Feb 15, 2003 5:07 PM
|It's heartening to see so many anti-war protestors in Europe and the U.S. this weekend. The fact that so many in other countries aren't buying into the irrational fear of Dubya's propaganda makes me wonder why so many in the U.S. are. It reminds me of large and small past propaganda efforts to bludgeon the U.S. populace into fear and distraction. The airbase in Grenada which the Russians would use to bomb the United States, Nicaragua being a few days marching time from Texas and a "real' threat to our hemisphere, Libyan hitmen wandering the streets of D.C. ready to assassinate our leaders, Hispanic narco-terrorists and on and on and on. There are so many ludicrous propaganda lies that have worked. Replacing the subject of nasty economic and social problems and policies with threats to our national security is also tried and true. Replacing the subject of Marines needlessly dying in Lebanon with an invasion of Grenada and replacing the subject of unpopular economic and social policies with a war in Central America worked. Now Americans are being told to mindlessly with fear rally around Dubya as he protects them from horrible dangers. It would seem the European public sees things clearer on this than the American public. They reject the idea of Dubya's war.
I also think it's ironic that North Korea has shown the world that actually having WMD DOES deter the U.S.
Feb 15, 2003 6:36 PM
|Alan Parsons or the Flaming Lips? I agree with Critmass||zygon|
Feb 15, 2003 9:17 PM
|The europeans aren't buying this one. It took years for the protests against Vietnam to reach the size of todays protests here. I agree that americans have been easily manipulated in the past. Maybe not this time.|
|LOL The Flaming Lips!!! Go Yoshimi...:)||critmass|
Feb 16, 2003 1:43 PM
|Robot? Is that like that cute old american saying||mtbxrt|
Feb 16, 2003 12:34 AM
|"america love it or leave it" You know, being dismissive in a simple way so you don't have to really think about anything. Good points Critmass. As a Vietnam vet I think this whole thing stinks. We should honor our troops by being more careful than this in committing them to a war. I was glad to see all the people in the streets today, all over this country and overseas.|
|Robot? Is that like that cute old american saying||Sintesi|
Feb 16, 2003 2:57 AM
|Gas = war. Please. That is a prejudiced and hypocritical conceit. Bunch of parrots. Beep beep.
BTW, I agree it is heartening to see so much protest in the world, but I do wonder for what reason and to what end. BTW, BTW, I think much, I think often and I think many of the protesters are pedestrian, conceited, vain people championing an evil man. They say it's about the people but really, do they (did they?) ever give a sh!t about them? "Those poor Iraqis who might die." People march pretty quickly today but where in the f**k were they (where were any of us?) when Saddam was in the process of a war and attempted genocide that took 1/2 million from this planet forever? I don't think it's enough to say "I don't like war." or "no more killing" when killing goes on and on but it's just not done by a popular well known country led by a president that people have reviled since before he was elected. They (not all) march out of politics chum, not passion. If it wasn't so, tell me, where in the f**k were they before? So it seems to me.
I don't think our govt is doing this out of avarice. I do believe that they believe they are protecting us. I think they feel this is a war better fought today than down the road. Bush may be misguided or wrong, but it was 9/11 that caused this situation, not oil, not f**king greed, but fear of a future that includes a major city and it's inhabitants being extinguished by a kook that has an evil friend w/ WMD means. You have to reject the argument on those merits not this bullsh!t about Dubya being an evil man, or our govt is bunch of lying craps who cynically send boys to war for low gas prices. Isn't that perverse? Saddam and Iraq is a victim / America an evil aggressor? I can easily see how this might be the wrong fight at the wrong time, but there are things worth fighting for and dying for as well. As long as countries exist, where the people ain't free, where their rights aren't respected, these fights are going to be there. Like it or don't.
|You're right. It's not about oil.||jesse1|
Feb 16, 2003 5:42 AM
|Oil is a convenient excuse. There was no oil in Northern Africa back in the late 1990's when a thug warlord was starving his own people and we commited U.S. troops becuase we have a useless, gutless, U.N.
