'Pro-War' Movement Springs Into Action

Friday, February 28, 2003
By Liza Porteus

NEW YORK--As time runs out for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to disarm or face a military thrashing from the United States and its allies, "pro-war" -- or "anti-anti-war" -- Americans are saying they have had enough of the recent protests in various cities at home and abroad.

"We decided we can't sit idly by while President Bush's agenda, specifically his continuing efforts on the war on terror, specifically Iraq ... while they ... Democrats, the left wing and Hollywood ... conduct a well-coordinated, well organized, well-financed effort to undo the president and really to destroy him, because that's their goal," David Bossie, president of Citizens United, told Foxnews.com.

On Friday, Citizens United, a grassroots organization, launched a national ad campaign supporting Bush's hard-charging approach to Baghdad.

Whereas actor Martin Sheen, who plays imaginary President Jeb Bartlet on The West Wing, has become the Hollywood face for the anti-war movement, former Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson, a recognized actor in his own right, has become the face for the counter movement.

"Thank goodness we have a president with the courage to protect our country," said Thompson, who plays a New York City district attorney in the NBC series Law and Order, in the ad he wrote himself. "What should we do with the inevitable prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of a murderous and aggressive enemy? Can we afford to appease Saddam?

"And for those who ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us before 9/11?"

Citizens United has also launched a petition drive on its Web site to support Bush. Organization leaders have been traveling the radio and TV circuit getting their message out.

"We feel that it is vital that we hear both sides -- that the American people feel both sides," Bossie said.

Bossie said the message of citizen support for the president has been lost in the shadows of celebrity activism against military action. Sheen, comedienne Janeane Garofalo, actress Susan Sarandon and rock star Sheryl Crow are among the Hollywood elite who have taken to the airwaves denouncing any war against Iraq and making Bush out to be the bad guy.

"They've been mad at him since he beat out Al Gore. This is really a chance to undo the president's popularity. That's what I really think -- at the end of the day -- they want," Bossie said.

Pro-war activism remains scattered and uncoordinated, but some demonstrations have already taken place.

On Feb. 8, 75 pro-warriors gathered in Costa Mesa, Calif., to wave American flags, chant "USA! USA!" and tote signs praising the administration's hard-line stance.

Thousands of people showed up last Saturday in support of Bush and U.S. troops and criticized anti-war protestors and France's opposition to authorizing war against Iraq. Pro-war demonstrators took to the streets in Orlando, Pensacola, Indianapolis and Washington, D.C.

Marchers chanted and carried signs that recalled familiar slogans such as "America -- Love It or Leave It."

"I was so saddened to see so many in our nation not supporting our troops and our country," Naval Warrant Officer David Wolff, a Desert Storm veteran, said of the marches. "This is very uplifting."

While Hollywood carries the torch of the much more visible anti-war movement, much of the pro-war activism is emerging from an unlikely place -- college campuses.

On Feb. 13, students from Georgetown and American universities in Washington crowded outside the French embassy protesting France's opposition to the United States.

Last week, a group of students at Northwestern University in Illinois showed up at an anti-war protest to make a point that there is more than one viewpoint on this issue and that the media hasn't covered both sides.

Northwestern University junior David Weigel -- also editor-in-chief of the campus' weekly Northwestern Chronicle -- organized a group of about 25 people over e-mail to counter an anti-war protest on campus last week.

Weigel said students who want to oppose the anti-war -- what he calls an "anti-American" movement -- should invite speakers to campus and should take part in rallies to get the message out to the media that there is another corner of the debate.

"Being there at an anti-war protest, it may seem silly," he said, "but that has the effect of not letting the media treat it like a burgeoning anti-war movement ...if there is no pro-America presence whatsoever, it's very easy for American reporters to just toe the anti-American line."

A group of Harvard law students this week launched Students for Protecting America. The group's position is that in the aftermath of Sept. 11, Americans can no longer remain complacent in the face of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction among rogue states.

"We are all frustrated by the anti-war protests of recent weeks and believe that most Americans agree with us, but have been less visible than the opposition," Brett Joshpe, founder of the group, said in a statement. "We firmly believe that in the absence of alternatives, this war is right for America, Iraq and the world."

Students for War is an ad-hoc committee recently set up to build support across America for military action. The group states that if Saddam is not disarmed, weapons reportedly in his possession will eventually come back to haunt us.

"Imagine if an Iraqi nuclear weapon were detonated on a American city -- either by the Hussein's regime directly or through terrorist immediacies -- the result could be the catastrophic death of millions of Americans," the Web site reads.

"We feel those who would appease Saddam Hussein are just as misguided as those leaders of yesteryear who chose to appease German dictator Adolph Hitler."

Supporters can sign a petition addressed to Bush on the group's Web site, http://www.studentsforwar.org

This is a convincing excerpt from the article above:

""Thank goodness we have a president with the courage to protect our country," said Thompson, who plays a New York City district attorney in the NBC series Law and Order, in the ad he wrote himself. "What should we do with the inevitable prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of a murderous and aggressive enemy? Can we afford to appease Saddam?"

It reminds me of an indymedia article, I think it was posted in Atlanta,

TENS OF PROTESTERS SUPPORT WAR!!!!

there was a picture of two or three rednecks on pick-ups with pro war signs.

(This was right after F15, when 15 MILLION protested the war )

Ha, ha, ha

To be sure, those who support the war don't make it out onto the street like the anti-Bush lemmings, but no one questions the fact that the MAJORITY of americans are fine with this thing and those "millions" elsewhere are irrelevant. They'll hate anything we do.

Yeah, like our allies.

78 % if the British are against the war

80% of all Europeans (including Spain & Italy) are against the war

95% of the Turks are against the war

80% of the Mexicans are against the War

75% of the Japanese are against the war

80% of the Australians are against the war

The Chinese are against the war, the Russians are against the war...

Yep, they all hate us. You're right about that.

Almost 75% of the Canadians are against the war

(who's left?)

POLL ANALYSES

February 28, 2003



GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll :

" thirty-eight percent of Americans favor an invasion even if the United Nations does not approve a new resolution -- sponsored by the United States, Great Britain, and Spain -- that calls for an authorization of war. However, 40% oppose an invasion if the resolution does not pass. "

The poll was conducted Feb. 24-26,

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

I really am not comfortable with being considered "pro-war". I am not. I am not pro-death penelty either, but, in society there are many unplessant things that have to be done. I don't want a war, but then again, I don't skyscrapers falling around me either. There is a time for war, a time for peace. If you don't want us killing and breaking your stuff, than don't be a terrorist. That simple.

as simple does.

Sheepdog sure is popular. To me he is a dog.

Have I mentioned that I hate Jews, cause I do...

'fine with this thing'? is that even an intelligent comment?.

the truth is.. the majority of americans aren't fine with 'this thing' and people like you represent those who have no clue what this war is about, what Bush's agenda is about, and what Pro-war really means.

This idea that war will bring peace to us, and to Iraqis is absurd.. war is devastation.. and I'm sure you wouldn't be 'fine with this thing' if you were an iraqi waiting for a force to pulverize you and your entire family.. picture that in your head while you go support war.. since history repeats itself.. and some day this country maybe the underdog..

we in england at grass roots suport the war on iraq but do not take to the streets left wing minorities make a show but the majority of working class people believe that our alliance with america is just and that to avoid any more 9/11s iraq must be taken out the man is dangerous

dont believe everyting you read or see in the newspapers or on the tv in england the majority of people are with the usa and others who agree on the war agenda you only see the minority left wing making a noise the pro war dont make a fuss we will come to the fore the man is a menace and should be defeated michael herne bay kent england

Oh, yeah. The US soldiers are all out to kill every Iraqi they can find and his entire family. After all, those war-mongers are all blood thristy beasts with trigger happy fingers...

Listen, I'm also not exactly comfortable with the name "pro-war", but I am even more uncomfortable with people who speak without propper knowledge. In every war, there will always be civilian casualties. However, that does not mean that our soldiers are going to go out there and kill every non-American they see. You are all forgetting that the US cares more about Iraqi civilians than Saddam does. You who are against the war are supporting and encouraging a man who tests his biological and chemical weapons ON HIS OWN PEOPLE! What has Saddam done to us? He financially supports terrorists, likely even the ones that destroyed the world center, he killes his own people, and he tried to assasinate our current president's father. He openly offers to pay the families of any suicide bombers. Why would you want to leave a man who is capable of that in power and in the possesion of weapons of mass destruction? It's inconcievable!

No, the US isn't in it for the oil. Anti-war activists often forget that oil was the reason the US backed off from finishing them off the first time we fought them in the first place! Yes, people will die. People die every day. People died trying to bring down a certain German leader 80 years ago. Yet even then people here protested against a war with Hitler. What would have happened if they wouldv'e succeded. More-over, what would happen in the future if the US backed off from this war? What do you think would happen to places like Kuwait, who would likely be attacked by Iraq or its terrorists for suppporting the US? Backing off now would only encourage Saddam, because he will get the impression that the US will not strike back if he hits us. How good will those anit-war activists feel if the US backs out of the war and only a few months later a plane crashes into the statue of liberty. Saddam is laughing at us, at you. We as a country cannot let people like Saddam Houssain and the Taliban keep getting away with these acts of terrorism. Do you know why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (this is out of the mouth of the man who was Japan's emperor at the time), because they didn't think the US would strike back.

Avigael Cymrot, co-founder of Students for Protecting America, said, “This is a time for moral clarity. The anti-war protesters are supporting the continuation of a regime that gasses its ethnic minorities, sanctions the use of rape as a means of political enforcement, engages in every variety of brutal torture, and has the potential to share weapons of mass destruction with terrorists. Most of us are unlikely activists, but in the face of this threat, we cannot afford to be indifferent.”

What we have here with the pro-war idiots is reflected in something Orwell said. Many states have to crack the whip to get the dogs to do somersaults, but a true propoganda victory is when the dogs will do somersaults without the whip. These frothing, ignorant warmongers regurgitate Bush Cartel propoganda, spread across the airwaves by rightwing talk show thugs. These pro-war morons are incapable of forming a rational thought.

Shut off the fucking Limbaugh, and think for yourselves! Goddamn assholes! You're wrecking this country, and when the next terroritst attack, I hold every single last sad-sack of shit one of you responsible. You and President Smirky Mc Warhardon.

JC,

Your an extremist, aren’t you?

Your a blathering type -- everything-scary-out-there that is coming to get you. Roll it all up into a nice cigarette and smoke it.

How convenient, not only will destroying Iraq and killing Saddam put a damper on terror, it will also bring democracy. After all, it is all interconnected, right?

I don’t know if the way Saddam Hussein is being removed from this world is right or wrong, but he is one

person that should not be here. By the way hazard how about holding the terrorist responsible for their actions. If another attack on our country happens the American you are so pissed at will be a victim like yourself.

Ben Seattle asks: "Where should we go with the anti-war movement next"

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/34575.php

THIS is where he wants to take you:

http://struggle.net/proletarian-democracy/pd.htm?benh=2

Sniff sniff, yep same old socialist stench.

The myth which the War Shills wish to perpetuate is that anyone who would oppose their War of Conquest is kooky Socialist.

Au Contraire' mein freund.

You know that is not true, I know that is not true, and anyone who thinks for themselves knows that is not true. Unless of course Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, the Von Mises Institute, and most of the Libertarian movement has seen the light.

Your disinformation is only effective if people remain ignorant. I am here to help spread what little light my feeble powers permit. However, regardless of how feeble, a little truth dispels a great many lies.

I'm looking forward to seeing your comments under ho-chi Ben Seattle's "essay", then.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/860807/posts

You'll no doubt want to explain that, as good Americans, you can't possibly accept his offer to lead you into a socialist utopian revolution.



Have a nice time stormin' the castle...

Max

It will be a cold rainy day in the Realm of Eternal Perdition before I will post at the National Klan Recruting Center at Der un-Free Republik.

Free Republic is no better than S.F. Indymedia. Totalitarians regardless of which end of the political spectrum they infest are an anathema to the true patriot.

That is why I choose to come here because it actually is a FREE forum (most of the time - there have been a few things I disagreed with but the kids running the joint generally do a good job).

If they are Rebels now it is a good sign for the country. The Constitution wasn't written by people with a Sheeple mentality.

"Anyone who is not a Rebel at Twenty has no heart. Anyone who is not Bourgeois by Fourty has no brains."

- Anatole France

(Ofter falsely attributed to Bismarck but France coined the original quote and Bismarck, like most Totalitarians never had an original thought in his life.)

Ok fine,

then you can post your dissent, as a Pro-American, here on indymedia.

http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/34575.php

You say anti-war is not in bed with socialism - but if that's true then why is there such a lack of dissenting opinions to ho-chi Ben's essay - here on indymedia - which is a bastion of anti-war sentiment.

Sleep with pigs... and you will smell like pigs.

