Working on this new server in php7...
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

View article without comments

Refuting The Top Ten Most Annoying Anti-War Cliches

by John Hawkins Tuesday, Mar. 11, 2003 at 9:06 PM

Refuting The Top Ten Most Annoying Anti-War Cliches

Refuting The Top Ten Most Annoying Anti-War Cliches

By John Hawkins

10) Why Is The U.S. Going To War With Iraq And Not North Korea? Let me answer that question with some questions. Why did we go to war with Hitler during WW2 and not Stalin immediately after? Why is Milosevic at The Hague today while Castro is still living in a palace in Cuba? Why is it that Mexico and Canada are in NAFTA, but Britain is not? For that matter, why are we going to invade Iraq and not France? Simple, they're different countries, different situations, and they require different tactics to deal with them. If you don't know what the differences are, it's not because there are no differences, it's because you're not sufficiently informed. If you do want to find out more about the differences, here's an editorial I wrote about the subject. If you don't want to learn more about it, but you want to keep claiming that we should be threatening to invade N. Korea and not Iraq, then go ahead. That's like putting an "ignorant and proud of it" stamp on your forehead and it should warn sensible people that they don't need to waste time paying attention to you.

9) Attacking Iraq Will Just Create More Terrorists: Setting aside the fact that many people in the Middle-East hate Saddam and would be pleased to see Iraq become a Democracy, the idea that going after terrorists and terrorist sponsoring nations will create more terrorists leads to circular logic that works like so...

1) Terrorists kill Americans!

2) We've got to do something about the terrorists who want to kill us! Let's kill them and go after the people that sponsor them!

3) No! We can't do that because it'll only create more terrorists! Let's pretend the problem doesn't exist and work on socializing our medicine, raising taxes, and creating a liberal talk radio network!

4) Terrorists kill Americans! (Repeat ad infinitum).

Furthermore, history has provided us with plenty of evidence that you can win wars finally and completely without creating more adversaries. Ask Japan, Germany & what the heck, even Carthage about that -- if you can find any Carthaginians.

8) It's A Rush To War: Let's see if we can break down this headlong "rush to war". The Gulf War was in 1991 and Saddam has ignored how many UN Resolutions ordering him to disarm since then? 14? 15? 16 -- even I can't keep up with all of them and we're working on ANOTHER one as we speak. Bush himself has been talking about disarming Saddam incessantly for a full year. He has even gotten a new congressional resolution and went to the UN, neither of which was really necessary in this case. None of this has made any impression on the "rush to war" folks who would probably be screaming "it's a rush to war" even if Bush piddled around until his hair turned fully grey (I'd give him about three years the way he's going).

7) We Must Let The Inspectors Work: The problem with that is that obviously inspectors DON'T work. If inspections did work, then Saddam would be disarmed by now because the inspectors spent seven years puttering around Iraq and the only thing they could confirm when they left in 1998 was that they hadn't found all of Saddam's weapons. Even if they hadn't previously failed, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a few hundred inspectors, some of whom look to have been compromised by the Iraqis, are not going to be able to completely disarm a police state the size of France that's doing everything in it's power to thwart them.

6) Bush Is A Nazi/Fascist: The very fact that we have these anti-Bush protests proves Bush isn't a Nazi or Fascist. If Bush were what these people claim he is, they'd all be dead, starving to death in some gulag, or chained to a wall while a group of guards took turns bouncing nightsticks off their rock hard heads. Here's a little recommendation for these people crying "Bush is a Nazi" -- spend less time watching "Hogan's Heroes" reruns and more time cracking open history books that'll teach you what the Nazis were really like.

5) We're Going It Alone/Being Unilateral In Pushing For War On Iraq: Currently our "unilateral" attack is supported by Australia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. By the time it's all over, there will likely be at least another half dozen nations that will publicly agree to an attack and there are probably a good 6-10 Middle-Eastern nations that are helping us out privately while they condemn us publicly (to keep their people happy). Since simply having one country with us would mean that we were no longer being "unilateral" or "going it alone," I'd say having 22 nations with us means that we can we safely say that this will be a "multilateral" invasion.

4) It's All About The Oil: I have personally written two editorials (here & here) debunking this...I hesitate to call it a theory because even the people shouting "war for oil" can't really explain what they mean by it. Usually the fuzzy thinking goes something like this,

"Iraq has oil -- we use oil -- so, it must be a war for oil! Oh gawd, the bugs are crawling under my skin! Protesting the war and LSD don't mix! Get them out! Yarghghghghghgh."