There was no oil in Eastern Europe in the late 1990's when a mini-Hitler was trying to eliminate Muslims from his little world and we commited U.S. troops becuase no one else would do anything.
Yeah, where were the protestors when Sadam was gassing his own, and Muslim women were treated like cattle after they were raped. Probably planning protests against mink-coated-wearers and ski resorts.
When we defeated Germany and Japan, we could have had our way with them, but it's not OUR way. We built them back up and took them in as allies.
|You're right. It's not about oil.||Tanks|
Feb 16, 2003 8:23 AM
|Sintesi and jesse1: Well said! I too see Sadam as a threat. We can stop him now or we can stop him later. But, either way we will have to act at some point.
Critmas, I respect your opinion, but I disagree.
Feb 16, 2003 1:32 PM
|My statement was about how you have been and are now being manipulated. Your points are as naïve as your simple gas = war retort. I'm past the third grade civics lesson where the government is altruistic.
"not oil, not f**king greed, but fear of a future that includes a major city and it's inhabitants being extinguished by a kook that has an evil friend" Saddam has nukes? Or are you talking about North Korea? Like I said HAVING WMD does deter the U.S. Turn off your TV and read some history of propaganda. Saddam is as big a danger as Ortega was. If you really want to think read some of the words Elliot Abrams wrote for Reagan to say then and compare them to what Dubya is saying now. "Decisive decade in the history of liberty" is just one of many plagiarized propaganda sentences Dubya is using now.
Dubya's war is about many things. If you don't see it as also being about manipulating you, a military presence in the middle east to protect U.S. oil interests, a transfer of control of Iraq oil from French and Russian companies to Unocal, distracting you from the economic problems and the insatiable need Dubya has to please his daddy then you're still in the third grade. Ascribing motives to millions of individual protestors and then criticizing those ascriptions is arrogant and disingenuous. Ascribing motives to Dubya and the boyz is easy when you know America's history and theirs.
Nine days after the U.S. backed interim government of Karzai took office in Kabul, Dubya appointed Unocal oilman and Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad as U.S. envoy to Afghanistan. Khalilzad is intimately involved in the long running U.S. efforts to obtain direct access to the oil and gas resources of the region, largely unexploited and believed to be the second largest in the world after the Persian Gulf. Working for Unocal, Khalilzad drew up the risk analysis of a proposed gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. Now that Afghanistan is safe with American troops present Unocal as the lead company in the Centgas consortium is building that pipeline. Osama is still around to be the "evil one" and the U.S. has new oil resources. The Europeans clearly see these things. Some of you Americans still don't.
Feb 16, 2003 7:04 PM
|So... if we don't agree with your assessment we are all still in the third grade?!|
Feb 16, 2003 8:06 PM
|That was just a argumentum ad hominem I threw at Sintesi. There is plenty of propaganda on all sides of this. All governments want to control the opinions of its general population. The U.S. is a master of it. Critical thought and skepticism is what erodes their ability to control. There are many people world wide who have an erosion of belief in Dubya and his war. In my view deservedly so.|
|Third grade class teaches the second grade.||Sintesi|
Feb 17, 2003 10:05 AM
|Did that light your fire? : ) Of course it's propaganda. Duh. Do governments ever do anything else on the eve of war? I mean ever? Double duh. You have a habit of pointing out the obvious.
Look at the picture you posted if you want to talk about lies and manipulation. You're a victim if you think this is about oil. It is a component, I grant you that but it's 9/11 that changed the world. If that didn't happen this war would not be happening. You do know that, if there is oil, someone is going to drill it right? Hmmm...I wonder who might get the oil? Who might get the contracts to drill it, process it etc...? Or who already has them in Iraq? Oh wait, you already said it was France and Russia. You'd rather see them do a bargain with a devil like Saddam...? Whatever floats your boat chum.
IF Afghanistan has oil and gas as you say, doesn't it behoove them to exploit those resources? I mean they do have a lot rebuilding to do over there. Might help. 9 million people are currently being fed by the US. People who face starvation due to a drought. That's nine million that total sh!ts like Noam Chomsky said our government was going to let rot. We innoculated 2 million kids against measles which had been killing 35,000 of them a year in Afghanistan. $444 million is pledged for this year alone towards the rebuilding of Iraq. More is coming I guarantee that.