Do you smell bacon?

see his thread for my theory.

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/34575_comment.php

I post my dissent here when the debate occaisions it's need. However, I do it with reason and respect for the basic good intentions of the other side of the debate. Because I disagree with someone or they with me does not neccessarily mean I think them evil or evil of them.

I do object to Bolshies and other Stalinist leaning creeps who are no better than you Freepers. A tyrant is a tyrant regardless of which end of the political spectrum they are on.

As they used to say in the Soviet Union:

Under Capitalism man exploits man. Under Communism it is vice versa.

>>I do object to Bolshies and other Stalinist

>> leaning creeps who are no better

>>than you Freepers.

Glad to hear you say that. There are other things we'd probably agree about as well (that thought probably scares the hell out of you ).

FWIW, I voted for Gov. Jesse Ventura for pres.

I wrote him in because I could not stand another 4 years of slick willie - and the thought of Son of Bush...

Well, let me just say I'm not terribly happy about the situation we're in either. Jesse wouldn't be messing around getting permission from the U.N.

But, you and I do differ on the path to take from here...

I believe the Arabs only respect strength and if we back down, we will never stop paying the consequences.

Yes, those ARABS, those evil swarthy ARABS....

...fuckin' twit...

I would not call myself an extremist, more like an objective idealist if that makes any sense. You who are anti-war believe, for some reason, that that i the US doesn't get involved everybody is just gonna leave us alone. The world doesnt work that way. It has been proven throughout history, I'd like to recall the little incident with Germany invading certain neutral countries (Belgium), that neutrality is not permanent. Not even relatively long lasting. Eventually, everyone must take sides. This case is special, since the US isn't even actually starting a war right now, Mr. Bush is contnuing one. The original gulf war never actually ended, Iraq and the US only formed a temporary truce on the explicit condition that Iraq would disarm itself of all weapons of mass destruction. In reality, Iraq has had 12 years to comply, the US has been giving peace a chance for 12 YEARS. No war in history has ever been held off that long for the sake of peace. No I'm not regurgitating what Bush has told us, I'm giving my honest opinion and if you'd like to begrudge me that through insults and slander it only makes you look all the worse. I think we've been tolerating men like Saddam and Osama and those kinds of people not so much because we want peace, but because we are too content to mind our own business. What happened at the world trade center is a perfect example of wqhat minding your own business can do. And though you are likely right that after the war terrorist activity will increase, with a major financial backer out of the picture terrorism will actually go down in the long run. When a dog bites you, you don't just sit there and let it knaw on your arm. At the same time you don't just forget about the man who sicced it on you in the first place.

By the way, I don't smoke... it's a disgusting habbit.

I'll be glad to respond to any reasons for anti-war or my comments, but I really would appreciate it if you would do it in a logical and reasonable manner. Frankly, if derogatory comments, sarcasm, and insults are the best you can come up with in your favor it's probably be best for your faction if you just stopped posting.

I meant to say "...we are too content with minding our own business." I wanted to make that clear before anyone pointed it out.

Superb "Why we should go to War" article by a BRITISH journalist who realizes that 90% of her country is against the war but she doesn't care

"When you look back at the common sense and progressiveness of arguments against American intervention in Vietnam, Chile and the like, you can't help but be struck by the sheer befuddled babyishness of the pro-Saddam apologists:

1) "It's all about oil!" Like hyperactive brats who get hold of one phrase and repeat it endlessly, this naive and prissy mantra is enough to drive to the point of madness any person who actually attempts to think beyond the clichés. Like "Whatever!" it is one of the few ways in which the dull-minded think they can have the last word in any argument. So what if it is about oil, in part? Are you prepared to give up your car and central heating and go back to the Dark Ages? If not, don't be such a hypocrite. The fact is that this war is about freedom, justice - and oil. It's called multitasking. Get used to it!

2) "But we sold him the weapons!" An incredible excuse for not fighting, this one - almost surreal in its logic. If the west sold him the weapons that helped make him the monstrous power that he is, responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iraqis, then surely it is our responsibility to redress our greed and ignorance by doing the lion's share in getting rid of him.

3) "America's always interfering in other countries!" And when it's not, it is derided as selfish and isolationist. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

4) "Saddam Hussein may have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people - but he hasn't done anything to us! We shouldn't invade any country unless it attacks us!" I love this one, it's so mind-bogglingly selfish - and it's always wheeled out by people who call themselves "internationalists", too. These were the people who thought that a population living in terror under the Taliban was preferable to a bit of liberating foreign fire power, even fighting side by side with an Afghani resistance. On this principle, if we'd known about Hitler gassing the Jews all through the 1930s, we still shouldn't have invaded Germany; the Jews were, after all, German citizens and not our business. If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise. And that's where you link up with all those nasty rightwing columnists who are so opposed to fighting Iraq; they, too, believe that the lives of a thousand coloured chappies aren't worth the death of one British soldier. Military inaction, unless in the defence of one's own country, is the most extreme form of narcissism and nationalism; people who preach it are the exact opposite of the International Brigade, and that's so not a good look."

for full article, click here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,885771,00.html

JC, I liked the Limbaugh quote. isn't it irritating when the leftists completely ignore what you say or just can't hear it because they start screaming hysterically because they know they're wrong but they have to cover it up with screams so they can try to calm down. but then they are the ones who "blather" when they write...don't you liberals know that Sadaam is evil, and evil must be destroyed? he is like HITLER

and bush admirer, i've read some of your other posts elsewhere and i've liked them. i'm in college and practically everyone here is always rallying for peace and it's terribly frustrating, grrrrrrrr, and i want to shout, 'what will peace ever do????'

"and i want to shout, 'what will peace ever do????'"

dear, you need to stick to the books and leave the public speaking to those better qualified. I'm not even going to touch that statement, its so wrong on so many levels.

1) "It's all about oil!" Like hyperactive brats who get hold of one phrase and repeat it endlessly, this naive and prissy mantra is enough to drive to the point of madness any person who actually attempts to think beyond the clichés. Like "Whatever!"

one more time, for emphasis:

Like "Whatever!"

Kat, do you know what death is? What it looks like? Do you understand what a carbonized body is? Its like you took an entire human and cooked them, whole.

Here, go look at this:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt03.html

Thats what you're supporting Kat. For oil. Only this time, we're not aiming for military personel, we're just going to flash fry all of baghdad so you can pay 40 cents less per gallon for your gas to juice up your SUV so you can head on down to the mall with your girlfriends and buy another PS2 game about war, and pretend that you were actually 'Defending America' as you do so.

There is no substantiated evidence that Saddam is now or has ever supported terrorists. There's lots of falsified, thoroughly debunked crap that our government has tried to pass off on us that would lead you to believe otherwise, but what it boils down to is that despite everyone involved wanting, badly, to find some real evidence to the contrary, no one has been able to yet. The closest they've come is some 81mm anodized aluminum tubes.

Would you kill someone for an aluminum tube Kat? I don't think so, you seem like a nice girl. For a truckload of tubes? 10 truckloads? I still doubt it. Would you kill 10 people? Personally, gun in hand? Think about it. 100?

250,000?

I progressed up to 250,000 gradually because that number is beyond human comprehension. Beyond 50,000 (or so, varies by intelligence), we cease to rationally connect numbers to quantities. And our government is as well aware of this fact as I am.

Think about what you're saying. You just discounted the death of every other person in baghdad (and thats realistically what we're talking about), for the sake of slightly cheaper oil.

Like "Whatever!"
Now, understand, despite how it may sound to you, i am not supporting saddam. I agree as much as anyone that something needs to be done about him. But there's got to be a better way than this. And certainly not for oil. I'd rather sell my car, go buy solar panels, only use my appliances during daylight, never drive anywhere, and suffer the stone ages than think of those iraqi children getting carbonized by US artillery.

Seriously Kat, you need to leave the debates to those better qualified, you aren't helping your cause at all.

Kat,

I agree that saddam may be, or may have been "evil".

But does that mean we should bomb everything around him, or even take war to his country?

Do you honestly think just cause a person has power in a country, that every civilian there supports this person, and that they should suffer for this, even more then they already have?

If you can be that person, that dares say yes, then I can think are far more "evil" then Saddam.

Stop listening to what's being told, start seeing what's really happening, but most of all start thinking.

Greetz

I_D.

Thanks for your replies, although I don't think some of you understood the context of the article.....

for example, the "it's all about oil" was MOCKING what some anti-war people say about the war.

and I don't have an SUV. in fact, i hate them and think there should be an extra tax on them for wasting so much fuel.

sorry i'm not the most informed person..that's why i find other articles that support my views

and actually, i am not afraid of seeing dead bodies. or of joining the army. i am seriously considering it and i did in high school too. i sometimes sound like a ditz when i write, i know, but i am not a total idiot and i got into college on my own merit. thanks for attacking me and assuming things, that's always amusing to read.

i meant to say that i am informed, though not to the point where I can argue it perfectly and strongly, and of course i can't know everything. so i must apologize for some of my ignorance, but i am still pro-war.

and to the post just above my first reponse....i guess i am evil, but people have called me that before, so I'm used to it. i carry a dagger with me and two other sharp objects so watch out....and you'll probably make fun of me for saying that too, won't you.

i keep forgetting things...

I bet you people felt threatened by my pro-war poster because you know it's true - You're liberal pussies!

i was trying to be nice, but i couldn't help adding this and some things at the end of the other because I just had a sudden mood swing and different burst of thought...see sometimes i forget to take my meds

Before I was trying to help you. Now I'm attacking you.

"for example, the "it's all about oil" was MOCKING"

No shit, you mean it?!? Holy crap were you dropped on your head? For the record, it isn't ALL about oil, it's *mostly* about the oil, it's also about establishing a global US monopoly on firepower, natural resources, energy, food, and medical supplies. We are preparing to pimp the world and you are supporting it. Fucking nazi bitch. You deserve everything you got coming to you.

"i hate them and think there should be an extra tax on them for wasting so much fuel." Oh yeah? Well check out what your loverboy is trying push through then, you'll love this:

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=14406

Your boy bush wants to give additonal tax breaks to people who buy SUV's for their business by slipping it in under "Pickup trucks and SUV's" clause. Those who are prepared to buy a SUV for their business stand to save a LOT more in tax breaks than those who buy ultra-effecient hybrid gas-electric vehicles.

"sorry i'm not the most informed person..that's why i find other articles that support my views"... really. Way to get informed then. Find other people that agree with you and pat each other on the back. Again, you deserve everything you have coming to you.

"and actually, i am not afraid of seeing dead bodies.".. I never said anything about SEEING dead bodies, hell people wait in line to see dead bodies... Faces of Death made a business out of it. I said CREATING dead bodies. Cooked dead bodies.

"or of joining the army. i am seriously considering it" - Then go do it and stop talking so much shit.

"and i did in high school too" - Guess you weren't considering it TOO seriously then eh?

"i sometimes sound like a ditz when i write" - SOMETIMES?!?!

I'm done talking with you. I tried to speak sensibly to you and you ignored what i had to say. Fine. You're making your bed, you're making your unborn children's bed for them, you're doing it for all the wrong reasons, and I can't help you. But I'll never support you, or the side of decency that you've chosen.

Good God, sorry..I must have read your first one where you mentioned the oil part wrong. Like you think, I'm a ditz.

I didn't think you were trying to help me, by the way. I didn't like the tone of your post, and the bold-faced and repeated and gradually enlarged "Like, Whatever!" didn't seem too encouraging. But thanks anyway. I guess I need a lot of help. i Know i need a lot of help.

And yeah, I seriously considered joining a few times but in high school I thought they would reject me because of my medications, and then i got mono at the end of hs, and they might accept me now, although the meds are different, but I AM serious this time



and you know what, i don't agree with every single little thing Bush does, like that SUV clause, but what can you do, he'll do what he wants. i think they should drill in the arctic though. there's nothing living in the spots where they want to drill...and i know that's true because the people who are against it put misleading pictures of the animals around and protested, but that's not where they wanted to get the oil from, but they want to protect the whole area anyway, so we're dependent on Them......

Hiya Kat,

Interesting you posted a message above by " kat, libertarian Bush admirer"

Real libertarians are not like the new breed of neoconservatives that have sprung up like weeds (think CATO Institute and their ilk). Those so-called libertarians are in favor of curtailment of civil liberties when it wasn't our civil liberties that got in the way of catching terrorists but (at best) corruption in general and the god damn executive branch protecting business interests in specific, both Clinton and especially Bush (the latter being the worst of them all, even specifically telling the FBI to back-off investigating bin Laden family relations and other money channels).

No Kat, this world is far more complicated than can be abstracted. The "truth" is a relative thing, beyond definition by a single political philosophy, and most libertarians have moved into the neoconservative camp to the absolute detriment of the political philosophy.

