treaties take precedence over amendments, even (which includes the Bill of Rights). We signed a treaty to join the UN, Simon. Do you know what that treaty says? That it has precedence over all over treaties. And that no wars will be waged without UN approval.

So try and follow your own Oath of Service. I realize that you are a mere dog of war, following orders without question, but you should really attempt to THINK about what it is you're doing. When you pledge to uphold the Constitution, do you even give a schitt? Does your word mean anything at all? Or are you just into killing things and being a military submissive? What will you do when your President goes AGAINST the law of the Constitution of the United States? Chuck the Constitution? THINK, man! What will you do?

AT EASE!
DISMISSED!

Gringo, your position is prinicipled, and I thank you for it. The Constitution does grant the Executive the exclusive right to enter into treaties, and thus would have the right to enter into the UN and abide by the UN charter.
The problem with your analysis, my good man, is that you think the actions of President George W. Bush occur in a vacuum. If he enters into an aggressive war, he is in violation of the UN charter, and hence in violation of the US Constitution. Looks good on paper, but it doesn't quite pass historical or legal muster.
The sad truth of the matter is that the conflict in the Gulf, sparked in 1990 by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, has never officially ended. The nation of Iraq, sued for peace and was granted a cease fire based on numerous stipulations. Sanctions were imposed upon the regime to encourage compliance with these stipulations. The regime in Iraq has NEVER complied with the relevant UN resolutions and is in direct violation or 'material breach' of them. This being the case, the cease fire agreement has been violated, and the UN has no choice but to resume military actions in the field.
Of course the UN could choose not to do so, but then it risks being exposed for what it has become: a sham.
This American administration has successfully outmaneuvered the appeasement mongers both domestically and internationally. It is only because of the backbone of this President that the UN is doing ANYTHING in Iraq today. Now he has pulled the other ace from his sleeve: Colin Powell and convincing evidence of Iraqi violations. The UN will either follow the US or it will dissolve. In the end, the UN will follow.

The fact remains, that if you consider the UN a "sham" then you consider the Constitution a "sham."

The claim that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, without Security Council backing, is legal seems to be a little questionable.

Here's what the Constitution says:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Got that? The treaties the United States signs comprise "the supreme Law of the Land."

Here are some of the international treaties we've signed.

First and foremost, we signed the UN Charter. Article 103 of this treaty stipulates that the Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding all signatory nations’ conflicting obligations under any other international agreement. It also says that the UN Security Council is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Got that? The Security Council calls the shots, not the US.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

So you see, the UN Charter prohibits wars of aggression outright. It authorizes DEFENSIVE war only when the following conditions are met:

1. An armed attack is launched, or is immediately threatened, against a state’s territory or forces (and possibly its nationals)

Well, Iraq has not attacked us, and there is no evidence that it's about to attack us or anyone else. "Immediately threatened" doesn't mean "they might attack someday." This isn't my opinion; it's an agreed-upon interpretation affirmed and upheld in international courts of law.

2. There is an urgent necessity for defensive action against that attack

If 1 isn't true, 2 can't be. Simple enough?

3. There is no practicable alternative to action in self-defence, and in particular another state or other authority which has the legal powers to stop or prevent the infringement does not, or cannot, use them to that effect

We have alternatives: diplomacy, weapons inspections, sanctions, etc. You can assume they won't work if you want. But that mere assumption doesn't provide a legal basis for war.

4. The action taken by way of self-defence is limited to what is necessary to stop or prevent the infringement, i.e. to the needs of defence…

This is beside the point, obviously.

We also signed the Nuremberg Convention. Principle 6 of that document defines a crime against the peace as "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned above."

Arguing that these treaties would be broken by unilateral action is not some fringe opinion of the "loony left"... they're the basis for the current legal debate over this war. There are lawsuits underway at this time, based on these principles. You might not like them, but thankfully, your opinion of what a "sham" and what isn't a "sham" is of little consequence to anybody.