We are heros to those people, our generosity is breathtaking, the good we do is undeniable. You have to be a barking looney to think otherwise. I love this country because it does do soo much good.
You want to know something else? Its the US that is going to wipe out the AIDS epidemic in Africa. The US will be the first to invent a viable hydrogen based vehicles eliminating the need for oil. It's going to happen. (We'll probably pay for the development costs w/ all that oil revenue we're going to be getting.) ;)
IF you think for one second Bush is going to send our boys to war so a few of his friends can get even richer I can't help you. I mean you see evil where there is none and are blind to a goodness that is as plain as the nose on your face.
You simply have a predisposition against Bush and Co. and it colors your judgement. You wake up believing he is a nefarious greedhead and you go to bed thinking the same thing no matter what you see or hear. That much is obvious. Believe what you want but you're wrong. The war might not be the right thing to do at this time and I see no reason not to wait, there's time yet, but the more I think about it, this oil bullsh!t is nothing more than a politically motivated distraction to entertain simple minded Bush haters and give them something to hang their hats on.
|Third grader has been held back too many years.:)||critmass|
Feb 17, 2003 3:54 PM
|Congratulations. You have gone from "Isn't that perverse?" to "It's a component, I grant you that". Some of the threads on this subject sound like guys trying too hard to earn a mindless patriotic merit badge. I am not psychologically incapable of conceiving of Dubya as a liar. Being skeptical, even cynical, is healthy and a needed element in this debate. America has a dark history as well as a bright. Not to see that is being blind. Europeans and others, even many Americans, aren't as blind as Dubya and the boyz would like. Dubya's credibility and motives are what's being questioned by so many. He has given his critics the reasons to be cynical. Iraq is a weak country. To try and portray Iraq as an imminent, mortal threat to the U.S. Dubya has had to use misinformation, exaggerations and distortions. When Dubya, knowing that Iraq has no nuclear capabilities, says of Iraq, as he did in a speech in October: "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" that's blatant distortion used to manipulate people. Some people do see through this kind of B.S. When he does things like appoint Khalilzad as envoy it just provides more pieces to the real puzzle.
I am not the victim. This war effort against Iraq is making Dubya the victim of his own dishonesty.
|No congratulations needed.||Sintesi|
Feb 18, 2003 5:58 PM
|My opinion hasn't traveled from one thing to another. Oil is a component but it isn't the reason. The middle east is vital to our economy as it is to all of the world. All human history is clouded. Personally I see America as one of the best moments this planet has seen. There is a wonderful corrective nature about our history.
I think the argument that Iraq is not a current threat is a lot more valid than "Bush wants to kill children for oil." That's demonizing BS. Frankly, Bush wants to make the argument that WMDs is Saddam's desire. There is no question he has tried to make nukes, wants nukes and if allowed will get them. NO QUESTION. Not to mention the other capabilities. So for Bush to think this is a legitimate potentiality (an American city destroyed) is not distortion he's identifying a fact. The potential is a fact, a problem we have to face. If not us maybe an ally, maybe someplace vital to the world economy. He doesn't think the embargo is sufficient for guaranteeing world safety and thinks the longer we wait the worse it gets, the harder it becomes to solve this problem. (Korea anyone?) It's a JUDGEMENT CALL which you don't agree with but you can't call him a lying manipulator because of it. He's the President it's his job to do what he feels is the right thing.
You're disengenous, biased and unfair.
|No congratulations needed.||critmass|
Feb 20, 2003 9:57 PM
|You're reminding me of these words by Lewis Carroll: "The problem with communication is the fallacy that it has been achieved"
IMHO or as your beloved, intelligent prez would say: "HUH"
|No congratulations needed.||critmass|
Feb 21, 2003 1:50 PM
|In a Sept. 7 news conference with Tony Blair, defending the case that Iraq was capable of quickly building nuclear weapons, Dubya said: "I would remind you that after the IAEA inspectors first went into Iraq a report came out of the IAEA that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." Responding to reporters questions Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman said, "There's never been a report like that issued from this agency."