You want to begin to learn about what more organic libertarians are thinking? Start reading www.antiwar.com. Justin's columns over there are a good start. No liberal democratic views there.... oldschool libertarianism -- be careful, you might find your mind pushed into new ways of thinking

all the best

George Orwell

oh, and i'm not going to have any children, by the way. i'm going to have an operation so that i don't have to waste money on birth control.

and i don't care what i have 'coming' to me. i don't care if i die, so nothing else that happens would matter.

so i'm not a total libertarian, but i think party members are allowed to agree with certain issues of another party...i guess i should also tell you that i come from a strong republican family so i've been hearing about bush's side for awhile.

Don't waste your time here. Get over to that website and others and read and learn about things.

The world isn't as simple as you think.

please don't bother yourself with whether i'm wasting my time here or not...why should you care anyway?

i know that the world isn't simple. all i said in my last post was that you can agree with another party's beliefs on an issue even if you're from a different party. many people do this, I know. i'm not as narrow minded as you may think.

Hey Bucket full of piss in Ohio,

Did you actually refer to Kat as a 'Bitch'? And then again as a 'Nazi Bitch'? Aren't you the same bag of wind that called me a sexist because I referred to a woman as 'Sister'?

You're even a bigger jackass than I thought.

Kat, I don't know what your situation is, or what your age is, but consider carefully a decision to join the military. Full time military life is a big commitment on a lot of levels. You will not have full control over a lot of aspects of your life that you do now. If you are ambivalent, then consider the reserve components.

Things to consider are which branch to join and which job choice to pursue. If you have a degree, make sure you go to Officer Candidate School (OCS) and become an officer. Much better pay and treatment.

Best Regards.

....looking for a few good men...

Doesn't mean I'm a sexist, just mean's kat's an ignorant bitch. She's wantonly discounted the life of a quarter million innocent people for the sake of cheaper gas. (Like, 'Whatever!') If she was a guy she'd be a dick (like you, simon), but she's a she so she's a bitch (like you, simon). An ignorant nazi bitch (again, like you, simon).

But unlike you, i have faith that kat can change. She just needs to get away from the mind control drugs (they aren't helping you kat), the tv, apparently her parents as well, at least long enough to make her own conclusions on life, death, and politics.

You, however, are a lost fucking cause. You should be shot dead where you stand for treason against the country. You are conspiring with those that would sell out america for a quick buck.

"You will not have full control over a lot of aspects of your life that you do now" -> You are so full of shit it must come flying out of your eyes, ears, and nose every time you sneeze.

And you are a sexist (and I suspect a rascist as well), for reasons already mentioned elsewhere.



Real Patriots defend their civil liberties.

You have got to be among the stupidest people that have visited this board (and that's saying something).

So, by your reasoning, anyone who is in opposition to your point of view is either a 'bitch' if female or a 'dick' if male. And to call a woman a 'bitch' isn't really sexist because she forfeits her right to be considered a woman when she dares to differ with your point of view.

My goodness. I didn't realize that all the world's problems are so easily solved, and there you are with all the answers. So Godlike. No wonder you think anyone who disagrees with you is a 'bitch' or a 'dick'.

You are a coward, and unlike me, have made sexist attacks. So just admit it, and get on with your pathetic existence - in Ohio.

Simon darling, thank you very much for defending me against the Other. He is quite immature. I can be too, but I don't label the people here so severely.

And thanks for the military advice, though unfortunately I won't need it anymore. I'm 21 and I actually called my army recruiter yesterday to ask if I qualify, and I was disappointed to learn that I don't because of my meds. They don't accept anyone on medication.

To Pissed Off -

Yeah I'll admit I can be bitchy, but in no way am I a Nazi, and I don't care about cheaper gas because I don't have to pay much for gas anyway. I have a small car that's good on gas, 26 miles to the gallon, and at school I take the train a lot because they have great public transportation here (in the northeast near a large city).

By the way, I don't believe that you have faith in me that I can change, how could you ever have a hopeful little thought about a nazi bitch?....and I don't plan on changing anyway. nothing you could ever do or say could convince me, and you'll probably reply that I'm even more of an ignorant bitch because I disagree with you, and that of course, would be the end of the world. why do you think that you're always right? are you trying to make up for something that you lacked in earlier years, and now you have to prove to yourself and other people that you're right and they're wrong just to keep yourself from falling off that pedastal...

and Simon isn't sexist - he didn't call me anything...that would be you

My drugs are helping me. You're not my fucking psychiatrist. You've never seen what I've written without them, you don't know me, so quit assuming things.

p.s. simon shouldn't die - but maybe you should. what's it like in ohio? any big wells to fall in? any busy railroads?

To Simon: Fuck you, I'm not wasting my time responding to your stupid shit anymore. Call me whatever you want, I just don't care. I know what i am and i'm not interested in justifying myself to the likes of you. Scum. Traitor.

Kat: Ok, aside from the public understanding that Nazi's came from germany, Nazi's where Bad, and we kicked some Nazi ass in ww2, what do you know about them? My guess would be not much.

Here, read some stuff. Then make up your own mind.

http://www.geocities.com/onemansmind/hr/nazi/Weimar02.html
Of particular note there is the reichstag fire and the unresolved circumstances surrounding it. Here's a little more info about that:

http://www.weyrich.com/political_issues/reichstag_fire.html

http://www.rense.com/general24/operationnorthwoods.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0913-03.htm



911 is bush's reichstag. The PATRIOT act directly parallels the loss of civil liberties the germans were so quick to accept in the years leading into the nazi reign. Our invasion of Iraq for... "protecting ourselves", 'liberating' them, stealing a bunch of oil, establishing a forward base of operations for further conflicts in the middle east, and establishing a perogative of global unchecked power and further conquest for the sake of national defense all directly parallel very similar actions of the early nazi regime.

So, by blindly accepting american conquest, what does that make you? A nazi sympathizer, at best. I'm not trying to point fingers here but really thats what its coming too. Bush is a half-baked nazi-wannabe, his mafia in DC have stolen america from us, and blind compliance with the current events at home and abroad essentially makes you a supporter of him, his thievery, and the attrocities we're establishing a perogative for right now.

Defend your civil liberties. No one else will for you. Soon you may need to be willing to fight to maintain the basic freedoms you value as an american citizen.

The rest of the world already sees what's going on. We've been slow to react because of the horrible implications it says about our leaders, and thus us. But to continue ignoring the obvious will lead us down a dark bloody road that I will not quietly stroll down.

I don't say things i don't mean. If i say i have faith in you, I do. Although i honestly lose a little more each time you open your mouth. You need to think about what you're saying a lot more carefully.

And i didn't imply simon was a sexist for how he has interacted with you. His previous statements have brought me to that conclusion, I've called him on it, it obviously struck a chord with him, he seems like he's trying to be less of a sexist.

Also, disagreement with me does not say anything about a person other than that they don't agree with me. And that's fine, I'm as big a dumbass as everyone else wandering around this mudball. What makes someone a bitch, or a dick, or an asshole (of one sex or another), is a callous disregard for human life (among other things certainly, but that is about the worst crime of them all). This is not a video game. These are real people with names and lives and homes and families.

It is ok to disagree, but you must be doing so as an informed decision. If a girl came in here saying 'blah blah no war, war is bad, yay lets goto a rally itll be fun and we can get high afterwords and bush is just a meanie' I would be chewing her out in a similar way, because she's obviously not making up her own mind.

And if you'll notice, I tried being nice with you, and patient, accepting your ignorance of whats going on as an aspect of the overwhelming stranglehold the media exerts over the average american. And you didn't even take the time to read my response closely enough to figure out what I was saying before you responded three seperate times. You just looked at the bold words and reacted. Slow down. Think. Hasty decisions will destroy us all.

BTW: Make no mistake, if you disagreed with Simon he would not be all tulips and chocolate with you, he'd be attacking you with such blind ignorant hatred you'd think it was his job. Because it is his job. He gets paid to sit in here and oppose those who do not accept the word of the Bush mob blindly and unwaiveringly. Read some of his other posts. He's a dick.

Nurse? Pissed Off in cell three needs his shot, stat.

I know this will come as an unpleasant surprise to a Stalinist such as yourself, but this is an open forum. By 'open' it means that when you post your rediculous paranoid delusions they will not go unchallenged.

Have a nice day, Junior.

"And if you'll notice, I tried being nice with you, and patient, accepting your ignorance of whats going on as an aspect of the overwhelming stranglehold the media exerts over the average american"

WOW. Check out the big ego on Brad!

Yep, you're a regular lady killer. But where does calling her a 'Nazi Bitch' fit in with how sweet and cuddly you've been?

so 'Simple', i've been wondering....

how are we all supposed to feel about the prospect of an "anti-american" century as U.S. diplomat John Brown (i think) put it the other day when he resigned in protest against this upcoming "war"?

what can you say to ease the fears of USA people who remember those buildings falling down and wonder about the safety and stability of the world in the near future, like AFTER your easy victory in Iraq?

i'm sure if you can explain how we're better off with millions and millions more enemies all around the world.... i'm sure if you can explain this convincingly, then the Pro-War movement could really start growing.

Simon, is 'Brad' Pissed Off's real name? or am i just missing something?

anyway, i don't get it either how he calls me such names and then becomes so nice and "helpful" in other entries. split personality?

This one's for Oh - how would You fix things then? How would peace make Hussein behave? How would peace totally prevent terrorism? I think terrorism will happen regardless of anything. Don't forget, 9/11 happened in a time of 'peace.'

And who cares if the US has more enemies? We'll always have enemies, but we're stronger than them and richer too. We have England on our side though, and some would say that that's the only other country that matters.



well i have to go now to write on a paper about the World Bank. i work at a bank during the summer so I know about loans and crap like that, but obviously it's not exactly the same as the WB, and I'll probably end up being on the WB's side, so my prof will think I'm evil or something. But I like banks and understand them for the most part, so I can sympathize with them and I will stick up for them. they have to stay in business somehow. yeah well i'll be up late and it's already past midnight, so i'm going.

"I think terrorism will happen regardless of anything."

when you say something like this you immediately lose almost all your audience. people are truly afraid of terrorism and want it to stop. this is only rational. what people want to know is how to stop it. if you just declare that there is no way to stop it, people will very reasonably move on and look for a solution elsewhere.

"Don't forget, 9/11 happened in a time of 'peace.' "

excellent point. imagine the peace that might follow an easy USA victory in Iraq..... see my point?

"And who cares if the US has more enemies?"

fortunately almost everyone cares. that is because people are rational. they don't want more enemies. some people might pretend they don't care, thinking that they can strut their way to security. a few truly do not care. that is a problem we should all band together to solve. look around. that is what is happening.

"We'll always have enemies, but we're stronger than them and richer too. We have England on our side though, and some would say that that's the only other country that matters."

first of all, being strong does not mean you can't get killed, as the USA is struggling to realize. second, even if we were impervious people will still care about right and wrong. you'll never convince people to forget about it because "we're stronger". you're just missing the whole point of being a moral person.

in England, a huge majority of people are opposed to this war.

also -- there are plenty of people IN the USA who are far from rich. and a lot of them feel angry and know that if they band together they WILL be strong.

Well, I cannot speak with certainty, but all signs indicate that we are entering an epoch of war. Afghanistan was the preamble, Iraq merely the first chapter. Iraq will be a non-Israeli pro-Western stronghold in the Middle East - one capable of projecting power effectively throughout the region.

The enemies of the United States have shown that they are willing to use any weapon, no matter how horrible, to strike at any target, no matter how defenseless, to further their cause.

We are beset by two distinct, but related enemies: Fundamentalist Islam and despotic, totalitarian regimes. Distinct in that they despise the United States and the West for different reasons, related through this hatred and their collusion in their attempts to strike at the West.

The despots wish to be left alone, so that they can molest their own people without the fear of American intervention. To discourage an American intervention, they actively pursue NBC weapons - basing their security on the idea that Americans are unwilling to fight if casualties might be high.

The terrorists wish to strike wherever and whenever they can, and to do the most amount of damage possible. Given access to NBC weaponry, they could very well make 11 Sep 01 look like a rookie's first attempt.

The terrorists must be rooted out and exterminated- much like the British exterminated the thugee cult in India. This can and will be done, with the active connivance of many Islamic countries. Foremost among these countries will be Iraq.

Iran's thugocracy will collapse quickly with American troops so close - the people of Iran are done with their ecclesiastical overlords.

North Korea will be next, and most difficult. Kim Jong Il is a demented and unstable tyrant - but he rules a crippled and starving nation. Should he be opposed with force, and should a CREDIBLE threat of military action be levelled against him, chances are excellent that high-ranking military or diplomatic officers will remove Kim. Permanently.

The road ahead is dangerous and will entail the loss of much life and treasure.

The alternative is to subject ourselves as a nation to blackmail from terrorists and rogue states, and to condemn the populations of these states and their neighbors to slavery, brutality, starvation and murder.