I suggest you quit watching the Pentagon-controlled corporate news. It makes people docile and credulous. It's like you'd believe anything that CNN or FOX told you.

But I personally doubt that this will mean
anything to certain posters.
I like the breakdown you present. Only a
greased weasel ( or a young upwardly mobile
law student wannabe with political aspirations
after s/he gets out of the military) could
wiggle out of such legal pinnings.
I wonder when s/he will ship out?
Soon?

... is particularly nice now. Love downtown Kandahar
with the people and their quaint customs.

Gringo, I admire your zeal, yet you fail to acknowledge the salient fact that I raised above:

The first gulf war, authorized by the UN has never ended.

There has been a cease fire, which is defined as a temporary cessation of hostilities; this cease fire was requested by the Iraqis and approved by the UN under certain conditions. Iraq has violated these conditions, resulting in a voiding of the cease fire. The war will be re-initiated based on Iraqi non-compliance with relevant UN resolutions.

You can spin it any way you'd like. Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions. The consequences for violation are clear. The Iraqis are apparently unafraid of the international community, and why wouldn't they be? With such a collection of spineless jellyfish and toadies to dictators in charge, they have little to fear. Iraq ejected the first UN inspectors - a violation of the cease fire agreement - and the UN and the US (under the 'leadership' of Mr. Clinton) did nothing. This emboldened the Iraqis, among others.

Now a US President has to force the UN to do what it should do. He forces them to walk the walk, and they will go along, sheeplike, for the realization is upon them that their long sojourn in New York may come to an end if they don't. The UN is becoming irrelevant because it is a source of bluster and hot air and endless talk while butchers like Kim and Hussein and Mugabe go their merry way killing and starving as they will. The UN fiddles as Rome burns.

So quote articles of the Constitution to your heart's content. I am aware of them, and my concience is clear that the Commander in Chief is not in violation of any of them. You would do yourself some good by looking up the relevant UN resolutions (since you are under the impression that the UN is superior to US soveriegnty, these documents must be MORE important than the US Constitution to you) and you'll see just how out of compliance Iraq is.

First of all, fuck Clinton. There; that's out of the way. Now...

I believe that the highest law in the land is the Constitution. Hence, I take what it says as the law. So when it says that treaties take precedence over domestic laws, then YES, as long as the US is a UN member, we should abide by the law of our Constitution and honor the UN's laws BECAUSE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION MANDATES IT.

If Bush invades Iraq without UN approval, he will be violating the law of the US CONSTITUTION. This is fact, not opinion.

You seem to *try* to reconcile this by saying that the UN doesnt mean anything anyways, effectively casting your vote to ignore the Constitution. The US is sovereign, not the UN. Obviously. So as long as that is true, FOLLOW THE LAWS OF THE U.S. ok?

What kind of soldier are you? You don't give a fuck about the Constitution? Yet you would follow a rogue (p)Resident that disrespects the law that this country is founded on? That sounds like some kind of mercenary to me, not someone fighting for the rule of law. You would honestly fight for an ex-AWOL fratboy? You certainly don't give a damn about the Constitution. If the UN is so passe then the US should dissolve its membership in it, and run wild over the world like an oil-hungry gang. You'd get to fire your gun a whole lot, Simon. Fun!

If you DO give a fuck about the Constitution, then follow it - uphold the Oath you took. But only if you're a man of your word. If you're not, follow your renegade Bush. Or whoever is at the helm of the country, no matter how that leader disrespects the constitution of the US. Because that seems to be what you want to do anyways. It's perfect; both you AND Bush don't give a fuck about the law.

keep on drumming gringo st@rr

I AM HE AS YOU ARE HE AS YOU ARE ME AND WE ARE ALL TOGETHER.
SEE HOW THEY RUN, LIKE PIGS FROM A GUN, SEE HOW THEY FLY.
I'M CRYING.