Now was that a judgment call on Dubya's part, misinformation, a lack of desire to give out accurate info to people or maybe a straight out lie.
The IAEA also took issue with a Sept 9th statement by the Dubya administration that said Saddam could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material. Mr Gwozdecky said, " I would say they are misleading you, we have concluded that we have neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We have confiscated their fissile material, we have destroyed all their key buildings and equipment, there is no evidence either through this organization other agencies or any government that Saddam has any nuclear capability now or could in the foreseeable future. That is also what a CIA report said that was released last December. I could fill this thread up with the misinformation and lies of Dubya and the boyz regarding the nuclear issue. It's their strategy to build fear and support whatever way they can. I'm also sure that as Carroll pointed out it would be for naught with you.
|Dumb ol' BUSHY BUSH BUSH!||Sintesi|
Feb 22, 2003 1:28 AM
|UNSCOM estimated that by 1991, Iraq could have produced between 50 and 100 tons of VX gas. By 1998, UNSCOM estimated that Iraq was capable of producing 200 tons. Iraq at first told UNSCOM that it had only produced 240 kilograms of VX, but in 1996 admitted that it had produced 3.9 tons. Iraq provided documents stating that 2.4 tons of VX were produced in 1988 and the remainder in 1990. Iraq explained this low volume by claiming that it had scaled-up all its chemical weapons processes at al-Muthanna except VX, a claim UNSCOM rejected as incompatible with Iraq's massive R&D efforts. Iraq also claimed that it later abandoned the VX project because the gas was of poor quality and was unstable. Iraq never backed up its claims with verifiable evidence, so the total quantity of VX that Iraq produced remains unknown.
Nukes are great but hell what else could happen? WMD enough for ye? Prolly not. But hey you're a knee jerk reactionary of a different sort.
Say, did you know SH has a viable nuke plan and only lacks the material? Suppose he did get it? Suppose the world community turned their back on Iraq like it has for the last 4 years? Man, a kook like that on the loose? WHATTA YA THINK? Ahhhhhh, nothing will happen. Trust critmass he's smarter and less lying than the average Bush. : )
|I hope Bush's "judgement" isn't this bad on everything else.||mtbxrt|
Feb 21, 2003 6:59 PM
|According to the IAEA web pages it says that all weapons useable nuclear material of any significance, including spent fuel assemblies from civil reactors, were removed from Iraq by inspectors by Feb 1994, that today all physical aspects of Iraq's nuclear programme have been eliminated. Sounds like those inspections worked and more like Bush is fibbing than making a judgement call.|
|Smart you are.||Sintesi|
Feb 22, 2003 1:13 AM
|Sure, it's an easy decision. Pure idiots like Bush should take up bowling. And you should pipe up more with your keen intellect and sage judgement. Ooops maybe I shouldn't say "judgement." I meant specious fibbing.
"More recently, UN inspectors have learned that Iraq's first bomb design, which weighed a ton and was a full meter in diameter, was replaced by a smaller, more efficient model. From discussions with the Iraqis, the inspectors have deduced that the new design weighs only about 600 kilograms and measures only 600 to 650 millimeters in diameter. That makes it small enough to fit on Iraq's Scud-type missiles, some of which are still unaccounted for. Iraq has mastered the key technique of creating an implosive shock wave, which squeezes a bomb's nuclear material enough to trigger a chain reaction. The new Iraqi design also uses a "flying tamper," a refinement that "hammers" the nuclear material to squeeze it even harder, so that bombs can be made smaller without diminishing their explosive force. The inspectors have determined that Iraq now has a successful bomb design and lacks only the material to fuel it."
read it on the IN-TER-NET so it must be true. Saddam wants it, desires it and went so far as to design it. It's mapped out. So in answer to you in pure valley gurl: "like, whatever."
|Smart you are.||mtbxrt|
Feb 24, 2003 5:49 PM
|My reference was the official web site of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). What credible site did your quote come from? A quick google search on your quotes last line shows nothing either official or credible. You are right about the internet and you just proved how a person can use it in a dishonest and misleading way. It does not take much brain power to see that you are the knee jerk apologist here who is in a corner. Now that I know that you do things like this last sad dishonest attempt at arguing I won't bother to interact with your sorry ass again.|
|Iraq watch jimbo||Sintesi|
Feb 25, 2003 7:15 PM
|Very respectable very credible. Live it up. Do your Google search again. Like a newspaper it (meaning the internet)seems to tell all of us our opinions which are very good indeed.