Kat,

I have no Idea what Ohio's first name is. I was paraphrasing a line from a movie. The original line was:

"Whoa, check out the big brain on Brad".

I can't remember what movie it was but it seemed to work so well as a rejoinder to Mr. Pomposity.

As far as his mental state is concerned, I have read some fairly incoherent stuff from him, but I wouldn't think he is actually certifiable. My guess is that his sudden desire to change tone with you stems from his discomfort at being branded unchivalrous. So now he's in suck-up mode.

I suspect it will wear off.

Simple Simon, you forgot one of the greatest threats to the world community "The Appeasers."

"Islamic countries. Foremost among these countries will be Iraq"

here's the problem: see Iraq is a secular country, but that doesn't seem to matter to you.

you say you will root out and eliminate Islamic extremism and that way secure our saftety, but how do you expect anybody to support this plan when you don't seem even minimally competent to implement it.

if you're goin to try to stamp out Islamic extremism, attacking Iraq is probably the dumbest way to do it.

Your post is either intentionally dishonest or badly misinformed.

I NEVER said that Iraq was a fundamentalist Islamic country. I said that Iraq was an Islamic country. Big difference.

You accuse me of ignorance either from your not reading my post carefully or from a willful desire to misrepresent what I said. Based on your very selective clipping of my quote, I would guess the latter conclusion to be correct.

So which one is it?

so what's the plan then, 'Simple'?

why should we support your plan for an "epoch of war"? how will it make us safer?

The goal is to be constantly on offense. If we can keep terrorist organizations always on the run, and states that harbor and sponser them always afraid of exposure and international condemnation, they won't have the ability to strike with impunity at us. Furthermore, an agressive program to cut off the sources of funding will render them bankrupt.

I think this is how we keep the country safer. By never giving those who would harm us a moment's rest.

There you go again Simple Simon, writing a simple plan that makes good sense and keeping short and simple for the Dimwits!

"The goal is to be constantly on offense."

right away you lose almost your entire audience. i doubt there will ever be enough maniacs out there to give this kind of insanity any real credibility.

a few more terrorist attacks on US soil would surely bring you closer to your nutty goal but even then you know,, perpetual war is a tough row to hoe and even tougher to get someone else to hoe it for you.

most people i think are hoping as hard as they can that those terror attacks don't come because with whackos like you in charge.... things aren't gonna get much better.

let's hope the "leaders" are more pragmatic than you.

Wasn't permanent war the situation Winston Smith's

world was in? The sole reason for keeping the people in grinding poverty and constant surveillance?

Hmmm.

Fido: "Epoch of War"



Fido is just pluggin the Wagnerian opera he is writing....

ha ha ha ha.... yeah the dude is pretty corny. very grey poupon.

btw it is harder to fight a war yourself than to get someone else to do it..

Most of you people are not paying attention.

We have a choice to make as a nation. We either choose to ruthlessly exterminate the terrorists and their associates - and thus make it clear even to the most muddleheaded person that to become a terrorist means to die - or we roll over and accept the eventuality of more frequent and more costly terrorist attacks.

States which support terrorism don't do so out of love of the terrorists. They do so to strike at the United States without risking reprisal, and to keep the US occupied. Remember Ramzi Yousef? He travelled to the United States on an Iraqi passport, and his operation to bomb the WTC in 1993 was facilitated and funded by Iraq. In summation, we can either swat every bee that comes buzzing by one at a time, hoping not to get stung, or we can knock down the nest and kill them all at once.

Finally, kindly remember that I was asked my opinion of events to come. I have attempted to do so. Kindly don't mistake my prognostications for what I hope will happen.

I apologize if my language gets a little flowery.

Wagnerian opera. That's not half bad.

Psymon why would I have been shocked to find you a Wagner Fan? Wagner was a genius but he spent too much time sucking up to Nietsche. Are you an Ayran as well? I have an acquaintance who has read everything Nietsche ever wrote. He is madder than a Hatter.

“We have a choice to make as a nation. We either choose to ruthlessly exterminate the terrorists and their associates - and thus make it clear even to the most muddleheaded person that to become a terrorist means to die - or we roll over and accept the eventuality of more frequent and more costly terrorist attacks.”

Or we can take the intelligent course of action and determine the cause of the Terrorism and undercut the problem by removing the impetus to such action. To the Simple-minded a violent action directed at the symptom might superficially provide visceral satisfaction but it does not promote a cure. One might need to do a little selective surgery but wholesale slaughter does not promote long term resolution or even short term. All it does is provide aggravation and incitement to further violence. An intelligent Foreign Policy would be a good start.

“States which support terrorism don't do so out of love of the terrorists. They do so to strike at the United States without risking reprisal, and to keep the US occupied. Remember Ramzi Yousef? He travelled to the United States on an Iraqi passport, and his operation to bomb the WTC in 1993 was facilitated and funded by Iraq. In summation, we can either swat every bee that comes buzzing by one at a time, hoping not to get stung, or we can knock down the nest and kill them all at once.”

So the obvious question is why would they wish to strike at the United States unless there is something about the actions of the United States that makes them feel threatened? Such motivation can be rational or irrational. However, U.S. Foreign Policy has been too often tailored to the designs of American Commercial Interests at the expense of the Nation’s best interests. I’m sure you are well aware of this and so you are psymply being disengenuous as always.

Ramzi Yousef could have been stopped before the bombing took place. An FBI informant was part of the inner circle of the Cell. The FBI ALLOWED the bombing to take place. What the motivation was is a matter of speculation but I think we can safely conclude that preservation of the “Bill of Rights” was not part of it.

The distorted perpective you offer is an anathema to intelligent, and rational, solutions. Military force is, on occaision, the only appropriate response. However, when it is a reponse to an action inspired by bad Foreign Policy it will not resolve the problem. At most it will remove the immediate concern, but will leave fires smoldering in the ruins.

Gotta go to lunch, I'll respond more in depth when I get back.

As far as Wagner, no, I'm not much of a fan. A little loud and a little long. When I wrote the line above I was responding to KPC's quip - I found it rather funny, and unexpectedly good natured.

You speak of an intelligent foreign policy. I wonder if you would care to elaborate.

No one is suggesting that the use of military formations is the only weapon we are using in this war. Covert operations, espionage, and small units factor in mightily. You make the usual argument that an American military intervention will enflame the Arab ‘street’. The same argument was made against intervention in Afghanistan, and quite the opposite result was found. Once presented with the full panoply of American might, Arab ‘allies’ suddenly appeared, full of information and assistance.

“So the obvious question is why would they wish to strike at the United States unless there is something about the actions of the United States that makes them feel threatened? Such motivation can be rational or irrational. However, U.S. Foreign Policy has been too often tailored to the designs of American Commercial Interests at the expense of the Nation’s best interests. I’m sure you are well aware of this and so you are psymply being disengenuous as always.”

If you want to know why the terrorists attacked us, why not look up what they themselves have said? You'll find a combination of religous fanatacism and yearnings for lost imperial glories. The motivation of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il are fairly transparent.

Your argument that the nation’s foreign policy is tailored to the benefit of commercial interests at the expense of national interests is unproven. Of course, it is very popular and easy charge to level – If war comes, then defense contractors will make money supplying the military. The argument goes that these defense contractors must be orchestrating international events to ensure a large amount of business. Once again, reliance on shady conspiracies and secret societies takes much from your argument.

“Ramzi Yousef could have been stopped before the bombing took place. An FBI informant was part of the inner circle of the Cell. The FBI ALLOWED the bombing to take place. What the motivation was is a matter of speculation but I think we can safely conclude that preservation of the “Bill of Rights” was not part of it.

The distorted perpective you offer is an anathema to intelligent, and rational, solutions. Military force is, on occaision, the only appropriate response. However, when it is a reponse to an action inspired by bad Foreign Policy it will not resolve the problem. At most it will remove the immediate concern, but will leave fires smoldering in the ruins.”

Kindly present me with a link to a RELIABLE news source which makes this allegation concerning the FBI and Ramzi Yousef. Keep in mind that the year was 1993, and the President was a man named Clinton. Or is your theory that the intelligence communities, in league with defense contractors, are behind this whole thing? Or, alternately, they were in cahoots with Dick Cheney and Haliburton to ensure a George W. Bush presidency all the way back then?

You criticize my predictions of future events as being anathema to intelligent and rational solutions. Please be the first Leftist here at la.indymedia to present these mythical solutions. I’ve been waiting for months for one Leftist to offer a viable alternative to what the administration is proposing. They have all demurred, excepting Sheepdog who suggested that we should dismantle the CIA and FBI and NSA as a good first step (after the ridicule he took over that one he clammed up on suggestions). The Left only wants to play offense (constantly attacking the direction of the current administration), so they will not present anything concrete as an alternative. I suspect they do this because they don’t have any answers or alternatives, and should the US win a military victory in Iraq, they want to be able to say they voted to authorize use of force and never wavered in their support for Iraqi liberation. This way, as usual, they can play both sides of the fence.

left v right?

Once again, the subject is deflected for a clever offense.

Confronting a wall we decide to poke each other in the eyes.

I thought it was about democracy stamping out terrorism.



courts in recess, have a soda.

Sheepdog's suggestion (to abolish our intelligence apparatus) is excellent!! - - secret decision making is so undemocratic!!

oh - - and Simon: you must have been kicked in the head by a cow if you think leftists want to share in the victory celebration after your psychotic military convulsion in Iraq.

I don't believe that was in this thread but Yes. Also

I think the field agents should be brought before a court

and tried for criminal activity, right along beside the

directors and all other involved snakes guilty of terror murder and fraud. Don't forget the FBI. Same deal.

Your demand for a completely stated Foreign Policy is a tactic I will not bite on. It is an old debate trick to demand a completely formulated solution to a problem as the only acceptable response. It is a common Disinfo tactic. It is only necessary for me to establish the basic thesis.



The elements of an intelligent and rational Foreign Policy Begins with the purpose clearly defined. For me such a formulation would have as elements:

A definition of the purpose of the Foreign Policy. That is what is the Ideal Scene for a Nation in relation to other Nations. In my mind it would be roughly:

Broadly Stated: To further the long term best interests of the United States as a whole and be in keeping with the Ideals of the United States.

It would not be specifically aimed at the furtherance of the interests of any specific private subgroup but for the furtherance of the interests of the Country as a whole.

Those interests might be summarized as:

To Increase the goodwill of other nations toward the United States.

To promote a general condition of peace or absence of large scale warfare as that is to the benefit of the United States and it’s Citizens.

The promotion of individual liberty and the rule of law among men AND Nations.

Free and open Trade.

The promotion of solutions to regional problems affecting the interests of the United States at the Macro level.

Defense of the Sovereign Rights of the United States in those Territories under it’s control and protection of it’s Citizens throughout the World.

To accomplish these ends it is necessary:

1. Open channels of two-way communication be maintained with other nations.

2. That our word be trusted by all nations with which we deal i.e., that if we make a public pronouncement or private communication that it will be factually accurate and that we can be counted upon to keep our commitments even when it might be advantageous, in the short term, to violate them.

3. Support of International Bodies which further the primary purposes of U.S. Foreign Policy.

“Your argument that the nation’s foreign policy is tailored to the benefit of commercial interests at the expense of national interests is unproven. Of course, it is very popular and easy charge to level – If war comes, then defense contractors will make money supplying the military. The argument goes that these defense contractors must be orchestrating international events to ensure a large amount of business. Once again, reliance on shady conspiracies and secret societies takes much from your argument.”

The best way to illustrate this is by example: Recently an appropriation of 98 million dollars was allocated to “the War on Drugs” in Columbia. The money has ended up in use to protect the interests of a Private Corporation Occidental Petroleum and their Pipe Line. The incidences are too numerous to detail. See links below.

A conspiracy rightly speaking is simply 2 or more people getting together to accomplish covertly some end usually, but not always, illegal. To believe that this occurs only in “other countries” is a childishly simplistic world view.

It has occurred time and again throughout history and to think that the United States is somehow different is again simplistic at best blind at worst. What is an industry getting together in private to formulate plans to lobby the government for some special advantage but a conspiracy? When the major Oil Companies get together to fix prices it is a conspiracy. Read Adam Smith - his viewpoint is quite instructive.

We have, and it is well documented, private groups whose reason for existence is to influence U.S. Foreign Policy. The Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and the secretive Bilderburger groups are only 3 of the better known. They do exist; that is empirical fact. To what end are their aims and motivations clouded in secrecy is an open question. Certainly they exist to further someone’s interests, but not necessarily the interests of the nation as a whole.

As a test of the hypothesis you can look at the actual behavior of the Federal Government of the United States and compare it against what policies it should be following “to promote the general welfare” internationally.

“No one is suggesting that the use of military formations is the only weapon we are using in this war. Covert operations, espionage, and small units factor in mightily. You make the usual argument that an American military intervention will enflame the Arab ‘street’. The same argument was made against intervention in Afghanistan, and quite the opposite result was found. Once presented with the full panoply of American might, Arab ‘allies’ suddenly appeared, full of information and assistance.”