Yes, they have oil -- which they already sell to us. If we wanted more, we could simply have the sanctions lifted. Remember folks, bumper sticker slogans, even ones that are repeated over and over, do not an argument make.

3) There's No Proof That Iraq Has Weapons Of Mass Destruction: To believe Hussein doesn't have WMD, you have to believe that after the inspectors left in 98, Saddam Hussein destroyed all of his WMD and then decided that he'd lose billions of dollars in oil revenue because of the sanctions rather than tell anyone about it. Of course, that makes absolutely no sense and I've never heard anyone even try to come up with a credible reason why Saddam would do that, but hey, who says anti-war arguments have to make any sense?

I could mention the fact that Saddam has refused to let his scientists and their families leave the country or even give private interviews, the defectors who've talked about Hussein's WMD, all the rockets with empty chemical warheads on them, etc, but why shouldn't I just point out that the inspectors have actually found artillery shells tipped with mustard gas? That's no big secret, it was widely reported -- then promptly ignored.

Despite all of this common sense and evidence, there are legions of gullible & ill informed people claiming that there's no proof Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Come on, if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. But don't worry about giving me all of your money because the Easter Bunny will pay you back -- I promise!

2) Dissent Is Patriotic: The anti-war protestors tend to get very defensive about their patriotism which is understandable given that they're going to rallies run by communists that sometimes feature flag burning, people waving Iraqi flags, people with cute little signs like, "bomb Texas, not Iraq", etc. So they love to claim that the very fact they're dissenting makes them patriotic. Of course, that's the biggest load of kaka I've ever heard -- which by their standards, makes me patriotic simply because I disagree with them.

Disagreeing with someone else does not make you patriotic. If it did, I could say, "America is the greatest country in the world" and you could reply, "No, it's a festering rat hole that I hope sinks into the ocean" and that would make you patriotic. To the contrary, dissent does not equal patriotism and in a free country like the US, it doesn't even take any courage to dissent. You want to impress me? Take your dissent to N. Korea or Iraq & protest against the governments in those countries and see how long you last. No, that still won't make you patriotic, but it would make you brave or stupid depending on how you look at it.

1) You're A Chickenhawk: This line of reasoning horse puck goes like so,

"If you haven't been in the military then you have no right to advocate war since you won't be risking your life. Furthermore, if you do advocate war, you should immediately sign up for the military."

Well, if you're anti-war and you really believe that only people who're willing to risk their lives should have a say, then shouldn't you be throwing yourself across one of Saddam's bunkers in Baghdad about now? Saddam can always use some more human shields.

Furthermore, if we take this whole "chickenhawk thing" to it's logical conclusion, aren't these peaceniks advocating a "Starship Troopers" style America run & voted on by the military? After all, it's essential that the President be able to declare war. So wouldn't that mean that every President would have to be a military man unlike that "chickenhawk" FDR who took us to war in WW2 despite never having been in the military?

This is a flighty idea for silly peaceniks who'd rather argue about people's right to have an opinion than the actual issue itself. Considering the extremely weak anti-war position they'd have to defend in a real debate, I'm not sure that I can blame them for trying to skirt the issue.



Report this post as:

I notice

by mymicz Tuesday, Mar. 11, 2003 at 9:22 PM

I notice, that the intelligence of the human race is never a factor. That you never propose, that so many people have the opinion that is contrary to yours because they feel that there is a more intelligent way. I have two Gulf Vets in my neighborhood. One served 8 years there. They are against the war because they saw how many millions died, first hand, and have negatives to prove it. They feel it is unessescary (error intended) and bad for all involved. My main argument against the war is none of your above. Although the Bush is a Nazi thing is quite close to true because of his ancestry and the people around him who are obviously racist that he is having a problem hiding ie: Trent Lott. If you can refute that Prescott was an enemy and a traitor, I want to hear that. Considering that I found the articles from the 40's you'll have a hard time.

Regardless, my main argument is that millions of Iraqi's will not bring back those who died on 9/11, and children of people killed by us now do very much become terrorists. You cannot reeducate them once they see you as their fathers killer. Also, In respect to your idea about different countries being different situations, North Korea used to be like Iraq, a long time ago it stood on a precipice very similar, we went in, we killed millions, and this is what we have years later. Do we want a repeat in Iraq. I am sick of being promised success when history only shows death and violence for millions. Success would be to see any of these antiquated policies be good for the countries we impose them on, by the slave labor conditions in all of them , that is markedly untrue.