Again a JUDGEMENT call. Say what you want but the IAEA doesn't seem to agree with you entirely. Their facts, which fail to offer wisdom or opine, don't tell YOU what to think, now do they?
(all apologies to Robyn Hitchcock)
|re: No Guerre||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 16, 2003 8:40 PM
|Gee Crit Mass, it is like 1983 again with the talk of the Libyan Hit Squad Reference. I guess they are covertly acting as part of the Delegation that heads the Human Rights Committee at the UN. Maybe I will have to dust off my "Not So Quiet on the western Front" 12" and listen that old song about the Libyan Hit Sqaud by Tounge Avulsion. I also like the Child & his lawnmower Song the Dead Kennedys did on that album.
These are Anti-American protests, just like many of the ones in the US. You see communist, socialist and other extreme left wing groups either organizing showing a high presence at the protests. They are organizing these protests to try to gain support for their causes. It is only an anti-war because for the moment it gets them more press attention than a IMF protest of EU Summit protest at the moment.
They are just blaming the problems in their country on America. Nothing is new there. It does not matter who is in office. These protests are often organized by socialist anarcist and other anti capitalist groups. Sure there are legitamate anti-war protests going to these events, but if you look at the organizers, you will see usually coallitions of left wing groups.
My favorite was one held in Boston last month. It was heavily promoted and they called the media claiming thousands would be on hand. That thousands that were going to march on Copley Square turned into Dozens. The TV reporter said she counted 80 protestors. I guess the cold weather kept the other thousands away.
It just shows you that the people in the USA are able to see threats to their way of life clearer than people in Europe, Australia or any of the third world hell holes where some of the other protests are being held. As long as America is the Greatest most Powerful Country on the Planet, there will always be people trying to blame us for their problems with their protests.
|re: No Guerre||critmass|
Feb 16, 2003 9:24 PM
|I know you feel the need to minimize the significance. You must not live in D.C., San Francisco, L.A., Tampa, Rome, Berlin and Rostock and Tuebingen, Copenhagen, Gothenburg, Tokyo, Mexico City, Paris and Marseille, London and Birmingham and Nottingham. Millions were protesting but then all of them must have been commies or dupes, Now where have I heard that before? Get real. They weren't anti-american they were anti-Dubya and his policies.|
|re: No Guerre||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 17, 2003 6:41 AM
|Well, I think you are wrong. Even here the Anti-Bush factor shows strongly. When you look at the two strongest anti-war critics in the senate, Byrd & Kennedy, you see a couple of hypocrites who were defending Clinton Bombings of Iraq in 1998. They are more worried about Bush getting re-elected than about any war. Abroad, where Socialism is more popular, that movement has tried to use the war to grow its numbers.
In Europe, the same groups of Socialists and Anarchists that protest every EU, NATO, World Bank & WTO meeting protests are protesting the war. Socialism is a much larger movement in Europe than in the US. There is also a large Muslim Population across Europe. Did you know in Copenhagen and Odense, Denmark some Muslim immigrants celebrated the 9/11 bombings by dancing in the streets? There are a lot of terrorist cells in Europe as well and I am sure they are walking along side the Anarchists & Socialists in protest. THey burned their fair share of Clinton Efigies during his presidency so it is not just Bush they are protesting, it is capitalism & America.
In the US ANSWER is organizing many of the protests. THey like to coincide their meetings with other protests like World Bank Meetings or MLK Day marches to artificially inflate the numbers at their groups. They also brought a lot of the anti-Israel muslim groups who support terrorists like Hamas & Hisbola in Palestine into the Anti War movement. Also every Socialst & Communist group is marching in these protests. Maybe you do not mind walking beside these groups.