All which boils down to: “Might makes right.” Not a very good Foreign Policy. All it does is inspire covert resistance and attack.

“If you want to know why the terrorists attacked us, why not look up what they themselves have said? You'll find a combination of religious fanaticism and yearnings for lost imperial glories. The motivation of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il are fairly transparent. “

First off I do not accept your unstated premise that it is a proven that the engineers of the 911 attack were either Islamic or Arab.

Saddam Hussein runs a secularist government and there are no known ties between him and the 911 attack. (Disingenuous as always I note.) A thorough investigation into which the government is still stonewalling.

Some Links:

Third World Traveler: http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/US_ForeignPolicy.html

Articles by Professor William Blum (Author of “Killing Hope” U.S. Interventions in the Third World):

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_Blum.html

An interesting Web Site Loaded with information: http://www.doublestandards.org/

I could go on but you can do your own research. Since you are not really interested in the truth I expect you will not. It is out there in book and web form.

Kim IL Jung is a Psychotic Killer. I am not aware of any links between him and 911 either.

Otherwise I am going to forego the Bait for the time being. We both know there are a myriad of anomalies around the 911 attack and NO proof that it was even done by Arabs - just allegations unsubstantiated by any hard evidence.

The Complete 911 Timeline: http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/

“Kindly present me with a link to a RELIABLE news source which makes this allegation concerning the FBI and Ramzi Yousef.”

Excerpt: From Los Angeles Times

October 28, 1993

“Paper Says FBI Blocked Plan To Foil N.Y. Blast

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Law enforcement officials planned to thwart the bombing of the World Trade Center by substituting harmless powder for explosives, but the scheme was called off by the FBl, a newspaper reported today.

 

Tape recordings secretly made by an FBI informer reveal that authorities were in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York's tallest towers, the New York Times reported.

 

Four men are now on trial for carrying out that bombing, in which six died and more than 1,000 were injured.

 

The New York Times published conversations the informer, a 43 year-old former Egyptian army officer, Emad Ali Salem, taped with his FBI handlers.

 

On the tapes, Salem recalls that the FBI had planned on "building the bomb with a phony powder and grabbing the people who were involved in it."

 

But the informer. who is heard lecturing his handlers, said the powder scheme was called off and "we didn't do that."

 

Salem also is heard on the tapes criticizing the agents for ignoring his warnings that the World Trade Center was to be bombed.

 

"Guys, now you saw this bomb went off and you both know that we could avoid that," the newspaper quoted him as saying.”

Do a Google Search and you can pull up hundreds of corroborating reports.



“You criticize my predictions of future events as being anathema to intelligent and rational solutions. Please be the first Leftist here at la.indymedia to present these mythical solutions. I’ve been waiting for months for one Leftist to offer a viable alternative to what the administration is proposing. They have all demurred, excepting Sheepdog who suggested that we should dismantle the CIA and FBI and NSA as a good first step (after the ridicule he took over that one he clammed up on suggestions). The Left only wants to play offense (constantly attacking the direction of the current administration), so they will not present anything concrete as an alternative. I suspect they do this because they don’t have any answers or alternatives, and should the US win a military victory in Iraq, they want to be able to say they voted to authorize use of force and never wavered in their support for Iraqi liberation. This way, as usual, they can play both sides of the fence.”

I do not criticize your predictions I reject your philosophy of blindly accepting the pronouncements of venal men in suits.

I am not now nor have I ever been a “leftist”. You know that already so I will not elaborate.

My opinions and conclusions are driven by principle not by which way the wind is blowing.

Unlike the Focus Group Obsessed Karl Rove - who is just looking for the key words to push the buttons of the uninformed.

I just love the way you have picked up the spin acting as though “Iraqi Liberation” was the stated goal all along. What colossal Horse shit.

I just wont engage in dialogue with a piece of filth

lying, but buffing weasel w/o honor. The stink comes

through the CRT and I feel slimed dealing with it.

...providing him with an occaisional Sausage Implant.

Otherwise Dog, I agree with you.

I really do not expect him to reply to this one. Generally if you nail him he goes and sulks and comes up on another thread.

If you consider the presentation of this rambling tripe "nailing" someone, I wonder what you would consider failure.

As usual you fail to answer most questions, and where you deign to grace us with answers, they merely expose your paranoia and dementia.

But let's dig right in to this bag o' crap:

You very nicely lay out the governing priciples of your new American foreign policy, but most of your concepts are already being actively pursued. I won't go through all of them, but let's look at just the first one:

"to increase the goodwill of other nations towards the United States"

Now, besides the naive, childlike nature of the principle, it also flys in the face of good political sense. You seem to think that the foreign policy you are authoring is for a country that exists in a vacuum. That all other nations are not independent actors, but mindless reactors. That there are no forces or entities with their own motivations with which we must interact. I assure you that this is not the case. France and Germany have no reason to oppose us, we have rebuilt their economies, protected them for 50 years, and stood by them in every conflict since 1945 (except for that unpleasantness in the Suez in '56). You could say, correctly, that no country has ever done more for another than what the United States has done for France and Germany- yet they oppose us on the issue of Iraq. And spare me your idealistic platitudes on this subject. The French and Germans oppose us on Iraq not out of any moral conviction, but rather because they wish to use this crisis to gain politically. The French have demonstrated repeatedly that they will intervene militarily wherever French interests are threatened, so they are not born-again pacifists.

But besides the foolishness of this 'guiding principle', the fact is that our curret foreign policy accomplishes this. No nation gives more to charity, no nation has more charitable organizations, no nation provides more relief in cases of natural disaster or conflict, no nation creates and provides more vaccines, no nation commits such a large number of experts to work in the field internationally (Peace Corps), etc...

Next we come to your means of implementing your unique foreign policy:

"1. Open channels of two-way communication be maintained with other nations.

2. That our word be trusted by all nations with which we deal i.e., that if we make a public pronouncement or private communication that it will be factually accurate and that we can be counted upon to keep our commitments even when it might be advantageous, in the short term, to violate them.

3. Support of International Bodies which further the primary purposes of U.S. Foreign Policy. "

1. No country in the history of Earth has been better staffed with diplomats than the United States. We have operating embassies in virtually every country in the world. I fail to see how you would improve on two-way communications, unless you mean that you want to give everyone 'walkie talkies'.

2. I cannot believe I am bothering to type a rebuttal to someone who cannot possibly be an adult. Never tell a lie is your foreign policy? Oh, you're good.

3. We support and fund virtually every international body on Earth. From the World Bank to the UN to the Red Cross to God only knows what else. So what, are you going to come up with some new international bodies? And these organizations will increase domestic security how?

Now, after this brief interlude on Earth, you return to Planet Bizarro World. I won't address issues concerning the Masons, Stonecutters, Elks, Odd Fellows, Illuminati, etc. Sorry. Nor will I give time to holocaust denial, nor Nazi Bush family 9/11 plots. I have covered this before:

http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/33815_comment.php#35669

Scroll down past your repost to my answer at Monday March 10, 2003 Mont 09:52 AM.

In summing up, you deftly avoid the most important question. I have accused Leftists (and now paranoids) of being unwilling to provide a responsible alternative to the policies of the current administration. By not responding you surrender the point.

You and your fellow travellers have no ideas. You only have complaints about the ideas of others. You work to defund the intelligence services and then have the chutzpah to criticise them for their supposed failures.

And say what you will about whomever else you wish. I have been yapping about liberation for the Iraqis since day one.

"You very nicely lay out the governing principles of your new American foreign policy, but most of your concepts are already being actively pursued. I won't go through all of them, but let's look at just the first one:"

"to increase the goodwill of other nations towards the United States"



“Now, besides the naive, childlike nature of the principle, it also flys in the face of good political sense. You seem to think that the foreign policy you are authoring is for a country that exists in a vacuum. That all other nations are not independent actors, but mindless reactors.”

Do you have a problem with seeking the good will of other nations? This is not stated as an absolute as is obvious from context. Absolutes are unobtainable in the real world. They exist only in theory.

The statement was a statement of principle. (I know you may be unfamiliar with the word but I thought I would risk it’s use.) As such it is an ideal from which to operate. It is not a specific instance nor, in the real world, achievable as an absolute condition.

Naive - no; Idealistic - yes. I make no such assumption. I merely posit an Ideal Scene. As long as nations insist on acting like spoiled selfish children then Diplomats have a secure future. No, I posit an Ideal for the Nation in which I live and the standard to which I would aspire. Because NAZI Germany and Stalin’s Russia engaged in Mass Murder is not justification for the United States to behave likewise. If individuals behaved as some nations they would wind up swinging from a Gibbet (except we have become “too civilized” to have a good hanging - instead we hide behind a gentle whoosh of air shoving home a plunger and a load of chemical death). NO, I expect no more, and certainly no less, than the behavior demanded of an honorable man. And we are not talking about the behavior of France or Germany that is a diversion and I’m not biting. (Their behavior might be relevant in another context but not here.)

“1. No country in the history of Earth has been better staffed with diplomats than the United States. We have operating embassies in virtually every country in the world. I fail to see how you would improve on two-way communications, unless you mean that you want to give everyone 'walkie talkies'.

2. I cannot believe I am bothering to type a rebuttal to someone who cannot possibly be an adult. Never tell a lie is your foreign policy? Oh, you're good.

3. We support and fund virtually every international body on Earth. From the World Bank to the UN to the Red Cross to God only knows what else. So what, are you going to come up with some new international bodies? And these organizations will increase domestic security how?”

1. Raw numbers do not ensure communication but they help. I did not say such a mechanism did not exist. Again you twist a statement of principle all out of shape. Are you a Gymnast too? (As an aside I might note that we have had two prominent resignations, on principle, of American Diplomatic Corps Careerists who could not stomach the Bush Junta’s dishonest Foreign Policy. It speaks well that there are still a few men of principle in the Diplomatic Corps.)

2. Why lie? If you are attempting to engender trust among other nations it would behoove you to behave honorably. One need not babble on and tell all, but if one speaks it should be truthful. Lies and double dealing are unnecessary, merely customary. It may take more wit to go the honorable road but in the long run it builds stronger relationships. Once upon a time business deals were sealed with a handshake and the contract came later - a substitute for honorable behavior. An honorable man’s word is his bond. So should be the same for a Nation.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man.”

- George Bernard Shaw

3. a. The World Bank is so Corrupt as to be a joke. It adds not one whit to an honorable or effective Foreign Policy. Ditto the IMF.

b. The Red Cross has been wracked by financial scandals.

In the early 60’s the Peace Corps as originally chartered and set up was a great tool for increasing good will and furthering American Diplomacy therefrom. Unfortunately it was gutted and downsized from it’s original mandate.

In any event I said nothing about establishing new International Bodies I said support those who support our Principles and Interests.

Good will is not earned overnight and it requires constant maintenance by Statesmen (and Women).

"You and your fellow travellers have no ideas. You only have complaints about the ideas of others. You work to defund the intelligence services and then have the chutzpah to criticise them for their supposed failures."

I surrender nothing.

You resort as always to generalities your blather is hardly worth noting other than for it’s vitriol.

No reasonable person debates the need for Intelligence. However, the sordid history of the FBI and C.I.A. leave them tried and found wanting. The information documenting their corruption is publicly available.

Read Phillip Agee’s “Inside The Company - A C.I.A. Diary”. The agency hates it because it exposes there seamy underbelly. I don’t agree with his politics but the picture he paints of corruption and incompetence is telling.

The Cult of Secrecy is an anathema to a Free Republic. I believe strongly, as a matter of principle, in government in the Sunshine; not the shadows. There is a need for intelligence and there is a need for maintaining Secret the full extent of our knowledge as such does lend advantage and protect interests. However, it has been taken to extremes and has been misused to cover up misdeeds and the agencies used to gather it have become corrupt. There are insufficient safeguards built in. There are, I am sure, many good people in both of the aforementioned organizations but corruption at the top has taken it’s toll. Remember Ruby Ridge. Remember Waco. The people responsible for those crimes were not only not prosecuted but promoted.

“Now, after this brief interlude on Earth, you return to Planet Bizarro World. I won't address issues concerning the Masons, Stonecutters, Elks, Odd Fellows, Illuminati, etc. Sorry. Nor will I give time to holocaust denial, nor Nazi Bush family 9/11 plots. I have covered this before: “

http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/33815_comment.php#35669

Your reply on the other thread was facile and incomplete. I just have not taken the time to demolish it.

Your willful ignorance of how International Affairs are truly organized and conducted is to your detriment not mine. I go where the evidence leads and I do not disregard something merely because I would wish it not so.

“The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who have loved it.”

- George Santayana

My, you do prattle on so.

In the interest of brevity, let us get back to facts.