We are not liberators, we are capitalists, and we capitalise on murder. The many different ways we do it, are just elements of the same destruction.

There has got to be a better way.

That is a valid argument.

And the world seems to agree with me.

Especially all of the places who have seen the failed rhetoric of war first hand!!!!

Report this post as:

Which world?

by This one? Tuesday, Mar. 11, 2003 at 9:42 PM

Which world?...
axis.jpgryjwkz.jpg, image/jpeg, 313x200

Here is your world...

Report this post as:

What millions of Iraqis?

by Tripe Tuesday, Mar. 11, 2003 at 9:47 PM

What is it with you guys ballooning up your numbers, ad nauseum, so as to prove an unknown?

What makes you think that any more than 10,000 Iraqis (mostly soldiers) might die? What is this million figure? Wasn't that the same figure tossed off about Afghanistan?

"A million Afghans will starve!" Quit tossing out hypotheticals as facts.

What blather.

Report this post as:

I am flattered, of course

by Sheepdog Tuesday, Mar. 11, 2003 at 9:54 PM

That you weasels took my descriptive pejorative as your own

but still, you are weak and pale without substance.

Pretty colors but your point? You DO have a point, right?

Report this post as:

Mymicz...

by .... Tuesday, Mar. 11, 2003 at 9:55 PM

What is that crap about Bush and Nazis? Good god, man, seek medical attention. You are suffering from paranoia and delusions.

Have you ever cracked a history book? And what was that crap about Korea and Iraq?

Furthermore: "We are not liberators, we are capitalists, and we capitalise on murder."

What utter bullshit. You are an idiot, a stellar example of half-baked thinking and damaged moral relatavistic tripe.

GROW A BRAIN AND READ.

Report this post as:

And You could grow some back up for your lack of intellgent rebutal

by Sheepdog Tuesday, Mar. 11, 2003 at 9:59 PM

Feel free to put your verbal dick in the wringer.

Report this post as:

uuuh . . . okay

by hazard Tuesday, Mar. 11, 2003 at 10:04 PM

Mr " . . . " You sure are heavy on the ad hominem attacks and light on the substance or facts. Are you another Limbaugh moron? When you say read, do you mean read Ann Coulter or one of Limbaugh's books? You broadcast a glaring ignorance of US foreign policy. If you had the vaguest iota of US interventionism, throughout our history, you would understand that the US gov topples and destroys governments that happen to believe that the resources under their land belongs to the people that live their. This is anathema to US multinationals. This is the one consistent thread in US intervention.

Do you know what the fuck I'm talking about? If not, pick up a goddamn book and find out about it. Hell, do a Google search. I'll help you: try "US intervention in Guatemala". That's a great place to start. Then get back to us. In the meantime, fuck off and die.

Report this post as:

You are dumb!

by Yeah! Tuesday, Mar. 11, 2003 at 10:08 PM

You are dumb!

No, You are dumb!

No, You are dumb!

No, You are dumb!

No, You are dumb!

No, You are dumb!

No, You are dumb!

Pick up a book!

No, you pick up a book!

No, you pick up a book!

No, you pick up a book!

No, you pick up a book!

No, you pick up a book!

zzzzzzzz.....

Report this post as:

Fuck off and Die! Yeah!

by ,,,, Tuesday, Mar. 11, 2003 at 10:10 PM

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Report this post as:

When in doubt

by Sheepdog Tuesday, Mar. 11, 2003 at 10:14 PM

Screw up the wrap.

Good going, buzzlips.

Report this post as:

Refuting Mr. Warhawk's Annoying Idiocy

by apache Tuesday, Mar. 11, 2003 at 10:47 PM

Let's see, where do I begin:

10.) Korea does have WMD and recently threatened to nuke NY if the US tries to interfere with their nuclear development programs. But Iraq has oil which has been the focus of US foreign policy since 1979, when Kissinger said that the control of the Middle East's oil reserves shouldn't be in the hands of Arabs. The logic of Mr. Hawk's response ("why did we go to war with Hitler?") is a perfect example of the circular logic that he claims anti-war proponent are guilt of. I'd still like to know the answer to that one, since we were well aware of Hitler's anti-semitic atrocities well before Pearl Harbor.