(Lennon & McCartney)

You've trapped yourself with your own illogic and never acknowledge the facts of the case which I have brought up three times now, Gringo.

The gulf war has not ended. Saddam Hussein is in violation of the cease fire agreement which temporarily suspended it. Should the US proceed with military action, it will not be a new, unrelated aggression, but only a continuation of an action brought about by Iraqi intransigence.

You hold the Constitution in high regard. The Constitution says that treaties entered into with foreign powers or organizations supercede US law, including amendments to the Constitution. The US has entered into the UN, and agrees to live by it's bylaws. You therefore hold the pronouncements of the UN in higher regard than the Bill of Rights. Iraq has in word and deed violated a half dozen UN amendments, including all those which pertained to the conditions of the cease fire. If you are to be consistant, you must therefore stand for the resumption of military action against Iraq until such time as it comes into compliance with UN resolutions. Furthermore, you will stand in favor of suspension of the 1st Amendment, habeus Corpus, and other such inferior 'rights' until such time as Iraq does comply (the Bill of Rights being inferior to the UN's resolution, according to you).

So you should be quiet, and let us get on with the work you obviously want us to finish.

Thank you and good night.

It occurs to me that the Internet has created an entirely new occupational field - Shill/Typist.

So Simon, haven't seen you for a few days - funny it's not been since just before the story broke that Colin Powell got up in front of the U.N. and lied his ass off.

"the Bill of Rights being inferior to the UN's resolution, according to you" ...you say.

Which is bullshit, because that is not merely my opinion. My opinion doesn't even matter in the face of law. The law of our constitution, that is. That's what matters.

Get this part of the constitution into your "Simple" head, Simon:
"All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Do you understand that? The constitution says, in plain english, in black and white, that treaties are supreme over "any Thing in the Constitution" (including the Bill of Rights) - get it into your head, genius.

The constitution DEMANDS that we honor the treaties we make. Do you understand yet? I'll go over it as many times as your Simple brain requires. It will require a few more times, apparently.

The UN has decided that there is a cease fire. We MUST honor that, as bound by our Constitution. Get it?

IF the UN decides that the cease-fire ends, THEN we can decide whether you and the other dogs of war will go and murder Iraqi civilians and children and soldiers (the modern war kill-ratio being for every one soldier killed, ten civilians get killed).

If we go in without the UN's say so, we are in violation of our own constitution. Follow me? Cease-fires are part of international law too, cowboy.

Iraq has been quite cooperative - amazingly cooperative considering how the US is acting towards them. Keep in mind it took 2 entire years for the UN to inspect South Africa for what Iraq is now being inspected for - while the whole time South Africa cooperated fully. The impatience of our cokehead pResident to wage a war for re-election is not a good reason to earn the world's violent enmity yet again.

AT EASE!
DISMISSED!

With the U.S. holding its dear little veto.

You've got the hang of it, BushPunk! Good boy! Nice to see you get off your knees in front of Bush long enough to type a few words.

I am not a lawyer. I am an observant, intelligent, critical-thinking citizen of the US. As such, I have access to our laws and read about them. I discuss it with lawyers, and I've chatted with constitutional-lawyer activists (you'd be an activist too if you were a constitutional lawyer). There is no ambiguity in the language of the constitution. The writers of the constitution wanted the US to be held in high international regard, considering it crucial to our well-being and survival as a nation. That's why they decided that the treaties the US signs should be respected. The US is part of the UN, and that is bound by international treaty. We must CONSTITUTIONALLY honor this. If any of the absurd legal situations that BushBitch suggested actually happened, the US would be constitutionally bound to follow those UN decrees.

It's not "Gringo Logic" - it is simply the law. Read it sometime. Turn off CNN/FOX/ABC/CBS/NBC/NPR and find things out for yourself. Try it.

Subscribe now!

THEY WANT YOUR BRAINS!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
USE CRITICAL THOUGHT TO AVOID LOSS OF BRAIN!