I have asked ad nauseum for someone to present a specific alternative to the administration's handling of the current crisis. The one and only answer I received was from Sheepdog, who suggested the dismantling of the CIA, FBI, and NSA (Wait till he finds out you called him 'unreasonable' - oooh, you're in trouble). Spell out for us in specifics what steps you would have taken since 11 Sep 01 to deal with the international situation.

So spit it out. Where's the beef?

And please don't quote a Communist, Stalin apologist like Shaw when attempting to scold someone on concepts of honor. It makes you sound even more unsound.

"As a young social reformer, he hated cruelty and oppression and pleaded for freedom. He idealized the rebel. Today he idealizes the dictator, whether he be a Mussolini, a Hitler or a Stalin, or even a faked-up pretence of a dictator like Mosley. … And yet G.B.S. publicly proclaims that he is a Communist. … What he really admires in Soviet Communism is the forceful activities of the Communist Party. " - Beatrice Webb

Intelligence agencies have a viable function as long as they don't lie, murder, or pull us into wars to enrich the roach

droppings who pull their policies.

They were established to garnish intelligence not create terror and crush democracy.

Truman screwed up and he realized this only after he authorized the Criminal Intelligence Agency. BTW, an agency is a for hire structure to benefit anyone who can

afford their services.

int'l police action lead by a coalition NOT including the USA was an early suggestion i think..

let's see.... i think some other suggestions included: strengthening and democratizing the UN, giving more money to the "9-11" commission that Kissinger resigned from, supporting a democratic opposition in Iraq (but not through the US government which has lost credibility in this regard), cutting military aid to Israel and Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. etc. etc.... right on down to health care not warfare and other sensible domestic suggestions that resonate very widely.

our position has always been very simple and convincing.

you know.. the reason tens of millions are turning against your war is because YOU (and Bush, etc.) are so bad at making a convincing case for war. i don't think these huge numbers would take to the streets if you all weren't so unconvincing.

part of Bush's (and your) problem: how to win more alllies and not care whether you have allies.... at the same time. so ridiculously childish. but people aren't really laughing at you so much as they are just aghast, horrified by you.

int'l police action lead by a coalition NOT including the USA was an early suggestion i think..

let's see.... i think some other suggestions included: strengthening and democratizing the UN, giving more money to the "9-11" commission that Kissinger resigned from, supporting a democratic opposition in Iraq (but not through the US government which has lost credibility in this regard), cutting military aid to Israel and Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. etc. etc.... right on down to health care not warfare and other sensible domestic suggestions that resonate very widely.

our position has always been very simple and convincing.

This really is too easy.

You, like many of your Leftist friends, are long on platitudes and short on substance. So let's go through the list:

1. International police action led by a coalition NOT including the US? This mythical coalition, what was to be it's purpose? To disarm Iraq? To fight terrorism?

This is the first time I've heard of an international coalition. Tell me, who would provide the manpower, weaponry, logistics, intelligence, etc? France? Germany? Russia? China? Wait. I know, you see, they WOULD have done it, but now that we've been running around bullying everybody, they've decided to take their collective toys and go home. Gotcha.

Could you, please, provide a link to any reference to this mystical magical force being proposed?

2. Strengthening and Democratizing the UN. What exactly does that mean? Again, sounds nice, but you have no concrete solutions. Strengthening? Are you suggesting the establishment of an UN army? Or are you advocating larger force commitments from member nations to UN missions? Or are you saying that countries to be found in violation of UN resolutions will be dealt with more severely than heretofore? I doubt any of these options would meet with much support. We have 17 UN resolutions which Iraq is in violation of, yet we need another to officially acknowledge this violation, and that one MAY NOT PASS! Furthermore, being that the UN is comprised of a majority of countries which are not functioning Democracies, I fear your efforts to Democratize will only give these despots more power to obstruct international actions.

3. Giving more money to the 9-11 commission. Not a bad answer. Fund the commission that is investigating the events of 11 Sep 01 to get as much information as possible. Of course, what if the commission is already amply funded? I haven't heard a single person in Congress ask for more funding for it, nor have I heard that the commission is underfunded. So adding more money will do what, exactly?

4. Supporting a Democratic opposition in Iraq - but not through the US. Again, substance is needed. You are suggesting the Finns or the Swedes or the Burmese will provide beans, bullets, band-aids and intelligence to the forces working to democratize Iraq? Or are you putting your faith in the French, Germans, and Russians - who stand to lose much and gain little if Saddam Hussein is overthrown?

5. Cutting military aid to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Oh, that's really a good idea. The 'logic' behind the first one is: Arabs hate Jews. America arms Jews. Arabs hate America. Problem is, the Islamic fundamentalists themselves have said they hate us regardless of the Israeli situation. They hate us because we don't subscribe to their religion. Cutting aid to Saudi Arabia? I'm all for it. Soon it will happen, as the House of Saud will, in the aftermath of an Iraqi overthow, be expendable.

6. Domestic policies protect American lives how?

So, let's see how you've done:

6 sections of the test, 2 partial credits, 4 wrong answers.

F. But congratulations. You're the Left's valedictorian so far.

What exactly do you propose, Simon? I'm interested in your personal view but I get confused by some of the things you post.

Can you indulge...

Is your proposition the post that contributed the "offensive" strategy,

taking out the "state' that sponsors terrorism, and the terrorist cells

too?

Later, you said,

"Kindly don't mistake my prognostications for what I hope will happen."

before that you said,

"We have a choice to make as a nation. We either choose to ruthlessly exterminate the terrorists and their associates...."

but before that you said,

"I think this is how we keep the country safe"

and from the start,

"The terrorists must be rooted out and exterminated., ...thugee cult in India."

and,

"The alternative., ...starvation and murder."

paraphrased for time.

I realize the crap you get, so here is a fresh start:

go for it

Simple Simon, you may think this is all a joke, but history is being made. you will be remembered as an elitist maniac. this anti-war movement will be remembered (for the most part) as normal people.

1. you say "Tell me, who would provide the manpower, weaponry, logistics, intelligence, etc? France? Germany? Russia? China?"

what is your point? you think only the USA has "logistics" etc.? various law enforcement agencies have always cooperated around the world, for various reasons. they continue to. no need to do special research, just look at the headlines. that's how international terrorists are brought to justice. there is nothing controversial about supporting int'l cooperation in law enforcement. you may think you are arguing against the freaks but in reality you are fighting against almost everybody and against the normal routine ways of doing things. if you consider yourself a conservative, you should be able to articulate what you are conserving. our position is not as exciting as your personality seems to require. regarding enforcement of laws against terrorism, you seem to have only open contempt for the idea. sensible people (the vast majority) think you're a maniac.

2. the UN is a global effort at cooperation and conflict resolution. it can be destroyed. it can be strengthened. it can be less democratic or more democratic. this isn't so complicated, Simon. people value the UN and use it for good purposes. you and Bush haven't bothered to convince any of us of an alternative.

3. " Giving more money to the 9-11 commission. Not a bad answer. Fund the commission that is investigating the events of 11 Sep 01 to get as much information as possible. Of course, what if the commission is already amply funded? I haven't heard a single person in Congress ask for more funding for it, nor have I heard that the commission is underfunded. So adding more money will do what, exactly?"

well.... in this society, money is what we use to pay for goods and services. beyond that, i don't know what your question is about exactly. get serious. the "9-11" commission was given a scandalously pitiful budget. just do a little research, mister man.

4. supporting the democratic opposition is not a freaky position. it's just amazing what a low priority this is for you and Bush.

5. the military aid issue, also, is not a freak agenda. no question that our military aid around the world causes tremendous problems. cutting it is a political challenge. our main strategy is to educate the public about the detriments of US military aid around the world and about who benefits.

6. "Domestic policies protect American lives how?" when we are healthy, informed, unafraid, etc. .... we are able to run our society in a less dangerous way. this may sound like feel-good hippy talk to you, but it isn't. it's just sort of common sense.

NEWS FLASH: i think i just heard that mr. Homeland Security - Tom Ridge - said an attack on Iraq will make suicide bombings in the USA inevitable.

what is he thinking exactly?

normal people do not understand. how could we?

Lund;

My proposal is that we pursue an aggressive military and intelligence offensive against known terrorist organizations and states that sponsor the same. I propose that terrorists that are caught are to be tried by military tribunals and hung.

I further propose that we use our massive economy as a weapon to isolate and destabilize despotisms which sponsor terrorism, and encourage the establishment of Democratic regimes in their stead. The Soviet Union was defeated by our finding its Achilles’ heel (inefficient economic model) and exploiting it. Not by trading with them and enriching them.

The idea of an ‘epoch of war’ is not something I desire, it is merely something that I think will happen, that perhaps must happen. A lot of people see ‘peace’ as merely the absence of war. Peace doesn’t look so good to the North Koreans and the Iraqis and the Chinese and the Cubans and a lot of other people slaving under Totalitarian regimes. Most of these people would welcome a little war, much like the French welcomed a little war when we liberated them from the Germans during WWII.

We are faced with an uncertain future, and one which will require much mental and physical courage. Our opposition consists of religious fanatics and Totalitarians. The fanatics can be outmaneuvered and eradicated, especially if we can get more moderate Islamic clerics to proclaim them heretical, the totalitarians can be disposed of by turning up the economic heat, stepping up covert intelligence operations, aiding resistance and pro-democracy movements. We can win. We can keep them so disorganized and so concerned with scrambling to stay alive that they won’t have the time or resources to strike at our civilian population.

The alternative is to leave our country exposed as a paper tiger, one that is easily attacked with little fear of retribution. The Islamic radicals will have a great victory which will encourage recruitment, and the Totalitarians will have little reason to fear, and more incentive to develop NBC weapons. Ultimately we will have to fight this war. We either fight it now, or do so more expensively (in men and materiel) later.

you say "paper tiger". what does that mean?

here's what i imagine: the people in the town are terrified of the tiger. they make spears and traps and whatnot to try to protect themselves. and you are saying that we are the tiger, right? and we have to make sure that we are not just a paper tiger. because then the towns people would grow very bold and maybe even realize that our roaring and snarling is just empty sounds, right?

so we have to make sure that we are a REAL tiger. with real claws and teeth that rip heads off and chew up babies and stuff, right? are tigers really that bad? well maybe not usually but.... following the metaphor, it's good when some town people get mawled and maimed, right? because that way the people know that we are a REAL tiger, right?

okay this all makes sense.

but i can't blame the world for thinking you're nuts.

Metaphors are obviously not your strong point. Perhaps you should stick to real world examples.

Your tiger metaphor is rather inept. It assumes that we are a tiger, while those we are after are frightened villagers. A more apt metaphor might have been that we are a nation of tigers, and some savages have murdered thousands of our friends because they don't much like tigers. Now we have identified the savages and are going to go into their lairs and plan on killing those who want to kill us. We'll happily leave unmolested those who don't hate tigers.

Of course, there are some lazy tigers. These tigers like to lie in the sun and get their food handed to them, and they don't think it a worthwhile endeavor to pursue the savages. If a bunch of tigers die, so what? It wasn't us. And we probably had it coming to us. Tigers are very scary, and you can't blame savages for acting out against aggressive tiger behavior.

Simon says: "A more apt metaphor might have been that we are a nation of tigers, and some savages have murdered thousands of our friends"

okay, a nation of tigers.. this is apt?

is anybody out there going for this crap?

A nation of sheep, policed by wolves and ruled by weasels.

You're the one who wished to discuss things in metaphor. I'm perfectly willing to discuss them in any form you'd like.

But I'm afraid you haven't said much of anything yet, just found fault with what others have said.

So, I yield the floor to you. Kindly give us your opinion on how our country should proceed, or, since you prefer the sniper's position, you can critique salient portions of my proposition.

That is if you're done making fun of metaphors.

Well Psympleton let us indeed deal with facts:

“I have asked ad nauseum for someone to present a specific alternative to the administration's handling of the current crisis. The one and only answer I received was from Sheepdog, who suggested the dismantling of the CIA, FBI, and NSA (Wait till he finds out you called him 'unreasonable' - oooh, you're in trouble). Spell out for us in specifics what steps you would have taken since 11 Sep 01 to deal with the international situation.

So spit it out. Where's the beef? “



I am not going to dignify this standard disinformation technique by accepting it as a valid point. It is not.

It is a common disinformation, Spin Artist, technique to demand of one’s opposition a complete solution to a difficult problem as the rationale for your opponents position. There is nothing in my position which requires me to formulate such a policy. However, anyone reading back through our exchanges in this thread will I think find the valid questions he posed fully rebutted.

Psymon illustrates a variation on this theme i.e., demanding a complete Foreign Policy for the United States - and then when that is not forthcoming shouting: “Aha!” What total Bull Shit. (Excuse me while I protect my Watch.)

Being against a Policy of raining death upon a foreign nation which poses no immediate threat does require the untying of the “Gordian Knot”.