9.) If attacking Iraq won't create more terrorists, then why all the fear and paranoia and suspension of civil liberties under the totalitarian Office of Homeland Security and Patriot Acts. Mr. Hawk's logic about Germany and Japan is so stupid it doesn't validate a response, aside from the fact that neither has had problems with fascism since WWII to begin with (they learned their lesson in that matter), but the US hasn't learned that you can't support fascist or dictatorial regimes without paying the consequences (as is the situation with Iraq). Mr. Hawk seems to think that Middle Eastern anger against the U.S is unfounded and ignores the fact that these terrorist actions have not only been created by the US through CIA covert training, but also due to the regions frustration with US imperialism. He acts like this doesn't exist, and thus, the man suffers from historical amnesia.

8.) It is a rush to war. Explain to me why so many armed forces have been amassed against a nation which never had a military force comparable to the US or any nation. Saddam was able to ignore the UN resolutions because he really had nothing to hide in the first place. He was able to be a jerk about this because he knew that the US didn't really want to take him down anyways. They had the opportunity to catch him towards the end of the Gulf War, but when the US saw the Iraqi rebellion against him (which Bush Daddy encouraged), they called a cease fire and let him go.

7.) The inspector do work if the CIA and US state department would let them do their work. Hey Mr. Hawk, ever heard of a guy named Scott Ritter (former UN weapons inspector from 1998 and admitted CIA agent). Do yourself a favor and go read his report.

6.) Bush may not a "nazi" in the direct sense (obviously they're all dead except the poser skinheads in the US who where boots and suspenders with shaved heads, and the other loser factions in Europe) but his family did prosper through grand daddy Prescott's illegal dealings with the third reich during WWII. So he comes from a legacy of nazi ass-kissers.

But, once again, the Patriot Acts are something else. Compare their totalitarian designs with those of Nazi Germany or any other dictatorial regime and then maybe you'll understand why people feel this way. Also, Bush may be too stupid to have the cunning of a man that would create an empire, but look at the people in his cabinet (Cheney, Pearl, Rumsfield, etc.) and what their designs are.

5.) Let's see: Australia sucks up to whatever the US and CIA want anyways, Saudi Arabia are the oil rich allies of Bush and Cheney who got us into this mess to begin with, ditto on Kuwait (what else is new?), Turkey lets us put missles in their country to point at Russia and is cool with the US because we don't hold them responsible for the genocide of their Armenian population, the nations that once made up Yugoslavia have been bombed into submission by US to begin with, the Eastern European nations mentioned are all little

former satellites of the fallen USSR that don't have anything to contribute to the discussion anyways, other that conceding to US interests (after all, we "won" the cold war), and Spain and the UK are our spineless allies to begin with; in other words, many of these nations don't have any real fighting force or anything to contribute to the war effort to begin with, other that conceding votes in the UN, while the rest are the usual suspects composed of old monarchies and superficial parliamentary governments who kiss US ass to begin with.

4.) Its not just about oil, its about US imperialism. The only reason they still sell it to us is because they want to eat. Mr. Hawk's amnesia has him forgetting about the effects of the UN sanctions. We do have the food for oil program in place, but what have we fed Iraq? A bunch of sugar-based foods, compounded by the fact that we consciously bombed their water salinization plants back in 91, thus contributing to the deterioration of their public's health. And if its not about oil, then why is Cheney's former employer's, Haliburton Oil, already poised to take over Iraqi oil fields after the war is over? Arsenio used to say "things that make you go hmmm."

3.) If you believe that a nation that can't even shoot a US airplane out of the air can create WMD, then I have a plantation on the moon to sell you, Mr. Hawk, and I wish you would take it. Once again, refer to Scott Ritter, in addition to the recent report by Hans Blix to the UN (released Friday), and the other recent revelation that the documents suggesting that Iraqi agents were trying to get nuclear materials through NIGER were forgeries, consisting of letters and memos supposedly made by pseudo-Iraqi officials who weren't even in office at the time of their inscription (listen to Democracy Now if you want the info, judging by your ignorance you seem to spend to much time watching FUXNEWS and PNN).

2.) This one is so stupid I don't even want to respond. Mr. Hawk is the one who is anti-american because he seems to have forgotten what freedom of speech means. The constitution guarantees our right to talk shit about the US governement and was based on a structure of checks and balances. It works like this, if the executive office is fucking up, then congress and the judiciary committee check them, if they can't do it, then people have a right to go out and protest to express themselves. That is the American way, not silencing dissent, which was the way of Nazi Germany.

1.) And on that note, so who are you and what do you reprsent Mr. Chickenhawk?

This has been a good exercise in how to deal with the pro-war opposition that is getting to desperate these days because they are losing. Even with the government, CNN, spineless

European nations, and several ignorant people with power supporting them, they can't have it their way so they result to plain idiocy.