Boston is one of the most Liberal cities in the country and the War Movement has not taken as strogly as the organizers would like. The protests on campuses across the country are much smaler than they were in 1991. People see the real threat to our country.
Like it or not, abroad and domestically a large part of the Anti-war movement is really and anti-Capitalist Movement. By no means is it all the protesters, but I think it is a substantial portion and close to a majority. As long as the US is Greatest and richest country in the world, there will always be people trying to tear it down.
|One addition about Europe's Muslim population||sn69|
Feb 17, 2003 6:54 AM
|...Lest we forget, it was the Muslims of the Balkans that we went to war for in the mid to late 90s to take down those forces who were persecuting them, namely Milosevich. No oil. No strategic goal. No political agenda. Quite simply, genocide was taking place, and we engaged a totalitarian force on behalf of the beseiged Muslims of Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia and Yugoslavia.
Europe? They opposed it. Muslims, it seemed, were "throw away" humans to them.
How quickly we forget some times....
|One addition about Europe's Muslim population||MJ|
Feb 17, 2003 9:11 AM
|don't think Europe opposed action in Kosovo - in fact there were alot (and remain alot) of Euro troops involved
what took a while was the building of a coalition to do the right thing
Euro's are very sceptical about military action and taking a firm stand - twice burned = pretty shy about resorting to force - nothing like losing an entire generation of men in your recent history to make you wary of a repeat
it's shameful that Europe had to call in help from outside Euroland to sort out a European problem (Balkans) - it's shameful that in situations where force is obviously required Euro's are apologetic and/or wary of using force
look at Srebrinica and the Dutch UN contingent who acquicesed in July 1995 to the Serb paramilitaries and allowed a massacre - if you're gonna put yourself in a situation you gotta be prepared to follow through full speed ahead - mind after the Dutch review of that incident (5 years plus after the event) the government resigned
having said that - if two or more groups of people want to kill each other (like they did in Yugo. - but not in Kosovo) and you're in their way you're likely to unwittingly be part of the problem rather than the solution - you can't make people stop fighting without taking sides
FWIW - I don't think Iraq is a problem that requires force to sort out (yet) - I wish everyone would keep their eye on the real and existing threats rather than focusing on SH
|One addition about Europe's Muslim population||sn69|
Feb 17, 2003 10:43 AM
|You make some good points, MJ...particularly about generalize European reluctance to commit to armed intervention. I agree--that is a cultural outgrowth of the events of the last century.
Actual intervention in the BH/Yugo campaign, however, was only at the insistence (diplomatic pressue combined with bribes in the form of economic incentives) from the US. Again, to the vast majority of Europe, their Muslims rate roughly the same regard or lack thereof as that of the Gipsy population. Interestingly, a lot of my opinion is based on direct discussion with several European officers from different member nations of NATO. ...And so as not to offend Eager Beagle (whom we haven't heard from in a while), those nations did not include England.
It's also worth noting that the Dutch lost 6 of their own that same year to a rather horrific event in the Rwandan peace keeping effort. Half a dozen of their Marines got flayed alive on television by the Hutu/Tutsi/whoever psychopaths who also managed to kill roughly 7 million others.
As for the "real and existing threats," SH factors in to an extremely large extent. Neither I nor my peers can figure out why our government hasn't gone public with the more damning evidence (which does exist, by the way). Ignorance, foolishness, back-door diplomacy, subterfuge, arrogance--it's the call of you folks....
Feb 18, 2003 12:54 AM
|damning evidence out there? I wanna see it - talk about ending the debate, that would do it - why isn't that info. being disseminated? protecting sources is a BS answer - if sources are people - they should be pulled and action begun - if they're satellites or other IT - then how is revealing the evidence gonna harm the situation more than not revealing?
I recognise that there are people who need to know and may actually know what SH is up to - but it just isn't coming across that way in the public forum - without public support it's gonna be a rough ride for a sustained (or even short, sharp, shock) military effort - and is it only Blair and Bush who have access to the info.? if so why aren't the other allies given a brief? if it's not only Blair and Bush why aren't the other leaders convinced?
EB is taking a board break