Philosophically it is an interesting problem, but in the end we are left with the facts:

A. Psymon is unable to provide a valid rationale for the Iraq Attack.

B. He cut and ran when the debate got too close to home.

Did that resolve the Tiger issue?

Moving on.,

Some will argue greed gave the USSR its final blow, but that is a faulty assessment that implies moral fault caused the fall, instead of an flawed economic plan that made too much, or made too little., etc., etc.

Economic embargoes work. Soft diplomacy is an excellent strategy when you have the right type of economic system, and when it is the right type of dictator.

Libya in the 1990's was a brilliant show of how a terrorist sponsoring dictatorship could succumb to our pressure. It was a unilateral decision by the US that the European countries agreed to the demand to form an embargo. It took a near collapse of the countries infrastructure before Qaddafi came around and began a more pragmatic diplomacy, eventually denouncing his past efforts at instigating revolutions. Since 1998 he has progressively gotten better, embracing free market and investment. 1999: he dissolved his terrorist training camps, broke ties with the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine, extradited Islamist militants and suspected terrorists to Jordan, Yemen, and Egypt, and expelled Abu Nidal from Libyan territories. Finally, a public decree was issued in his country (and to the world), all terrorists cells world wide will need to find funding elsewhere.

Saddam certainly isn't Quaddifi and appears will go another route. I think many still believe that he can be forced to change by embargo and by inspections. There are those that proclaim he will never change and will need to be toppled.

The fundamental difference between Q and S is that Q was

a revolutionary who has given up the "cause." (How the new

US Administration and he work will not really matter until after the Iraq issue [-I suspect]. There have been some very good discussions (not hear, so far) about what type of progress can occur between GW and Q. We'll see -maybe in the Fall, depending if the compensation issue can finally get resolved. Right now, there is a tremendous amount of tension in the world and it is causing some snafus here and there. [understatement])

SH, on the other hand, is a tyrant who has no "revolutionary" leanings. He wants control of the Persian Gulf.

A dictator that doesn't flinch when a gun is put to his head, who is an astounding tactican, who kills, and bullies, is an entirely different force.

Sanctions can only work when everyone else is willing to sick to them. No Backroom deals and no Black Market.

Sheepdog, you are better at brief paranoid ramblings. You run out your suit when you attempt full paragraphs. And I am still here, I haven't cut and run from anything. Diogenes claimed that our foreign policy isn't intelligent, so I asked him to present a better one. He decided to present some concepts which differ very little from our current SOP, and some others that might very well have been lifted from Sesame Street. I give him credit for answering all the same.

My goal in asking these questions is to find out who it is we are interacting with. Its very easy for Sheepdog to say "I'm for peace", and for all the bobbleheads to agree with him. Its another thing entirely when Sheepdog adds "and I'm sure that Walt Disney is alive, and pulling all the strings of the current administration".

But exposure of wingnuts is not the sole goal. My main point (or my classic psyops/cointel/MOCKINGBIRD tactic) is that the Left is full of loudmouths who never tire of criticising the direction that is being taken, yet never deign to provide alternatives. Constructive criticism has value. Endless carping is just noise.

Lund,

Are you suggesting we use economic pressure to oust Saddam or to bring him into a more friendly frame of mind? You started to make that point, but seemed to hedge at the end when you acknowledged that he seems immune to such pressures so far.

I stated that Q & SH are not equal. What works with a revolutionary

type (which Saddam is not), doesn't seem to work here.

Libya was an example of what happened once the USSR dissolved, and the Soviet East Bloc support ceased.

N Korea is where I was headed, eventually trying to illustrate Powell's recent meetings as an attempt at an embargo similar to that formed with our European allies.

Saddam

Pushing a methodical murderer in a corner is more than

pouring gas on a hornet's nest. Outsourcing in the Philippines is on, just like Tenet predicted in Oct '02. Luckily, SH is operating on a shoestring. Hopefully when GW has us attack and take him down, SH won't be planning an extended rebuttal long after he is dead.

Threats don't seem to make SH jump. He appeared motivated by sanctions lifted so he can get back to his "nation building." The last statement the guy made (not the insults that get tossed around), was, 'we complied, now lift the sanctions.'

I don't know the answer, however, I don't think a timeline should be installed. Threat works in that he is forced to comply, and he is (kinda) with dirty tactics ta'boot.

I understand absolute compliance, nothing less.

Simon - - you'll never convince people to support war by ridiculing their peace. we're not attached to peace because it's brilliant or even convincing. we're attached to peace because war is worse. you have to convince us that it's worth it somehow. you don't come even close to achieving that. which is no surprise. nobody seems to be capable these days.

btw - - "My main point blah blah blah blah is that the Left is full of loudmouths who never tire of criticising the direction that is being taken, yet never deign to provide alternatives. Constructive criticism has value. blah blah blah blah" - Simple Simon

here you sound like you've been reading Michael Albert. but that's impossible. obviously you don't really want to look into the "alternatives" you request. if you look into it, i think you'll find that the left is quickly developing a monopoly on constructive visions for the future.

if you were interested, you'd check out places like zmag's vision and strategy section and present us with some of your constructive criticisms.

all you and your boring friends have to offer is war war and more war. what a waste of your life. you lucky USA person who could have achieved anything!!

btw what's wrong with the alternatives that have already been suggested? they all seem sensible to me.

ATTACKING IRAQ IS A BAD IDEA!!!!

Better we do it now than wait til our building are knocked down and our people picked off a few at a time. What? Do you think there's any doubt that will happen.

Sanctions aren't working and should be dissolved. They're only starving his people while he lives it up in saddam-ville. Military action is the only thing that will take care of saddam.

But for america to take sole action against saddam establishs us as the world's police, and bush as the end decider in which countries live or die, or are good or 'evil'. That is entirely unacceptable. bush is at absolute best a total idiot, guilty of criminal neglegence. Far more likely a traitor to his people and a deliberate conspirator behind 9/11. In either case, I don't want him putting our USA stamp of approval on the countries of the world. I have seen too many corrupt shady cops to trust that the intentions behind such a movement in the long run. Indeed, I find them highly suspect from the onset, and they would only get more corrupt as time goes on, as these things do.

We should defer to the judgement of the UN and leave matters alone otherwise.

People are asking 'what is a better way' and that is a good question, to which i have no clear answer, as this is a tricky problem. I will say one thing though, the liberties and freedoms we enjoy as americans should not be deprived of the other inhabitants of the earth by americans simply because they were not born in america. This is obvious but not the reality at current. Our foreign policy needs a massive overhaul.

We have legislature in place to protect the rights of americans as they interact with other americans, in business, civil, and criminal matters. What we need is legislature to guarantee at least a subset of these rights to foriegn nations and the inhabitants of such that choose to interact with american interests. These rights should not be forced upon anyone, under any circumstances. They should be geared to assume that the american business interest and/or government agency is guilty of violations unless proven otherwise to encourage stringent keeping of records and official supervision of all foriegn policy and business. Again, the system should assume guilt of the US party unless proven otherwise. The punishment for violations could then be leveled in the way of fines and perhaps a court order to remove the business or agency from the nation or location in question. The idea is to highly police the conduct of our nation's business as it interacts with the people of foriegn lands. This would no doubt encourage some businesses to simply 'stay home'. That's fine. We aren't exactly wanted worldwide, and as such should not force our presence.

Indeed, if foriegn nations, businesses, and other interests were inclined to 'court' american counterparts before negotiations could begin, and all communications and transactions between the two were required to be strictly recorded and subject to periodic review, especially upon report of a standards violation, I feel that we might be able to insure that the standards of government and business that we enjoy at home might also be enjoyed abroad. And subsequently our presence would be appreciated more, and we would not be victim of such wide spread resentment.

Another by product of this action is that the phrase 'But I'm an American!' would become nearly meaningless, and could not be leveled against a person or group as a threat. Essentially the standing response would be 'Well, you aren't in america, you're in whothehellknows. if you want to enjoy the freedoms of being american, go back to america. Otherwise, behave or we will call your "parents".'. We should not be 'special' in the world because of what our money can buy us, we should be respected internationally for our high standards of conduct and the idea that when we err we take care of our problems. As is our big businesses have a near unlimited license to do whatever the hell they want and that is part of the problem.

What of nations and peoples that court our business and then wrong us? We report as much to the peoples controlling governments, await results, and if none are produced, we leave. That simple. Never shall we be so wronged that military reprisal is required, unless they invade our US soil. Its only money, and the people pursuing it outside of the safety net of US occupation should be aware of the risks they are taking.

The businesses that might say 'but what if they have a resource we need and they just won't play ball the way we want!' should be told to shut up and deal with it or go home. "but what if we run out of oil?!?". Oh well. We survived before oil, we will find a way to live without it, I'm sure. We better.

And what of (far more likely) american agencies and business's abusing the rights of foriegn citizens? A juried trial, the jury composed of an even mix of impartial americans and a government nominated selection of jurors from the representative foriegn administration. It would, in the long run, be in the best interests of the foriegn government to produce fair, impartial jurors and to not stack the deck, so to speak, because if they do and results are not achieved, we leave, at least the wronged party/busines, if not the entire american delegation. And take our money with us.

I realize that this is an excessivly complex system of interacting with foriegn nations but a measure of this nature is sorely needed. As it stands, american big business basically does whatever they want wherever they want off of US soil. This is not acceptable.

A goal of such a system would also be to avoid the establishment of the US as the worlds police. We have no right whatsoever to tell people how they may or maynot conduct themselves in their nation, period. What of the terrorist training camps? We must unfortunately desist on that issue. To pursue the road of vindictively hunting down and exterminating any who would oppose us is an irrational, vicous, bloody cycle that can only be remedied by either removing ourselves from the situation and/or harboring international good will through stringent quality control of our politicians and businessmen and women. What of the nuclear arms programs? Again, the same two remedies apply somewhat, although certainly lunatics do exist. They should be considered a risk of doing business off US soil. Its a cold mean world and all our bombs won't change that.

On a related note, border control should become much, much more strictly enforced. Nuclear material detection should replace the measures in place now to detect things like marijuana, cocaine, and herion. Similar measures should be taken against chemical warfare, as much as possible. Chances are there is no effective way to detect biological warfare implements as they can be extremely small and undetectable, so we should not lose too much sleep over them. Just try to remove the interest of foriegn parties in implementing such measures against us, stop developing such weapons at home, and stop sending them to anyone with a mastercard.

The war on drugs should immediately be terminated. If people want to poison their minds and bodies with junk, we will not stop them. Indeed, all we do now is profit off controlling the illegality of it. This is an irrational allocation of resources and defies the idea that we are truly a free nation. If the government wants to profit off of controlled substances, let them do so openly. I would allow the union of government and business in regards to potentially hazardous materials. Such a union already exists in backroom shenanigans, why not put them out on the table for everyone to supervise.

What to do when one nation invades another nation? Not our problem. Let the UN deal with it. Or not deal with it. In either case, sometimes you just can't help people. Vietnam is a good example of that. Iraq could be another before long. Consider: Many people here in america, myself included, feel that there substantial problems regarding classism, media manipulation, and a corrupt government for sale to the highest bidder. But the first time a foriegn government decides to "intervene" on our behalf (ie, invade), I would be among the first people to stand next to those i have grievances with for the sake of driving out the foriegn invader. I am confident that the vast majority of people reading this now feel the same. Imagine China coming over to help liberate us from the tyranny of the bush administration. With MOAB's no less. Some times you just can't help people, no matter how good your intentions may be.

Similarly, the handouts (ie, bribes) and loans (ie, "we are coming back to take your country when you default on repayment of this huge sum of money") need to stop. And when the whiney types get up in arms about the poor starving children of who knows, tell them to contact a charity organization because the US Goverment should not be one.

The war on terrorism can only be won through an immediate and drastic overhaul of our entire foriegn policy. Aspects of this overhaul require that we be much, much tougher on those that would represent us abroad.

Another aspect is that we should begin creating a process by which foriegn parties could lobby to become a US state. I'm not sure what, if any, measures exist to this effect at current, but they do not seem to be working. I am not suggesting we accept everyone who wants to be a US state but we should at least be open to the possibility of accepting a foriegn body into our union if they are willing to adhere to our guidelines.

A favorable aspect of the policy i have suggested is that it implements a large federal structure. I am traditionally against large federal government as it seems to do very little for the people. But establishing one set of rules for americans dealing with americans and another, much harsher, set of rules for americans dealing with anyone anywhere else, lends credibility and function to our federal system. What the hell are they doing now anyways. Our businesses obviously need a warden, I say we make the federal government their policing force.

Thoughts?

KJ you should pay attention once in a while.

OUR COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED. WE ARE AT WAR.

This means you don't have the luxury of deciding whether you are pro-peace or pro-war, any more than a drowning man can save himself by saying he is pro-air and anti-water.

So, what you are really doing is pissing in the wind and bitching about the activities of those whose whole purpose is to protect you.

What does that have to do with why were are planning to attack Iraq...Iraq didn't attack us?

You're a fuckin' idiot, Fido...

Our country was not attacked by Iraq.

There is no definitive answer put forth by the Government as to who did conduct the 911 Attack.

You are simply, very simply, propounding Agitprop.

The case for attacking Iraq has been laid out laboriously by myself and many others. I will rehash it only in the most cursory way for you.

Iraq bad. Bad Iraq. Bad.

Iraq make boom-boom, give to bad men.

bad men make boom-boom go boom.

Get it yet?

In a news conference on 11 October 2001, President George W. Bush said "we learned some very important lessons in Vietnam." All members of the U.S. armed forces should take a moment and familiarize themselves with the important lessons that George Bush learned during the Vietnam War. Since war in Iraq is inevitable, let’s do everything we can to encourage the men and women of the U.S. armed services to follow the example of their Commander-in-Chief when called upon to go into battle.

In May 1968, American soldiers were dying in combat in Southeast Asia at a rate of about 350 per week. George W. Bush was twelve days away from losing his student draft deferment (meaning that he’d be eligible for draft into the Vietnam War) when he abruptly decided that he should join the 147th Fighter Group of the Texas Air National Guard. In spite of the very long waiting list and having only scored the lowest acceptable grade on the pilot aptitude qualification test, this son of a Houston-based congressman managed to enlist on the same day that he applied, and a special ceremony was staged so he could be photographed swearing in for duty (a second special photo opportunity was arranged when Bush was commissioned a second lieutenant as Bush’s father the congressman [a supporter of the Vietnam War] stood proudly in the background). According to Shrub’s former commanding officer, Bush “said he wanted to fly just like his daddy.” Other members of the Texas Air National Guard at the time included the aide to the speaker of the Texas House and at least seven members of the Dallas Cowboys professional football team; Bush’s 147th Fighter Group was known as the "Champagne Unit" because it also included the sons of future Senator Lloyd Bentsen and Texas Governor John Connally.

Immediately following his promotion to second lieutenant, Bush was put on inactive duty status and spent more than two months in Florida working for Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Edward J. Gurney. When he wasn’t handing out Gurney press releases and making sure that the reporters didn’t oversleep, Bush returned to Houston for weekend Guard duty. In early 1970, Bush rented a one-bedroom apartment at the exclusive Chateaux Dijon complex in Houston, a building with six swimming pools where Bush played all-day water volleyball games and dated many of the single women who lived there.

In 1973, as Bush’s daddy was being considered for a new job as chairman of Nixon’s Republican National Committee, Dubya secured an early release from the National Guard to start at Harvard Business School, eight months short of his full six-year hitch, and transferred to a reserve unit in Boston for the rest of his time. “One of my first recollections of him,” says classmate Marty Kahn, “was sitting in class and hearing the unmistakable sound of someone spitting tobacco. I turned around and there was George sitting in the back of the room in his [National Guard] bomber jacket spitting in a cup.” Bush’s acceptance into Harvard Business School surprised some, since he had graduated from Yale a full five years before.

Urge enlisted men and women to do like Bush did: avoid combat at all costs, hang out, sleep late, and lead an active social life; when called upon to fight a war for your great nation, see if you can to pull political strings in order to avoid the infantry and chose instead to spend two years in flight training in San Antonio and another four years in part-time service in your home state. If you lack the ruling-class connections, than you should be obliged to do whatever you can to follow the lead of your Commander-in-Chief: cheat, lie, malinger, and go AWOL. Desert while you can; killing and dying for ruling-class petrocrats is for chumps.

Geez! I just read my last post. I was rushing out the door

and trying to finish.

I got a tense issue (past/present) oops.

and I was attempting to say in the last part

that I propose no timeline. It didn't work

in Kosovo, concept worked.

You put a timeline on things

and people begin to count

the seconds and acting

in accordance. That

is, the heat progresses

as does the tactics.

Instead, concept format.

That is,

"okay, you didn't get the

hint. We tried."

If Saddam would only roll over.

------------

Hey, POIOhio

Again, I have to run, but I think

the World Police thing

is out of whack.

First, going to war is not police work,

Second, Bush is in office and is

effectively desolving what

peacekeeping efforts the US

has made.

The Army's Peackeeping

Institute is going to be

out come 9/03. I think that

will be just under 10 years?

got to run

By out of whack, what do you mean? As far as i can tell, you're saying my belief that our actions today establish a perogative for the USA acting as a global beat cop is not valid. And that may be true. But consider... Who are we at war with? When was war declared? Over what, and when? The basis of our action is these UN violations, which we have taken it upon ourselves to enforce. Iraq did not invade us.

Regarding your second point, sorry, I just don't agree. Bush is, from my perspective, attempting to establish a platform of global conquest. I fear that first he hopes to go over to the middle east, poke the natives with a sharp stick until they bite, declare martial law over here, repeal our right to vote as an emergency measure, and riding a huge wave of national support begin the global conquest in ernest. And at that point there will be no peaceful way to remove him from power, and I dread that day.

"Peacekeeping Institute"? "Out"? I'm assuming you're talking about Iraq. I'm not sure. That's not honestly my concern. My worry is bush using the media to support a nuclear shell game to justify the destruction of numerous countries in the middle east. "Oh well now we found out that these guys have some nuclear material, so you know the drill... lets go boys"

This is pretty unrealistic anyways, to assume that we can keep nukes out of the hands of anyone who disagrees with our views, forever. And even if we could. by what right? The very action of saying who can and can't have nukes establishes us as the world police, if nothing else.

All he's feeding us now are lies. I see no reason to expect any different in the future. Nor are my objections to what i forsee in the coming days entirely emotional. Its an imperfect world and you have to do what needs to be done sometimes, and i understand that. But its unrealistic in the long term. But, bush does not care what anyone else things of how he steers america, by his own admission, why should he care what happens 10 or 20 years down the road. Nor does he care what anyone else in the world thinks about how he implements our military. That is extremely irresponsible leadership. Even if you discount everything i've said as a tinfoil hat so to speak, bush is clearly walking around with his head up his ass. And please spare me the 'well he knows better than you'. I have not one bit of faith in the judgement of that moron. He recieves his daily reports orally. Probably so he can play gameboy while determining how many MOABs to drop today. Chances are quite likely that he wants to incite widespread, longterm, perpetual war for his buddies (and himself) in the defense industry.

And all his talk of god... truly, truly disgusting. Hideously disgusting. Not to mention.. What happened to seperation of church and state? Or did that go out the door with our civil liberties?

I'm sick of paying for these shenanigans. I just want to live my life without worrying about whether our leadership is instigating ww3 so they can profit off of bandaids. I can almost deal with all these lobbyist scumwads, schmoozing their way around DC like some sort of infectious disease... I can almost accept the 'war on drugs' (but just fucking barely sometimes)... I can just barely accept that cigs are like, 4 bucks a pack now. And that money is buying bombs to kill foriegn babys. But all these things together... just too much. Things need to change. Drastically. I'm not blaming all this on bush himself, but his administration has been around for the worst of it, and they keep coming back. Clearly term limits do not apply to these scumwads.

Have you researched how the nazi's got their ball rolling? Its damn near exactly like everything thats happening today and has happened recently. If our leader wasn't rabidly picking fights around the world, maybe i could overlook certain dots begging to be connected, but theres just too damn many of them and he does actually have a list of countries to invade.

The only thing he's missing is some catchy, quasi-religous, simplistic logo/symbol...

Speaking of...

I made a design for a sign earlier today. I tried painting it but due to various time factors and the nature of the image it came off looking like i was anti-america or someshit, so i'm just gonna wave a 'no war' sign around tomorrow and call it a day. Here's what i made though. Free for public use provided it is not modified at all. I've attached it, I guess the system will stick it in the top of my message. Good enough.

Pulled this off the AZ-IMC

...Used to REMOVE FREEDOM FAST.

See what I get for trying to head out the door?

POIO, I did a pretty insignificant job responding to your post . Sorry.

There are some who think as a soldier they automatically are a “peacekeeper.” Soldiering is not peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is to police. Okay,

military power is not world police.

That is, military power is about domination.

I don’t equate military force as the policing of UN governance.

On the contrary, the militia is used when policing and diplomacy (policing being an act of diplomacy), is no longer functional. Peacekeeping is police work. The governance of world diplomatic policy (police) is intended to occur through the UN and not a lone actor.

NATO is the peacekeeping force. The US military is not NATO, even if our armed forces are incorporated in NATO forces.

I see this as the recent trend,

US military power, NATO peacekeeper, UN governs, EU funds.



I realize we have military members in Bosnia, they however are operating as NATO UN.

The Bush Administration, I believe, has told the world the US need not waste its precious time with trivial items such as peacekeeping

(note sarcasm). Peacekeeping, a form of nation building and/or support, is not a focal point for this group.

Afghanistan is a prime example where the Bush Administration had to be forced by Congress to cooperate more fully in the governance operations in Afghanistan. Money trickles, and is still on hold for Afghanistan. The Admin. really are not interested in policing in Afghanistan. That is left up to the other NATO members.

Bush campaigned on a “no peacekeeper” platform. He has absolutely no interest. The Army Peacekeeping Institute (PKI) will disband in 9/03 thanks to our commander the thief.

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usacsl/divisions/pki/default.htm

This crap about nation building is just that, crap. You don’t close the PKI, the ONLY government agency focused on securing peace in failed nations and then claim you are serious about rebuilding nations and restructuring governments that have failed. Our current Administration has attempted at every opportunity to undermine the idea of peacekeepers and governance even while feeding the public the abstraction of “bringing democracy” to the Middle East. What will be gained is a military state and a short-term congratulatory session about winning the war (attack), conquest --depending on your point of view, .

Democracy building is a pipe dream for this Administration, frankly because they haven’t any agenda, except for the one made up for the media. There is no platform, there are no efforts. The only real platform the Bush Administration offers is the conquering of Saddam and the installation of a military state.

----

On Shell Games, Assumptions, Terror, & World Domination

Shortsighted, and based on the loaded assumption-- SH is collaborating with terrorists. Nethanyahu said that back in 1995 in his book, "Terrorism: How The West Can Win"

We have yet to prove the connections, but that isn’t the point. B. Nethanyahu is about as presumptuous as you can get: THE WEST AND HOW WE. He gave his book a recent title change. Maybe you’ve heard it thrown around or at least the same phrases,

"Fighting Terrorism: How DEMOCRACIES Can Defeat The International Terrorist Network."

I sum up the US call to arms against terrorist cells as a duplicate of what Nethanyhu proposes, and is repeated practically verbatim by Simple Simon. The similarities are more than striking and the conviction is certainly equal to the Bush Administration. If you haven’t read it, please do.

-----

I was a little facetious when I said, ‘I wish Saddam would roll over.’ The idea of humiliation for Saddam (an Iraqi people in general) is quite different than the US, and I suspect the Bush Administration wants to play this card to its fullest.

TIMELINES: I believe them to waste time. no, really. The motions of diplomacy are rather abstract and must not be contained in a linear structure. To be told we must, “think out of the box,” (not linear) then hear there must be a deadline for a decision, is paradoxical.

To force a predetermined end point on something as complex as this crisis is to be narrowly fixed on a goal that is destructive to the process of disarmament. The timeline is an instrument of limitation in the broadest sense.

Journalist’s now confirm the president intended to topple Saddam from the start. Makes you question that ‘peaceful solution’ had nothing to do with the UN except as a way of gaining world support.

I know, we're at war. absolute compliance, nothing less.

'Ah, we can dance if we want to,

We can leave your friends behind,

Cause your friend's don't dance,

And if they don't dance,

Well, they're no friends of mine.'

(safety dance, men without hats)

Better, POIO?

on improvement of UN peace operations, a focus group:

http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/index.html

Allright, that's it. I'm getting pretty frustrated at all these anti-war people walking in and screaming "It's all about oil!" Look, I can't read minds so I don't know why the majority of congress (More than just a few educated people) gave Mr. Bush the ability to take us to war. But I'm betting they have a good reason. I'm also betting that the reason (for most of them at least) is definately NOT oil. I think this article puts it best and most frankly, so go read it if you like. I recommend this to both pro and anti-war people. Pro-war people, it's good info to have during a debate. Anti-war people, maybe now you'll stop crying about how we're killing for oil. I was in Desert Storm, I know what death is like. But I believe there are some things worth dying for. Among them, that ruthless tyrants like Saddam that should always be removed from power. Hitler taught us that lesson. Anyway, here's the link...

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/warforoil.php

There he is again...POIO, copying and pasting more gibberish that he found somewhere. Nice graphic as well. Keep up the fine work. We enjoy the entertainment.

Boy, are you angry. Is this typical? How hypocritical can pro-peace people get?

How stupid can YOU get?