Also, beware of cliche's by the pro-war camp, like "you guys use circular logic" or "your anti-American/pro-Saddam" and crap like that. Its all evidence of one dimensional thinking.

Where do they print your editorial Mr. Hawk, the MARS TIMES?





Report this post as:

responding to tiresome warmongering claptrap

by na Wednesday, Mar. 12, 2003 at 1:45 AM

Can't figure out what oil has to do with war on Iraq? Maybe Bush Jr's friends at Chevron, Exxon, or Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, could explain it to you. Who do you think is going to get the most lucrative contracts for rebuilding and redistributing all that untapped Iraqi production capacity when it comes back online after sanctions are lifted under a new, pro-American Iraqi regime is installed by Washington? (Hint: it probably won't be Elf-Aquitaine).

Can't see how having a friendly regime in Iraq could increase US power in the world? Maybe the other, less powerful former imperial powers of Europe, totally dependent as they are on the lifeblood of Mideast oil, could explain to you the value to Washington in controlling and influencing its wayward European allies by having a pliant vassal state controlling Iraq's oil flow.

I'd bother to try for a point-by-point refutation of your poor-excuse for a prowar "argument," but I really don't have the time. I'll stick to just one point to reveal the absurdity of it:

"Inspectors have been inspecting for years, it obviously didn't work, so why waste time on more inspections"



Because it did work. And if eliminating "weapons of mass destruction" were really the goal, it's what a civilized government would do before or instead of launching a campaign of "shock and awe" that will resemble Hiroshima (quoting Bush Jr''s leading military strategist) upon a hapless and desperately poor people. (For that matter, a government serious about eliminating "weapons of mass destruction" would also try starting at home, by eliminating its own, world's largest arsenal of barbarous weapons, not, as in this case, so far from negotiating disarmament, calling for building a whole new class of "mini" nuclear weapons and announcing its intent to use them even against non-nuclear states, in open defiance of its own treaty obligations under the NPT).

All realistic estimates place Iraq's current armaments at no more than 5% their pre-1991 levels, certainly not a credible threat to its neighbors (which have strongly opposed a new US war). Inspectors faced years of stonewalling by Iraq, but that didn't prevent them from methodically accounting for some 95% or more of Iraq's former arsenals, which they succeeded in doing through a painstaking process that required confronting Iraqi officials with invoices for parts they acquired from the US and elsewhere to build their arsenals in the first place.

This process, slow and painstaking, persisted until 1998. Then it stopped. Why? Was it because Saddam "threw the weapons inspectors out"? No. There was no special magical thing that happened in 1998 to pose an immovable stumbling block to any possible further progress by the weapons inspectors. There was only the unilateral decision by Richard Butler, Clinton's chief of the weapons inspection team, to arbitrarily pull the inspectors out, over protestations of other Security Council members, citing "lack of Iraqi cooperation."

If the weapons inspectors had made years of slow but steady progress in accounting for Iraqi weapons, why the sudden pullout? Well, trying to read the minds of US leaders in this day and age of triumphant US imperialism and obscurantist government propaganda resembles nothing better than Kremlinology. But one theory has it that the sudden bombing campaign initiated by Clinton against Iraq shortly afterward was more than coincidentally related to the simultaneously unfolding Monica Lewinsky affair...

Report this post as:

X

by X Wednesday, Mar. 12, 2003 at 1:55 AM

this is all about the racist undertones of US foreign policy.

from birth, americans are taught to think of the world in terms of us vs. them

therefore they believe everyone else is evil and wants to rule the world.

why dont they just say out loud that they are afraid of "sand niggers" and "commie chinks"



to date, no one has even asked why N. Korea is even a threat. whenever people discuss the iraq/korea issue its always "n korea is the greater threat" wtf ? u were just born yesterday, the korean situation just erupted today, what do u know bout korea? how can u simply accept that it is a threat without question? just coz the pres. says its a threat you believe him? he may have good reason to think that its a threat but how can you americans just blindly follow along without question?

so what if they get nuclear weapons? why are you so afraid? just coz they are "chinky" u think theyre gonna bomb u? please america, enough racism.

Report this post as:

OneEyedMan

by KPC Wednesday, Mar. 12, 2003 at 1:57 AM

Anyone who says that oil has nothing to do with this war is a fuckin' idiot and should be ignored...

Report this post as:

Screwed up wrap in this thread

by Sheepdog Wednesday, Mar. 12, 2003 at 2:30 AM

Use that return key damnit, this is worse than

watching a tennis match!

Report this post as:

Yo ho ho

by Scottie Wednesday, Mar. 12, 2003 at 3:00 AM

10.) "Korea does have WMD and recently threatened to nuke NY ..."

sounds like a nice reason not to attack them without a good reason (although I doubt their capacity to do that.) It is their deterant in part that makes them a different situation. If iraq had enough nukes we would stand by idly if they slaughtered every last arab in the region. Just because it would be no longer practical to stop jhim - bush basically jsut wants to prevent us being forced into that situation.

9.) Homeland security people are paid to be paranoid. Alquada is desperate to do somthing but htey havent done jack since bali..

"these terrorist actions have not only been created by the US through CIA covert training, but also due to the regions frustration with US imperialism."

If the US is responsible for everything it will inevitably be responsible for bad things for which it can be hated. that is the logic through which america has so many enemies. if the us did nothing however it would become responsible through inaction.. its no win situation. because the world is seen through the eyes of anti capitalists.

8.) there is nothing here to respond to

7.)

6.) are all germans political write offs because they are related to nazi ass kissers? I dont mind ignoring germany foreign policy.

5.) Lets see you just want us to attack a whole different set of countries like turkey for its activities on armenians and that only countries with real fighting forces (ie jsut the us) should have a say.. er actually you make no sense at all here.. dont say it unless you believe what you are implying.

4.) The current owners of oil contracts have made some enemies or their governments have.. some oil companies are just not idiots.

you seem to accuse the us of stupidity and at the same time a cunning master plan.. classic anti war argument

3.) FUXNEWS and PNN do not have a monopoly of fake news infact they probably have much less of it than any source you care to name. infacty the sources you use are probably mostly fake news, i have seen so many of them controled by ideologues.

2.) I guess it is possible to argue that free speach where it is a blatant untruth can be considered slander and that a court of law might consider some statements slander against the USA (where only an idiot believes the untruth) that may or may not be dangerous

1.) your insinuation that someone who doesnt fight cant comment is A) ridiculous b) contradicts your previous comment and C) would result in the crushing defeat of your own cause.

there is some interestintg points

Report this post as:

X

by X Wednesday, Mar. 12, 2003 at 5:20 AM

N. Korea threatened to nuke NY? ridiculous! when? give me a reliable source which states this information. You and I know N. Korea would never even dare to make such a threat.

Report this post as:

john hawkins is the number one lamest writer in the history of la indymedia

by nomis--elpmis---dipoots (latin) Wednesday, Mar. 12, 2003 at 11:02 AM

This is the dumbest most inaccurate bullshit i have ever seen on la indymedia.

This guys is so dumb he dosent even have one clue about anything.

They didnt even answer any of the questions with any info but rhetoric AND said nothing....

Total loser/ WORLDS BIGGEST DUMBFUCK

HAS TO BE RELATED TO SIMPLE MINDED SIMON.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Report this post as:

More points

by Scottie Wednesday, Mar. 12, 2003 at 8:45 PM

Some minor new points

10) Why Is The U.S. Going To War With Iraq And Not North Korea?

Another answer is ONE AT A TIME. only an idiot starts a fight with both of the guys sitting next to him at the same time. thats a good way to get punched in hte back while fighting one of them.

9) Attacking Iraq Will Just Create More Terrorists: I would put it more like

1) Terrorists kill Americans!

2) We have to stop it

3) No! We can't do that because it'll only create more terrorists!

4)Then from overseas - those americans are stupid they are killing themselves by making terrorists!

5) again from overseas - we hate americans because they are stupid and even they hate themselves for it!, because they are capitalist and LOOK at the terrorists! they are "vulnerable"!

oh yeah and "but im not anti american i am jsut anti george bush and all american policy and their culture and yeah those things>

6) again from overseas - lets kill them!

7) Terrorists kill Americans! (Repeat ad infinitum).

It is like how some liberal media uses liberal jews as a stick to beat zionism it seems to be quite effective (if the jews hate themselves then surely they are worthy of hating) jsut the same with the americans if the americans appear to hate themselves they seem worthy of hating while the chineese who might actually repress islamic and other citizens and do things like that do not seem so worthy.

I would enphasise china USSR and lots of other countries as places where terrorism in particular has been squashed by force. islamic terrorism even.

1) You're A Chickenhawk:

what can we call a peacenik who wont go over to iraq as a "a flightless dove"?

Report this post as:

© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy