BS: Mandela on Bush

Subject: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:44 PM

Hi, Mudcatters,

Interesting words from Nelson Mandela.

*******************************************************************

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (Jan. 30) - Former President Nelson Mandela called President Bush arrogant and shortsighted and implied that he was racist for ignoring the United Nations in his zeal to attack Iraq.

In a speech Thursday, Mandela urged the people of the United States to join massive protests against Bush. Mandela called on world leaders, especially those with vetoes in the U.N. Security Council, to oppose him.

''One power with a president who has no foresight and cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust,'' Mandela told the International Women's Forum.

Mandela also criticized Iraq for not cooperating fully with the weapons inspectors and said South Africa would support any action against Iraq that was supported by the United Nations.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer responded to Mandela's criticism by pointing to a letter by eight European leaders reiterating their support of Bush.

''The president expresses his gratitude to the many leaders of Europe who obviously feel differently'' than Mandela, Fleischer said. ''He understands there are going to be people who are more comfortable doing nothing about a growing menace that could turn into a holocaust.''

A Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mandela has repeatedly condemned U.S. behavior toward Iraq in recent months and demanded Bush respect the authority of the United Nations. His comments Thursday, though, were far more critical and his attack on Bush far more personal than in the past.

''Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly?'' he asked. ''All that (Bush) wants is Iraqi oil,'' he said.

He accused Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair of undermining the United Nations and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who is from Ghana.

''Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations is now a black man? They never did that when secretary-generals were white,'' he said.

Mandela said the United Nations was the main reason there has been no World War III and it should make the decisions on how to deal with Iraq.

He said that the United States, which callously dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has no moral authority to police the world.

''If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings,'' he said.

''Who are they now to pretend that they are the policemen of the world, the ones that should decide for the people of Iraq what should be done with their government and their leadership?'' he said.

He said Bush was ''trying to bring about carnage'' and appealed to the American people to vote him out of office and demonstrate against his policies.

He also condemned Blair for his strong support of the United States.

''He is the foreign minister of the United States. He is no longer prime minister of Britain,'' he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: leprechaun
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:57 PM

"...callously dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?"

What an asshole. He must be taking lessons from his murdering wife.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 01:02 PM

I am not impressed.

The Truman decision to drop the atomic bomb was frightful. Was it any less frightful than the atrocities that began with Pearl Harbor, and continued throughout the Japanese war? It was not callous, in the way that Mandela implies. Mandela is in no position to estimate the alliance between Britain ajnd the United States which is forged in a hotter and longer fire than he has, himself, been through.

Furthermore Mandela is making bogeymen out of racial issues instead of addressing the issues that are on the table. The logic of his rhetoric is just as watery and polluted with agendae as Bush's own stupid rhetoric.

A Pax on both their houses. But let us not pretend that the problem Bush claims to be addressing is nonexistant. That would be far too much a swing in the opposite direction.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: JennyO
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 01:05 PM

I have always had enormous respect for Nelson Mandela. Our choir was privileged to sing for him a couple of years ago.

I commend him for standing up for what he believes, as he has always done, and I agree with what he said.

I saw part of his speech on the news, and I was cheering.

Rolihlahla Mandela! Stirring up the dust again!

Jenny

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 01:20 PM

I thought Nelson Mandela was showing his age (and I don't mean that in a complimentary way.) He sounded like a pompous man to whom life is reduced to what skin color you have.

Terribly disappointing!

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: ard mhacha
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 02:02 PM

Well done Nelson, and he never mentioned Agent Orange, yes, you have used every killing device known to man. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 02:46 PM

The "high horse" of American ingenuity ...It is 'ok' for the US to kill and maim multitudes of 'foreign' civilians... in full consciousness of the moral lapse it represents... self congradulating slaps on the back for a job well done... under the auspices of a frowning and displeased Christ...

Our 'job' is to foment peace and prosperity. If we deviate from our responsibilities in this regard, we bring curses upon ourselves. These curses linger over generations, and fester. It's as simple as that. It's not too late to love this world, but today is a good time to start the 'radical' movement of caring for people, and trusting world concensus... IMHO
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 02:50 PM

HOORAY for Mandela! and all like him, with the courage to speak the truth as he sees it. I only disagree with his statement in that it was not JUST a callous decision, to drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also a racist, cold-blooded, purposeful, heinous, morbid, unnecessary, heartless, inhumane, etc, decision. War crimes if there ever were any, and for which every American bears the shame, burden, responsibility and consequences.

We as a nation are as far as any ever was or is from some moral highground. AND further away then some. We should be doing anything and everything we can, as the richest nation in the history of the world to help all the people of the world, instead of threatening them with the future use of our nuclear arms, as we are now doing.

There is no inherent automatic pride in being an American, just gratitude for the freedoms we still have, and an opportunity to make the world a lightly better place, one person at a time. Not by acquiring as much money & power & stuff as one can, but by learning to be at peace with oneself and neighbors. Our freedoms are not for exploiting others for one's gains, but freedom to become the best one can as an individual, & not at the expense of the group or the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 02:51 PM

Thomas, whatever are you on about? Who is this "American" who has these attitudes you describe? As for your religious icon, I am sorry but I can't relate to that either.

The Americans I know and associaste with abhor the kind of arrogan e you are talking about.

They do celebrate ingenuity, and their ingenuity often gets perverted (usually by different people) into destructive channels. The invention of transistors is owrth celebrating even if weapons are now often transistorized. One is ingenious. The other merely toolusing, like a chimp grabbing a stick in a fight.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 04:01 PM

Good for Mandela. He speaks for many of us who may not be as widely nor easily heard.

In a google search, there are apparently a lot of people who agree with me, that it is time to call for impeachment.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Terry K
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 04:20 PM

but wouldn't you expect an anti-terrorism President to be criticised by a former convicted terrorist?

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST,disappointed guest
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 05:09 PM

I had no idea Mandela was so pathetic. He certainly has squandered his status, by his own here-made-obvious inadequacies. He might have a chance with ttr as a speechwriter. I am opposed to this war, and saddened it is about geopolitical power, same as it ever was. (Except in Ireland, of course. Ard, do you think we could set up some interntional committee headed by Irish who can lecture us on peaceful good behavior?) But the delivery of this message was . . . pathetic. War seems imminent, and he wants to talk about 1945? And use "You're just doing that because _______ is black." He makes Sharpton and Farrakhan appear as statesmen.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: gnu
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 05:10 PM

Believe half of what you see.... I do not believe Nelson Mandela spoke those words. He is a far greater statesman and human being than those words infer. I sense a troll. If not by Frank, then by the source.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 05:12 PM

Gnu- I saw/heard the clip on CNN AND Fox News last p.m. I'm afraid it's so. It was a clear video with clear audio no tampering (no godzilla lipsynching, if you know what I mean.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: gnu
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 05:19 PM

Sorry.... unless I see it for myself... I will be watching CNN and others as I have the time. My apologies if that offends, but you don't know me and I don't know you, ya know what I mean, Vern ?

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 05:27 PM

I do, I do, gnu (how I love rhymes!) Just allow me the luxury of an "I told you so" after you see the video, K?

I know its not the same thing, but follow the blue clickys to see a related article

CNNs coverage of Mandela's speech


Mandela Rant

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: InOBU
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 05:33 PM

Here we are, murdering suspects without trial in nations with which we are not at war, and getting up on a high horse over comments by a statesman who survived seventeen years in the racist hell of a South African jail. Good speach, I expect many of the reactions to it are based in the discomfort of knowing that seemingly unopposable power leads to corruption and disintigration of once great nations.
Cheers all,
Larry
PS as to the callousness of the atomic bombings, many historians believe that we droped the bombs, knowing Japan was beaten, had no fleet left, in order that Russia would not beat us to occupation of mainland Japan, it was the first shot of the cold war.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 05:36 PM

...I think the dropping of those two bombs on the people of Japan was an unspeakable horror and I will NEVER forgive the prez. who did it (incidentally, a Democrat...)

It was a line that humanity NEVER should have crossed. Alas- it has been crossed and our nation has the ignominous distinction of being the one who did it.

However, that does not change the love I have for this country or the patriotism I feel.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 05:50 PM

I'm glad Nelson Mandela spoke up for the huge majority of humanity who are wholly opposed to this Iraq Adventure.

It's sad to think that a man like Mandela could never in a million years becomes President of the Unites States or even Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 05:51 PM

McGrath... do you speak figuratively? Our constitution bans anyone who's not native born to the US. I'm okay with that!

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 05:53 PM

The atomic bombings of Japan, along with the fire bombing of Dresden stand among the most unnecessary and atrocious war crimes of all history. Mandela's view of the USA is one pretty common in the 3rd World, where the USA is regarded as the number one terrorist nation of the present era.

But if you don't see it that way, then you have to justify those acts somehow, and people do.

The human mind can justify anything. Wait and see. Listen to Bush's next speech or the one after that.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 05:58 PM

Beccy:

My understanding is that the decision saved thousands of lives, on the Allied side. What would you tell those families, if you had decided not to make it, under circumstances of flat out, bitter-to-the-end warfare? I do not believe that's an easy question to answer. And I believe Truman tortured himself about it before making it.


The story about the Japanese being ready to throw it in is inaccurate; the power to take that decision was being preempted by the general staff, if I recall my history correctly, and Hirohito was prevented by internal politics from making overtures by those who began and were obsessed with the war.

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:00 PM

Amos- I'm torn. I'm not a "peace at all costs" type. I do, however, think that was a serious error of humanity to drop that. What's your source on the Hirohito thing? I'd like to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: gnu
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:04 PM

Yo LH.... I recall a recent thread in which you and I disagreed about the interpretation of something or other... oh yeah, you said that until I had spent time learning another culture, I shouldn't knock it or disagree with it... or something like that. I believe the banter ended when I asked you about female castration in some African nations... care to expound on this thread ?

As for the use of terrible weapons of war, I thought the defeat of the Axis Powers in WWII was a good thing... you know, Hitler and all. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for peace. But I'd sucker punch anyone in the name of freedom and justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Frankham
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:05 PM

I think that reactions to this post emphasize the extreme divisions in the US today (for that matter the rest of the world) about the impending and futile war.

Mandela has a right to his point of view as does anyone else. There are many African-American people who see it from his perspective. As to rhetoric, what else is new? There are bound to be strong emotions by this impending war that are stirred by many "sides".

The important thing is to start listening to each other and stop yelling and name-calling for those who don't agree with each other.

Tommy Sands in his song "The Music of Healing" says it well, I think.
"Somehow the cycle of vengeance keeps turning until each other's sorrows and songs we start learning."

The present administration's position in the world today is not being supported by the world community or the majority of the people of this country. This administration wasn't really elected by the majority. There is not a mandate. A go-it-alone policy can only cause undue suffering and loss of life. It will not stop Al Quaeda which is still very active as recent reports in Naples indicate.

Mandela is one of many voices in the world community that is opposed to the war and this administration had better take heed. Time to listen to them.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:12 PM

Amos and other Americans who would cast aspersions on Mandela for criticizing the US empire...

...you have swallowed official American propaganda hook, line & sinker.

The list of atrocities attributable to the US empire is much longer, and much darker than even Mandela's list.

Lest you think the world has forgotten the legacies of:

American slavery

Genocide of North American indigenous peoples

Countless invasions, assassinations, military coups lead by US military and covert forces around the world, including:

Vietnam

Cambodia

Grenada

Haiti

Panama

Argentina

Nicaragua

El Salvador

Guatemala

Iran

Iraq

Afghanistan

Palestine

And then the horrific attacks against hundreds of thousands of civilians with weapons of mass destruction that make Saddam Hussein look like a Girl Scout, including a few of the more notable ones, already mentioned above.

There is no nation, no people on earth as violent and dangerous as the Americans. Individual citizens' are to blame in a democracy. You yourselves ARE to blame for the things you allow your government to do IN YOUR NAME.

If you are not actively fighting to stop your government's reign of terror on this planet, you are an enemy of all the citizens of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:15 PM

Beccy: I sense that you are young, and your knowledge of history does not speak well for our educational system in the U. S.. At the time President Truman made the decision to drop those two Atomic bombs Japan gave no indication whatsoever that they were near surrendering. The terms of surrender as set by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were unconditional. Sensible folks agree that the dropping of those two bombs eleminated the need to invade Japan which could have caused a million deaths ...allied and Japanese. That figure is my recollection at least.

I agree with your assessment of Mandela however. Disappointing.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: gnu
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:15 PM

LH... my apologies. I have had too many Buds and I am going to sign off for a while. I respect your enlightened posts and have always considered you a rather intelligent fellow with a great sense of humour. Unfortunately, a bad week at work, fuel from Friday happy hour, and a spat with with my other, has generated ill effects upon my judgement. I shall take my leave, ungraciously as it is. Live long and prosper.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: leprechaun
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:26 PM

If any other country had developed the atom bomb in 1945, ANY other country, the entire world would be speaking their language now. Nobody except the USA ever had the integrity to hold that kind of power in check. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a measured response. Unlike any other nation, the USA acts with restraint, even when it doesn't have to.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:30 PM

gnu - Hey, man, no offense taken. Christ! "female castration"? That is not an easy thing to arrange, and I think anyone who does it oughta be ripped apart by attack hamsters.

Doug - The problem was precisely that: "unconditional surrender". To expect such a thing is unnecessary, arrogant, stupid, and unjustifiable in any war. Wars can definitely be ended without unconditional surrender. And as a matter of fact, every time they HAVE ended a war with "unconditional surrender" they have then sat down at a table somewhere and stared working out...the conditions! That's what Grant and Lee did. That's what America and Japan did. There were any number of conditions worked out.

Unconditional surrender is total propaganda bullshit made up in the arrogant minds of people who are so certain of their own moral superiority that they stink, spiritually speaking. And it always leads to a great many unnecessary deaths. No invasion of mainland Japan would ever have been required to end that war.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:44 PM

Doug R-

I sense that you are old, and your knowledge of history does not speak well for your keeping abreast of new information on World War II that has come to light in the last fifty-eight years.

Sensible folks now agree that the dropping of those two bombs was an unnecessary abomination and a political ploy pushed on Truman by by the lunatic Edward Teller.

Your "recollection" that dropping those bombs prevented Japanese deaths(???)is perhaps the most ignorant and assinine statement I have ever heard. It reminds me of your hero Ronald Reagan's "recollection" of his role with the U.S. Army in the liberation of concentration camps- a story which he told over and over during his presidency- except that he fought the war in Hollywood.

It is hard to tell which of you is the more pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 07:05 PM

So why did he drop the second bomb on Nagasaki? And why so soon after Hiroshima?

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 07:15 PM

Little! ...thanks for your clarity...

DougR! ...thanks for the party line...

Frank H! thanks for this thread...

Amos... What in blazes are you off on me getting off on? Christ is the chosen one for most of the people who went that route... And many millions did, even if you didn't know them...*BG* I try to at least hold up the standards that a group on trial has for themselves, at the very minimum... how do you spell atrocity in Christian? ... and the people who do not agree with Christ?, ...well, it's irrelevant to the question...

For my part, the death of innocents is immanent, and I'm VERY upset about it. Our track record is not beyond reproach, and our hubris is not congenial husbandry...

All! thanks for your integrity! ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 07:25 PM

They dropped the 2nd bomb because:

1. they had it

2. it was a bit different in design from the first one

3. they wanted to see what would happen when it went off, and how destructive it would be

4. they had to justify the prior expenditure and development costs

If they had had a 3rd one, they would probably have dropped it as well, given a few more days in which to do the deed.

Mass murder.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 07:32 PM

Out of lurk mode, and going against my normal "don't post to political flamebaiting threads" policy cuz *this* one is just too much to let slide.

Since when did any country need the consent of the UN to decide when and how to go to war? That sounds a lot like handing over sovereignty to me. And if the world ever *does* decide to unite under some organization or other, I hope to God it is not under the UN. Talk about hypocrisy. Take a look who heads the UN's "human rights" commission. Puh-lease.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 07:51 PM

Thank you Lord, for Nelson Mandela! Send a couple m illion more!

Hiroshima stands as the most vile and unnecessary act of violence ever perpetrated on the human race, bar none. All that needed to be done was to inform the Japanese that such a device existed and that it would be dropped over an area at sea for them to witness. It would have brought about the same results. Then Nagasaki?

This was as wrong a decision as mankind could possibly make. This is America's disgrace. Her shame.

So Nelson stands up and reminds the world that the US, when ity comes to war, is a very dangerous customer. Like who doesn't really know this? Hirosshima, Nagasaki, the Highway of Death.

To bad we don't put hald that much effort into *Peace*. I'm sure we could be very good at that, too.... but it's not enetertaining and distarctive enough for this nation of sheep.

Right on, Nelson, and to all who speak for peace.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:03 PM

I am sorry to disagree with some posters but my father was involved in the blockade and bombardment of Japan at the time the atomic bombs were dropped and it was a pretty common perception amongst amongst the ordinary servicemen involved that Japan was a matter of weeks away from surrendering.

I am no fan of or apologist for Saddam Hussein or his atrocities against his own people, Kurds, Kuwait and others. But the warmongering is now going into overdrive and it is obscene. I know personally of no person who is agreement with all out war with Iraq and thousands of perfectly innocent people are likely to be killed or maimed.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: mooman
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:10 PM

I'm behind what Nelson Mandela, The Dalai Lama and others have had to say on this. I also agree fully with Larry about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Peace

mooman

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:11 PM

Since when did any country need the consent of the UN to decide when and how to go to war?

When you sign a treaty you are bound by it. All nations which signed the United Nations Treaty have bound themselves not to go to war except under certain very limited conditions. The United States is a founder signatory of that treaty.

The proposed war against Iraq, in the absence of any actual or even imminent attack by Iraq upon the countries involved, cannot satisfy the required conditions, unless it is authorised by the Security Council, which has not yet been done. Such authorisation would require a majority, with no permanent member being opposed.

Any war which does not satisfy the agreed conditins is criminal under international law. I would have thought that it would also be criminal under the national law of any countries which which made war in such circumstances, since a binding treaty is surely essentially a part of the structure of national law.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: mooman
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:11 PM

And I'm wearing my peace button with pride like Bobert...

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:13 PM

Celtic Soul - Well, the human race is a community, and war is an act of violence within that community. Communities normally form cooperative structures based on some sort of consensus, deciding how to regulate and prevent violence. (The UN was formed with that in mind.) A town appoints certain people (police & courts & jails) to deal with violence, and gives the cops guns so that they can, if necessary, kill. The town does not allow private individuals to kill other such individuals upon their own good judgement, not even when they're the richest guy in the town. It arrests them if they do.

So, to rephrase your statement above, I believe you are saying:

"Since when did any individual in my community need the consent of the town council, the courts, and the police to decide when and how to beat up and kill somebody else in this town? That sounds a lot like handing over personal sovereignty to me. And if my town ever *does* decide to unite under some collective council or other (actually, it already did!), I hope to God it is not under the (substitute name of your town council here)..."

The USA is a member of a world community. If it chooses to act in defiance of the civil laws of that community (which it has done numerous times) and launch a preemptive war on another member...then it is committing a criminal act. You are suggesting that the UN is itself corrupt, so that's a mitigating factor. I wouldn't doubt that the UN is somewhat corrupt. Does this justify simply turning the whole world over to rule by the most powerful and ruthless country, corporate USA, regardless of what anyone else thinks? I believe this attitude stems from the fact that Americans think of the USA as the center of the World, and the rest of the World as merely an opportunity, a nuisance, or an enemy.

And what do we call that? Megalomania and rule by terror, that's what. An outlaw nation. The thing the USA can't stand about Saddam is that he is so much like them under the skin. He's their little baby brother and partner in crime. In attacking him they attempt to exorcise their own inner demon.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Gurney
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:20 PM

Some thoughts from the first male member of my family for four generations who HASN'T fought in a war.
I think I haven't fought in a war because no-one wants to tackle a neuclear power.

History has names for pacifists. 'Extinct' for one, 'slaves' for another. Most people who speak English have ancestors who wouldn't stand for oppression, including political oppression.

It is not an accident that democratic countries are generally the best ones to live in.

In the present climate of "I'm not to blame, the government should do something," who SHOULD do something? Does anyone like the idea of a dictator with a record like Saddam's having access to ABC weapons?

Finally, I would think the Allies (I hope it was the Allies, not USA alone) dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki so soon so as to give the impression they had lots of them. And I am sure it saved a lot more lives than it took. Even the party line is correct some of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:24 PM

moo:

Good on you. It's amazing how many people look at the button and ask about it. Then, hey, they did ask!

Yesterday afternoon I was at a doctor's office and he asked about it and so for the next 15 minutes he and his assistant and I talked calmly about the war and when I left, he told the lady who at the desk who I usually pay, "No Charge".

Problem is that not enough folks "Walk the walk" and it is up to them to step to the plate, *Now*!!!!

Put on your *peace* button tomorrow. No one is going to shoot you for it. Believe me. I work right in the middle of the area where all the powerful governemnt people live right outside of Washington and guess what. No one has shot me yet!

Speak up for peace. Now!!!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:35 PM

If Bush refuses to work cooperatively with the United Nations, we will be dealing with two outlaw nations--the US and Iraq.

As to the US being so morally superior for being able to "hold in check" it's control of it's nuclear weapons, it is very important to remember that the US used nuclear weapons as soon as they were available, and the US remains the only nation with nuclear weapons to have ever used them.

The US is a cowardly empire, with a citizenry of cowards keeping their despots in power, at the rest of the world's expense. There is no justification or moral defense for US acts of terror and the atroctities it continues to commit to protect it's imperial interests. None.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST,dissappointed guest
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 09:01 PM

"I respect your right to your opinion, 8:35."

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 09:44 PM

DougR- Yep, I'm young... but not that young. I've read a lot of lit on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but most of it is diametrically opposed to itself! Now- I personally think it was horrible that the bombs were dropped. A lot of dear friends with whom I agree on many things think I'm a sentimental booby for thinking what I do about Japan... Alas- that is my opinion. Am I glad the war was ended? You bet your sweet bippy (now what young'un would say that?) Buh-buh Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini et al...

As for my history education... it's quite extensive and it was gained by reading on my own. It just so happens that my area of interest was a bit more removed (Don't get me started on the Field of the Cloth of Gold and Agincourt...WHOOOO.) It also just so happens that the U.S. Education system's history curriculum is sadly lacking. No arguments from me, there. Dat's why we homeschool our kids, my man...My history teacher was more interested in scratching his dermatitis than teaching anything else. He WAS awfully interested in South Africa, though. It was a class joke. You could derail ANY lesson plan the man had by asking what it had to do with South Africa.

GUEST- lay offa DougR. He's just an old coot (sorry DougR) who's trying to smack a young pup into shape. FYI, I like Reagan, too.

To paraphrase Uncle Jacque... I shall now don the kevlar undies.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Terry K
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 09:48 PM

Yes, GUEST 8.35, but Bush has not yet committed proven acts of terrorism, but Mandela did.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 09:53 PM

Terry K, you are dead wrong.

Bush is the coward, Mandela the hero. Mandela wasn't a terrorist anymore than George Washington was.

"The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil."

                                     --Hannah Arendt

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 11:12 PM

I'll have to go do some reading about the whole matter of what is and what is not a "legal" war. Seems an oxymoron to me.

However, I stand by what I said. The UN is itself a completely hypocritical entity. I say again, consider who is heading their "human rights" commission. I just cannot get behind that body, and unless things change drastically, I doubt I personally ever will.

This is not to say that I am pro-Bush. Rather, I am anti-politics. And that's what *all* of this reeks of...politics. Way too little genuine concern for truth on any side going on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 12:01 AM

So Celtic Soul, just what alternatives are there to the UN? You say you aren't pro-Bush, just anti-politics. Well, that kind of naivety is much too dangerous for the suffering world to tolerate.

I don't think anyone would say that the UN is perfect. Of course it has it's flaws, as any bureaucratic organization does. However, considering the absence of any other international body with the moral authority that it carries around the world--moral authority our nation engendered in it, I might add--I would say we are much better off with the UN, than the alternative you are suggesting, presumably a world without the UN.

BTW, what is the problem you have with Sergio Vieira de Mello?

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 12:32 AM

Mandela's speech is right to the point & dead accurate. Bush has no foresight & couldn't think a situation through until after he's gone & shot off his mouth about how willing he is to put us into a world nightmare that's not been seen before by mankind. We don't have any friends or allies more on target is that we have associates with whom we do business (a friend will stick it out with you, let's see what'll happen when our "partners shit hits there own fan). As one country after another starts to show it's hatred of the US we'll have more N Koreas Iran's (oh shit we backed the Shar) coming out & trying our hand as we spread our selves so thin that it'll be like the buzzards picking at our bones. Why did we offer Turkey a looooooooow interest loan on the condition that they let us place our forces there? A country that's gone through 10 yrs of hell & is trying to rebuild, how bad are we? Like asking a kid who's starving he can eat but... Bush cannot afford to not go in now. The high command doesn't want to fight in the soon be desert heat, if he waits the anti war movement might snowball out of control. His ratings may take more of a dive & that'll cost him the next election. As we seek to assert our power in the Mid East & over the rest of the world a conflict (can we call this a war yet) will band the Eastern world against us & hell will seem like a campfire. I guess we could nuke them all (do we have any weapons of mass destruction?). Two lessons we should've remembered about The Nam. The US needs the support of its people to wage a war that it's 'hopes' to win. The next is a bit to hard for Bush to understand (what was that about not being able to think ahead?). A people that's willing to never stop no matter what & have a spirit to match can never be defeated. Back to Iraq, Whom are we going to put into power & run that nation for us? Papa or Little Doc, the Taliban, a Shar, Fulgencio Batista, Aristride, the Kurds, maybe set up a few warlords or turn the place into civil war & back the Punjabi, the Sindhi, the Pashtun or the Baloch Muhajir. We could see if His Excellency Burhanuddin Rabbani will run 2 places at the same time seeing as how he's been doing such a great job of restoring peace to our newest country. We could put Tony Blair in command or one of the Royal Saudi's, after they are of not further use to us & we have control there too. This will be the first war in history to end all wars, (it'll bring peace, dah?) HELL we have God on our side. We have just-us in mind. Bush will never be the man Mandela is, he couldn't even walk in his shadow. Some of the news reports say the he's the most respected statesman alive (we can fix that too). Winner of the noble peace prize (can any imagine Duh earning that), former President of South Africa (what a terrible job he did there) & our politicians cast aside his wisdom, advice & comments, I guess we're really open to the idea of peace & understanding. Does anyone think that Bush is listening to anyone? Good night I have to go wake the kids up & save them from the Iraq Attack. Yeah, Right. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 12:42 AM

The UN, like the League of Nations before it, is really 2 things:

1. An attempt to form a neutral association of countries and establish some kind of coherent form of international law for the whole world.

2. A stalking horse for various special interest groups which usually represent major countries and their industrial backers...or regional associations of smaller countries who try to jockey against the major countries. The major countries tend to manipulate and control the Security Council. The minor ones tend to do better in the General Assembly.

The first part is the light side and the second part the dark side of the UN.

It's a very flawed attempt at establishing international law. Any attempt is better than none at all, since none at all is merely the rule of the gun.

If you are more comfortable with the rule of the gun, just say so. I'm not. I like living in a society where there is some law and order and some safety, whether it's a town or a planet.

As to whether I am a "pacifist", well, try stealing my guitar in front of me or hurting a friend of mine, and then see if I am a pacifist. I do what needs to be done, depending on the situation. You don't have to be a 100% pacifist to argue against wars of aggression, you just have to be a relatively open-minded person, that's all.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 01:32 AM

I am so glad to see so many who understand the insanity of this pre-emptive war and Bush, who shoud be impeached. Ramsey Clark is leading the movement to impeach Bush, and I wonder if it may be the only way to stop him from starting this war that will never end. People are speaking out and speaking up, and for those of you on this list who think that we Americans are mostly sheep and cowards, I want you to know that many Americans are working very hard to try to stop this attack from happening. It is true that most Americans are spoiled materially and so it is difficult toget people motivated until it becomes obviously personal. But Americans are diverse and should not be painted with the sme brush. That is what propaganda dn media does, and unfortunately the minority that is in favor of this atgtack get more media than the ones who are against it. It is sickening to watch the nightly news "countdown to iraq" warmongering. Democracy Now on Pacifica radio is the only American news I believe.
peace,
Terilu

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST,Michael Sidiropoulos
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 01:47 AM

Mandela has always struck me as a loonie, ever since he came into the spotlight. So I am not at all surprised at his comments, nothing he does or says will surprise me. His psycho make-up is that of a true terrorist, very similar to bin Laden's. What does surprise me is the sympathy he receives right here in the US by some pinheads.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 09:32 AM

I think "fist-fighting pacifist" is the term, Little Hawk.

War is about killing people you don't know with whom you have no personal quarrel, on then orders of people whom you may well not respect.

A pacifist is someone who refuses to take part in waging war. You don't actually need to be non-violent in all circumstances to be a pacifist.

And of course you don't have to be a pacifist at all to be opposed to waht you believe is an unjust war.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 10:11 AM

The entire world applauds the US anti-war movement, and is doing all it can to act in solidarity with it. We only wish that the citizenry of the US were like them.

Nonetheless, the anti-war movement doesn't change the fact that the majority of Americans are greedy, selfish cowards.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: JennyO
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 10:21 AM

"....the majority of Americans are greedy, selfish cowards."

Them's flamin' words, GUEST, and I'm not even American!

I'm an Aussie, and I would take issue with that sweeping statement! Pity, because I agreed with the first part of your post.

NOT the way to win people over!

Jenny

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 10:36 AM

I agree they are inflammatory words Jenny. But I also believe them to be true. It isn't my intent to inflame, but to speak the truth of what I believe keeps this corrupt empire in power. It's citizenry.

The point here is, the US government couldn't be getting away with what is horrific behavior in this day and age, if it's own citizens didn't keep electing such corrupt, contemptible, greedy, power-mongering politicians.

Just the way I see it. Because that is the way I see it, it would make no sense for me to try and sugarcoat my opinions, just to make them more palatable. I don't want this to be an opinion that is easy to swallow. That is the job of American advertisers.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 10:57 AM

Guest 12:01:
I am not saying that there needs to *be* an alternative. But, until "We, the people" (OF THE WORLD) wake up and call them on their rather egregious BS, I say that what they have to say is more than suspect.

I read recently that the *country* leading the commission was Libya (Washington Post sometime in the last 2-3 weeks). Check out some of the other countries who are members as well. How about the Sudan? There's a real paragon of virtue...a country whose citizens regularly practice the forced slavery (sexual and otherwise) of anyone *not* Muslim without much challenge from their government. There's also the issue of the Caste system in places like India and Sri Lanka which allow for the suffering of those not born to the "right" castes. Things like the selling of children (both by their parents and through abduction) into sexual slavery that goes unchallenged by the authorities *because* these children are of a "lower class". You bet they'd look into it if it were someone of priviledge, but thousands are bought and sold from the underpriviledged and kept in major metropolitan areas *right under the authorities noses* and without much need to attempt secrecy because they *know* nothing will be done about it. Girls the age of 6 and 7 on up are being forcibly raped up to 40 times a day (until they pay off their indenture), and the governments do little to nothing. These same governments are *on the board* for the "UN's Commission for Human Rights".   

And what about the 22 UN countries who have also decided *for* action against Iraq? Is it because they are "smaller" countries than Germany and France that their thoughts seem not to be taken into account?

I say fix the juggernaut first before we (the people of the world) place too much stock in that entity.   

Not responding to any more flamebaiting...have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 11:06 AM

"Not responding to any more flamebaiting...have a nice day."

Agreed. That guy who keeps calling Mandela a terrorist is a real troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: JennyO
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 11:19 AM

GUEST, are there any better alternatives that people could vote for?

I don't know a lot about your political system there, but if it is anything like here - where we have 2 major parties, one almost as bad as the other, trying to score points off each other at election time, and then breaking promises with gay abandon once they are in power, and several minor parties with no chance of getting in - then it is very hard for thinking people to make a difference.

I vote for one of the minor parties, the Greens, and although they gained a lot more votes in the last election, the reality was that everyone knew it was going to be between the big two.

I was actually disgusted at the number of Australians who voted in John Howard and the Liberal Party (different from your use of the word, I suspect)at the last election. He won it on a platform of keeping the refugees out, and the other major party (Labor) jumped on the bandwagon and took the same stand. So there was no getting away from it - no matter who you vote for, a politician always wins.

Now there's little Johnny sending our troops off ready to fight Bush's war, and saying he supports him all the way. Makes me sick. I have a lot of friends who feel the same, and they would mainly be folkies.

I suspect that mudcatters in general would be intelligent, thinking people, not greedy selfish cowards. And most of the population would just be trying the best they can to make sense of it all and get on with their lives. There may be some greedy selfish cowards out there somewhere, but it is unlikely that they will be on this forum.

So it makes sense that you should not alienate people here with those kind of words. All it does is make us tune out. And surely that is not the purpose of your posting, is it?

Jenny

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: JennyO
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 11:30 AM

BTW I was responding to GUEST who posted at 10.11am and 10.36am.

Hey, could some of you guests put a name after GUEST? I know which one I am replying to, but it must make for very confusing reading for some folks!

Jenny

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 11:31 AM

As I see it, the real problem is bigger and bigger "Government". The American Revolution was an ingenious thing, as it left the majority of power with the States and not with the Federal Government. We are a "Democratic Republic", not a democracy, which means that your rights end where mine begin. The idea being that, even if the majority want a thing, if it infringes on the consitutional rights of even a single person, it is against the law. Yeah, things aint the way they should be here, but then a portion of the problem is that we are daily, willingly handing over the power of the indivudual States to the Federal Government. The very thing that acted as the check against megalomaniacal leadership is eroding day by day here. If anything, the example that is the US system should *prove* to anyone paying attention *why* it is that we, the people of the world, should avoid giving more power to an even larger governmental institution like the UN. They will not solve the worlds woes...they will *become* the worlds woes the more power we allow them.

Smaller government with the appropriate checks and balances...that is what the intention was here in the US. Pretty far from that, aint we?
You want to see *that* on a global scale??? I shudder...

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 11:40 AM

Oops...we are a "Constitutional Republic"...my bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 11:48 AM

So American states' rights is the antidote to what you see as the "problem" of the existence of the UN, Celtic Soul? Sorry, but I fail to see the relevance to this discussion of your logic and reason. You seem to making an attempt at arguing that international opinion is "the fault" of the UN. Is that right? Or that because much of the rest of the world still suffers under tyranny in weak states, that we should throw the UN out as being wholly irrelevant?

What a tremendous lack of compassion you seem to have for those human beings you invoke, who are suffering around the globe, while we argue semantics here. So if you were to rule the US, we would all retreat into the safe cocoon of states' rights with all our riches and power, and leave the rest of the world to the madness of tyrants?

Perhaps the wise words of Whitman will open your heart, if even just a crack, to the humanity beyond US borders...

"We have frequently printed the word DEMOCRACY. Yet I cannot too often repeat that it is a word the real gist of which still sleeps, quite unawaken'd, notwithstanding the resonance and the many angry tempests out of which its syllables have come, from pen or tongue. It is a great word, whose history, I suppose, remains unwritten, because that history has yet to be enacted. It is, in some sort, younger brother of another great and often-used word, NATURE, whose history also awaits unwritten."

                                       --Walt Whitman

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 12:29 PM

If you choose to attack rather than discuss, you can stand on your soapbox alone.

Clarification: I am *not* saying that "American States rights is the antidote", or should somehow be paramount to the workings of the world...why don't you re-read what I wrote? I said that, as an example, the way that the US has gone from power of the individuals through the sovereignty of smaller States to where we are now with a President who does not need Congress to ratify going to war, should be enough for anyone to question the giving over of power to even *larger* governmental bodies.

You may read in whatever you wish...you are a Troll, and will pick apart whatever you feel will fan the flames regardless of whether or not much of what is being said actually supports your argument. You are here for trouble, not debate. So, have at. I am going back to reading music threads, making my thoughts known to the public officials who represent me, and planning a wedding. "Debating" here with you is a pointless waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 01:02 PM

IMO what Walt Whitman said about democracy in the quote above could be applied truthfully to communism as well. Wonderful-sounding systems on paper, but seemingly impossible for human beings to actually create and adhere to.

Regarding GUEST's 6:12 post above - " Individual citizens' are to blame in a democracy. You yourselves ARE to blame for the things you allow your government to do IN YOUR NAME." As a Canadian, I'm told I live in a 'democracy' too, but I take absolutely NO personal responsibility for any actions or decisions 'my' government makes.      

The sad truth is that in spite of all the brainwashing to the contrary, 'my' government has very little, if any, interest in my best interests, opinions, desires or quality of life. That is not it's purpose.

The purpose of 'my' gov't is to serve and protect the economic/political interests of the corporate 'elite' who designed the gov't in the first place way back in Confederation days - nothing more and nothing less. Why was Canada formed in the first place? To create some sort of democratic social 'utopia' from coast to coast where the 'common people' of every race and culture could live in peace and freedom? I think not!!

Check your history - Canada was created by wealthy and powerful businessmen, transplanted from the UK and backed up by the Order of Freemasons (the Orange Lodge here in Ontario). Their only agenda back in 1867 was to serve the economic interests of the Hudson Bay Co/Northwest Trading Co - and the building of a transcontinental railway to support those interests. Anyone who didn't want to be ruled by this 'corporate elite' was quickly silenced - (witness Louis Riel and the Red River Rebellion). Some 'democracy'!

And the song remains the same today - the only difference being that now it's the interests of the megalomaniac multinational corporations - the 'New World Order' - that are being served, with far more disastrous results for all the people on this planet. 'My' gov't continues to sponsor social programs - health care, welfare, UIC etc. - only to the extent that the 'unwashed masses' are kept complacent and deluded. And even that thin veneer of legitimacy is crumpling today. Who needs social programs when we've got NAFTA - and the World Bank - looking out for us? ;-)

And IMO elections are just a sham! Even when honest people truly interested in representing the electorate do get elected, they are quickly silenced, swallowed up by partisan politics. Independant members - who do not belong to corporate-funded political parties - are so few and so outnumbered their views and votes are usually just irrelevant.

So no, I take no responsibility for anything 'my' gov't says or does, in the past, present or the future. I am responsible only for myself, because 'myself' is all I really have control over, or the ability to change. And though I am grateful that 'my' country is still relatively peaceful and prosperous, IMO at least fascist dictatorships are more usually more up-front about whose interests are being served and how.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: gnu
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 01:08 PM

You go girl. Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 01:32 PM

Actually it's not far off the truth to say the the majority of people in the human race are greedy, selfish cowards. It's also true to say that they are generous selfless heroes. It depends on circumstances and how theirnlives have been going.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 01:52 PM

I agree McGrath. Thing is, most citizens of the world aren't capable of controlling the most powerful empire in the world. Americans, truthfully, do have that power. Americans are privleged to have more political rights than any other citizens on earth. And look how they choose to squander those rights.

Considering that most greedy, selfish cowards don't have that kind of political power, I don't feel it wrong to demand that Americans become better world citizens.

I now get emails daily from family and friends, detailing this--the one that came this morning draws attention to former US President Jimmy Carter's remarks yesterday, in response to the Blair/Bush meeting. It can be found at the Carter Center website here:

http://www.cartercenter.org/viewdoc.asp?docID=1165&submenu=news

Does anyone suppose that, like Mandela, this makes Carter a terrorist too?

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 02:27 PM

Gold star for you, Daylia!


                              *




ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 04:12 PM

Michael Sidiropoulos - You said of Mandela: "What does surprise me is the sympathy he receives right here in the US by some pinheads."

Okay so...are you suggesting that there are some pinheads who DON'T sympathize with Mandela? Are you? If so, it's a serious matter, and I think we should sit those particular pinheads down and straighten them out. Right now. Cheers, Michael. If you travel in the 3rd World and bother talking to some ordinary people about America's kind efforts on their behalf, be prepared for a shock.

Daylia is absolutely correct. Our elections are a sham. Our major political parties have all been bought out long ago by huge financial power blocs, and do not represent the common people. Therefore our votes are rendered meaningless. No party candidate will honour them.

Although only 15 or 20% of Canadians favour launching a war on Iraq, our government just does what Bush wants it to do, and even most of our newspapers cheerlead for American most of the time, because they are owned by a tiny group of colossally wealthy bastards in suits, who vacation in Europe and get their orders from Washington.

We are a captive people, in the grasp of a huge corporate machine, and we can't do a thing about it, cos everyone is busy just trying to cope with daily life most of the time. We are unofficial slaves, with the illusion of freedom. Fortunately though, it could be a whole lot worse than that. At least we still have the illusion of safety and consumerism to play around in...for awhile.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 04:42 PM

"Daylia is absolutely correct. Our elections are a sham. Our major political parties have all been bought out long ago by huge financial power blocs, and do not represent the common people. Therefore our votes are rendered meaningless. No party candidate will honour them."

I disagree. The only thing that renders our votes meaningless, is our belief that they are meaningless, our belief that we have no control over our own government.

For a guy who is always espousing the power of belief LH, you've got some pretty negative ones about how a democracy can and should be operating.

The price of freedom in a democracy is daily citizenship. Act daily as a citizen, rather than a spoon-fed consumer (including consumers of new age nihilist ideas like those being expressed by some here), and the world wouldn't have to put up with the likes of Bush and Cheney. In fact, just stopping voting for the US Republcan party would have reolutionary consequences.

We are perfectly capable of controlling much more in life than some cowardly sheep would have us believe. It is just too convenient to keep blaming everyone else from the media, to the politicians, to small minded corpocrats for all that is wrong with the world, as if the citizens of the western democracies have no civic responsibilities, much less complicity, in the current state of affairs in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Frankham
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 04:43 PM

"....the majority of Americans are greedy, selfish cowards."

This statement is a blatant generalization that belongs with all of the negative comments about cultural, religious or races of people.

There is so much going on in our country. I don't feel represented by the current administration and judging from the 20,000 strong in Washington expressing their disapproval of the impending and futile war, I believe that we don't really know what the majority of Americans think or feel. We don't get this information from the usual media sources.

This administration did not get a mandate from the American people to conduct this war. I don't think anyone really knows what the American people think. There used to be a bumper sticker on cars:
"The moral majority is neither".

This statement would have to be applied to every country in the world if it were true for at one time or another for each country has had it's share of dictators, special wealthy interests and meaningless bloodshed. Mankind is not immune.

Passions are running high at the moment because America, often historically thought to be a beacon of light and freedom is exhibiting "feet of clay" at the moment. There was a time when Ellis Island was full.

Within this country, there are committed and patriotic people who don't want this futile war to proceed and are suffering at the hands of power hungry individuals who have found their way to the top of the political ladder. But our history is resiliant. We've lived through McCarthyism, Watergate, Teapot Domes and Lewinskys and we will continue to do so with courage, conviction, bravery and compassion (not the trumped-up kind you hear on the radio these days).
We Americans might be down but we're not out for the count.

In the meantime, there are ears in our country to hear the voices of protest from the rest of the world and the will to take heed. As to the negative aspects of government, it's only as good as the people that run it.
We've had some great leaders in our time and will have again.

Frank

Frank

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 04:48 PM

Why don't you elect Carter for another term? He'd still be younger than Gladstone was the last time he was elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 05:15 PM

Well, danged, GUEST. Looks as if you doing your good citizenship thing here purdy danged well. You got the natives callin' fir your head and, heck, I'd join 'em except I figured you out a while back and you have it down to an art form. (You know exactly what I mean so I won't take it any further unless you want me to...)

Ahhh, some great contributions here. Daylia, well spoken from the heart. JennyO, trying to par6ticipate in democracy by avaiding the "chosen" parties. Frank. LH, et al.

Hey, there is a common ground here. It's called hope. Without if, no matter where one comes down on the *state of democracy*, democracy looses. Hey, it's okay to think the system is rigged because to a large degree it is. And it's okay for someone, who is a good citizen and good neighbor, to not feel responsible for the consequences of decisions made by a rigged system. That's no more than accepting the current realities which we individually have little control of. But it's also real okay to make what effort one can to changes future realities buy using the tools available to people who live in these rigged systems.

So many of us do just that. We do *what we can*. For some, it's emails to representatives. For others, it's paper letters which I prefer. Then there are demonstrations and events. If we all will do what we can the system is flawed enough for Boss Hog not to win everything. Sure, he's on a roll now but hey, hope and a little hard work can cahnge things so quickly. Just look at how quickly tyhings can change. Look over the last two years. But think also of the 60's when the world became more responsive and less selfish. I think mankind took a few steps forward and I think mankind will do it again. But, like I say, not without hope and everyone chippoin in where they can.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 05:16 PM

Well, GUEST, I'm glad you feel that way. Go out and vote, by all means. I do, but it's always for candidates that don't have a dog's chance in hell of winning, I'm afraid.

The way a democracy can and should be operating is this: Remove the influence of MONEY from the political campaigning system. I mean remove all lobbying and corporate funding and abolish party power structures which are supported and maintained by those means, and give each and every candidate the same amount of funding and exposure, and provide those candidates through local initiatives by private citizens, not through party bureaucracies. And then...you might have a real democracy. I am proposing the complete overthrow of the money-dominated graft system that pretends to be democracy, but is really rule by wealthy oligarchies.

It won't happen. Because if there was someone who looked likely to make it happen, he would be killed. Guaranteed.

Yes, I believe the party system is hopelessly compromised. That doesn't mean I am powerless. My power lies in my own direct personal conduct every day of my life. I don't expect politicians to live my life for me vicariously. I live it directly. And that is how I change the world in my own small way. If George Bush lived his life the way I live mine, for instance, he would not be arranging a war with ANYONE right now.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 05:29 PM

If you truly believe that there is no possibility of changing and reforming the political system then please, explain to me what exactly there is to be hopeful about? Why don't we all just pitch in the towel and go home, powerless, as you all are insisting we are in this world?

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 05:44 PM

Nelson Mandela's life is the living proof that changes do happen, even if painful and slow. So there's hope!

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 07:00 PM

Yes, there is *hope* and as long as there is, if we will each do what we can, we're gonna take mankind a little further down the road toward being civilized.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 07:33 PM

The hope lies in the possibility that someday, and it might not be that long, people will recognise that the mass media, and the people who own it and use it, are just an enormous con-trick, a bluff. We can get the information ourselves, and we can hunt out people whom we trust to hunt it out on our behalf, and cut out the intermediaries who have always cheated us.

Already, if I want to find out about what it's really like in all kinds of far flung corners of the world, I probably wouldn't go to the newspapers or the TV, I'd come here. And if I was puzzled about what to think about some issue, I wouldn't rely on the mass media - I'd get my infitrmation through the Internet, and I'd check it out and talk through the issues involved with people here, including those who see it differently from me.

I try to imagine where all this leads in another generation, and I believe there is a real possibility that it could undermine the whole
structure of corporate imperialism, even as it seems to surge towards
global hegemony. Even as the Black Gate opens, the Ring of Power is destroyed...

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 07:47 PM

GUEST: I normally don't reply to unidentified flamers, but I'll make an exception.

You are referring to revisionist history which was brought about by the promoters who came up with the phrase McGrath is so fond of ...political correctness. If you don't think thousands of Japanese civilians as well as thousands of allied service men would have died as a result of an allied invasion of Japan, you are just plain wrong.

I remember very well when those bombs were dropped, and there was cheering in the streets. There was cheering on the troop ships heading for Japan also.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 08:02 PM

Doug:

I was not there and I am glad to have not suffered thru what you and the rest of the world had to suffer thru. The fighting in the Pacific was brutal. My uncle was there and it was so brutal that he absolutely cannot bring himself to speak of it. He has been a drunk ever since. I'm sure there was great relief to just have it over with and to know that the safety that Americans felt before the war would be insured with the possession of such a big stick.

The problem I have with the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshama is that in hindsight, we would have achieved the same effect by informing the Japanese that we had such a weapon and invited them to watch a *test* of the weapon which could have been performed at sea.

The surrender would have come just as it did after Nagasaki.

Now, had the US done it that way, it would have demonstarted to the world a value that our society believes in the sanctity of life and perhaps left an imprint on on the world that would have this world a much different place today...

I know this would have been a very difficult thing to do but I expect mankind to make difficult choices when it comes to it's survival. The dropping of the bomb was not only unnecessary but a major step backwards toward man as a civilized being.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Richie
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 10:13 PM

Bobert,

Unfortunately people like Saddam do not listen to what the world is telling them. And remember the first bombing wasn't enought to get the Japanese to surrender...as horrible as it was.

Do you have any suggestions for the Iraq confict?

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 12:07 AM

DougR, old boy,

I know you mean it as a right-wing term of opprobrium, but that's your usual nonsense: ALL history, if well and professionally done is 'revisionist'- it is revised and updated on the basis of ongoing research, documents that are declassified, new facts that come to light.

Please don't while on about the right-wing shibboleth of 'political correctness' which you regularly apply indiscriminately to anything you don't agree with.

Reality check, Dougie: what about the thousands of Japanese women, children, and noncombatants WHO WERE KILLED BY THE FUCKING BOMBS, died a lingering death from radiation poisoning, were maimed, suffered agony for years? Are you really that goddamn ignorant?

I remember very well when those bombs were dropped, and there was cheering in the streets. You mean like the Palestinians danding in the streets when the Twin Towers came down? I seem to recall you did your nut over that one, boyo. Have you changed your mind about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 08:58 AM

Richie:

Oh yes! I have expressed them on one thread after another going back to the very first thread that I actually started entitled Department of Peace. Rather than rewrite the entire proposal, if you'd like to just click on "Bobert" you can pick thru the many ideas I've put forth.

But for starters, there is a framework for a peacefull solution called the Saudi Proposal (Mitchell Porposal) that is a goopd start. And what I was saying about setting examples in mt above thread certainly plys into the mix. The US is a role model. It is now on the verge of attacking another nation pre-emptively and possibly with nuclear weapons (Pacifica, Democracy Now). That's certainly sends the message loudly and clearly that the UIS does not hold value in the sanctity of life and tacitly gives permission for others to follow.

No where will you find me defend Saddam. He's not a nice man. Unfortunately if we attacked every nation that was led by a "not so nice" man, we'd have a long , long list of folks on out *to-be-whacked* list.

Like I said, if you want a more dtailed plan, check out some of my other posts over the last 14 months that I've been here.

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Richie
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 09:58 AM

Bobert,

Thanks.

As I played with my praise band in church today I thought, "What would Jesus do?"

He was certainly a Man of action and not afraid of conflict and turmoil. And He preached to people to rise up against authority.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 11:02 AM

Unfortunately people like Saddam do not listen to what the world is telling them.

He's in good company, then, since Bush & the Bushites and Tony Blair are blithely ignoring world opinion to pursue their insane program.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 12:10 PM

I remember very well when those bombs were dropped, and there was cheering in the streets.

In the context of those news clips a bunch of Palestinians cheering atbteh news of September 11th, it was suggested that this happened at the news of Hiroshima, and I remember it was contested quite strongly. I think if Doug had confirmed thta it haoppened I'm sure I'd remmeber that.

the phrase McGrath is so fond of ...political correctness

I take it that is ironic Doug, referring to the fact that on numerous occasions I've said I think it's a terrible expression. In fact I suspect it was probably invented as a sneer at the idea that thoughtless use of some words can hurt people, as well as a way of critically describing those people who go overboard enforcing that kind of thing inappropriately.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 05:41 PM

Whatever one wishes to say, they better say it now.

Once we are in a full blown war and a fes US cities are quarantined by FEMA the Patriot act will go into full force and sedition laws will imprison or execute dissenters.

Bush has given us this clear cut choice...
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/road.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 05:51 PM

Doug remembers it very well. Condider it documented, true and proven, Kevin.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 06:08 PM

Additionally, whether true or not he believes it to be true and moreover says he believes dancing and cheering in the streets was an appropriate response to the deaths of more than 103,000 civilians.

Makes the events of September 11th pale in comparison, doesn't it?

'Course, they were only "Japs", not Americans..... and they're only Iraquis, not Americans..... and they were only Cambodians, not Americans... and they were only......

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Frankham
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 06:10 PM

Doug and McGrath,

It's interesting to note that the pilot of the Enola Gay who flew the missions to drop the atom bomb wound up in a monastery. It's a terrible curse to live with. Truman may have believed that this would shorten the war but he opened a Pandora's Box. Unfortunately, because the US used that weapon, the credibility of our country has was irretrievably compromised. It's a double standard by which Iraq would be bombed, Korea scolded and Pakistan and India are supported.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 10:23 PM

The surrender of Japan would have come if no atom bombs were dropped. It would have come if no invasion was launched. It would have come not long after Russia's attack on Manchuria. The Japanese military government would have fallen or capitulated quite soon through its own incredible loss of face...and through the collapse of the economy of the country, and the loss of its overseas sources of supply. Those 2 cities were willfully incinerated for no good reason whatsoever, just as Dresden was. It was an act of criminal pride.

The people on the ships cheered, because they were as self-centered as most people are...and were thinking in terms of three things...revenge, victory, and their own safety. Their reaction was no different from that of Japanese citizens who cheered over the destruction at Pearl Harbour or the fall of Singapore. It was the natural human reactions of people with fairly limited horizons.

Lots of Ukrainians cheered the Germans too, when they marched through Kiev in 1941, having defeated Stalin's armies.

Big deal. People in general are short-sighted and self-interested.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 10:51 PM

Here's an interesting site:

Center for Cooperative Research

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 01:44 AM

Frank: I'd suggest that you, Greg, and other doubters visit a VA hospital and ask the WW2 Vets what they thing about dropping the bombs. I think a majority would agree that it was the right thing to do. I suspect that neither of you were alive at the time, and you are only basing your opinion on something you have read or have been taught. As someone else pointed out in this thread, Richie, I believe, the Japanese did not surrender after the FIRST bomb was dropped. Thousands of Japanese and American lives were saved because those bombs were dropped.

McGrath: I join you in my disdain for the term "politically correct."

And GUEST: Revisionist history is just that. Revisionist. Shape it to conform with what is more appealing to you. No thanks.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 02:58 AM

Guest1:52p. thanks for the link to Carter's statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: mooman
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 04:31 AM

I absolutely agree Little Hawk. I was the Guest who posted on 31 Jan at 08:03 to much the same effect (hadn't noticed my cookie was missing). My father was part of the navy bombardment of Japanese ports at the time and the feeling amongst the common servicemen, at least in the Royal Navy, was that Japan would have fallen within several weeks. My father did not cheer when he heard the news,,,he was utterly disgusted and remained so for the rest of his life.

With the greatest possible respect DougR, I cannot agree with what you have said about this.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 05:36 AM

I am amazed at the number posting on this topic and to associated threads, who continually refer to America's arrogance with regard to the United Nations over the current Iraq crisis. Many of the same people also refer to America's "unilateralist" actions.

Why, some may ask am I amazed? - Simple

To date, with regard to the Iraq Crisis, the current American administration has ONLY EVER acted THROUGH the auspices, offices and required procedures of the United Nations. They have sought, stridently to make the process inclusive, the results have been extremely effective and beneficial.

To date, with regard to the Iraq Crisis, the current American administration has shown remarkable constraint having undertaken NO UNILATERALIST action whatsoever.

I agree with Amos regarding the introduction of references to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Mandela's speech, which I read and found to be poorly informed and trite.

Some of the facts relating to the proposed "Operation Olympic", the proposed invasion of the mainland islands of Japan.

Allied Assault forces available if 100% assumed in terms of personnel, equipment and vessels operational - 650,000

Axis Forces available for the homeland defence of Japan - 3,000,000 Regular Army + Reserves of 28,000,000.

The successfull allied assaults on Tarawa and on Okinawa showed allied military commanders in the Pacific the potential cost of an assault on the main home islands.

Please don't apply 21st century thinking to 1945 situations. The people making decisions affecting the lives of the personnel under their command can always be improved upon using 20 x 20 hindsight - in historical terms they can only really be evaluated by the conditions that prevailed at the time.

Operating in the Pacific is markedly different from anywhere else in the world - only one country ever developed the capability and resources to do it - the United States of America - That capability and those resources, developed and maintained at a tremendous cost, exist primarily to safeguard peace - not to conquer, not to enslave.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 09:13 AM

And GUEST: Revisionist history is just that. Revisionist. Shape it to conform with what is more appealing to you.

Wrong as usual, Dougie, old boy. The aim of what you persist in referring to as "revisionist" history, as undertaken by profesionals trained in the disciplines of historical research and analysis (and not ignorant, opinionated windbags like yourself who have not opened a book in half a century and spout anecdotal 'evidence' as truth,) is to arrive at a better approximation of the facts by examining a more inclusive sampling of the available evidence. I seems it is fact rather than method that you have such animosity toward and difficulty dealing with.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: RichM
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 09:37 AM

Guest, try speaking with respect to those participating in this discussion. You only demean yourself when you call someone "old boy" and "windbag". And perhaps you could identify yourself more fully than simply "guest". It would help distinguish you from the many other anonymous guests....

Rich McCarthy

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 10:41 AM

Sure thing, Richie, I'll consider it right after you admonish Old Boy Windbag to show some respect for an hundred thousand murdered Japanese civilians. Have him throw in some respect for historians while he's at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 11:58 AM

If I had respect for those revisionist historians I might do that.

Moo: the beauty of it is you DON'T have to agree!

Teribus: well said.

Richie: GUEST prefers to luck in the shadows and shout insults. Doesn't bother me a bit. I just consider the source.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 01:50 PM

teribus - Why do you think an invasion of Japan was necessary at all? I certainly don't. Why do you think "unconditional surrender" is EVER necessary as a way of ending a war. I certainly don't.

You see, it's hardly legitimate to propose one completely unnecessary plan of action (invasion of Japan), and then justify another completely unnecessary action (atomic bombings) by saying that the first one would be too costly!

Amazingly self-serving logic. This is how mass murderers justify their actions after the fact...they just say "There was no other way. It had to be done to save many other lives." They lie.

It's hard to stop a big military machine once it's in gear. Military men are always planning the next battle. That was a problem with both the Americans and the Japanese at the high command level, but the Japanese were basically running out of viable options by the middle of 1945.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: mooman
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 01:58 PM

Dear DougR,

And even if I HAD to agree I wouldn't....!

(;>)

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 02:38 PM

I remember very well when those bombs were dropped, and there was cheering in the streets.

I have to comment on that. I remember vividly hearing the news about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. I was fourteen at the time. It was early afternoon and my dad and I were sitting in the car waiting for my mother and my two sisters. We were going swimming. While we waited, the news came over the car radio. That morning, the entire city of Hiroshima had been destroyed by a single atomic bomb. The announcer went on to describe that the bomb made use of nuclear fission, the process that powered the sun, and that for a moment, it was as if the sun had appeared a thousand feet above Hiroshima and incinerated the whole city. Among the other details the special news bulletin included was the comment that due to radioactive contamination from the fissionable material in the bomb, the surrounding area would be uninhabitable "for perhaps as long as the next seventy years." The scientific details were not all that accurate, but at the time, even the scientists didn't really know. This was something new, even to them.

Dad and I sat there in the car, quiet and feeling pretty damned sober. When my mom and sisters got into the car, the news was being repeated. We went about our business that day and ran into a lot of people both at the swimming pool and in downtown Seattle. There was no jubilation, no celebrating, and no dancing in the streets. Everybody was pretty quiet and sober. All of the implications had not yet sunk in. It was evident that the war was about over--but it was also evident to most people that the world had changed that day and nothing would ever be quite the same.

My dad was on vacation for the entire month of August, and we had planned a trip to Vancouver, B.C. We arrived in Vancouver in the late afternoon of August 14th, and the whole city had gone berserk! Cheering people everywhere. We didn't had the car radio on, so we hadn't heard the news. The Japanese had surrendered. The war was over! And indeed there was dancing in the streets!

But not on August 6th. People were hopeful that the war was all but over and they were glad about that, but most people were aware that, despite some news reports, Hiroshima was not just a military base, but a city, filled with civilians, and that a horror beyond belief had been unleashed on them. "Hell," a few people said, "they were only Japs!" But despite the fact that feelings against the Japanese ran pretty high during the war, most people felt pretty ambivalent about the bombing of Hiroshima--and especially Nagasaki. Battles between armies and navies are one thing, but the incineration of tens of thousands of civilians, even if they were "the enemy," was not something most Americans felt very good about.   

For those who like carrying "a big stick," the A-bomb was a glorious new toy, but for the the rest of the world, August 6th was not a good day.

A little over a year later, John Hershey's book Hiroshima was published. It also came out in a 35¢ paperback edition, so a lot of people read it. It should be required reading for everybody.

Talk about sobering. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 02:44 PM

'Scuse me. "Cheering." None of that, either.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 02:44 PM

Well said, Don and Little Hawk. I've been trying to make this point here and elsewhere but not as articulate as either of you have done here.

A rose is still a rose no matter what else you call it and...

Wrong is wrong.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 02:53 PM

"Scuse me again. "Hersey," not "Hershey." I reall must learn to proof-read.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 03:27 PM

So okay, Don, perhaps I did stetch the truth a bit about dancing in the streets. I was fifteen at the time and I think we all knew that the end of the war was in sight. I don't believe any of us knew or could comprehend at the time how powerful those bombs were, nor could we grasp how one bomb could kill so many people.

Certainly Japan could not have continued to survive with such devestating bombs available (I don't know if we even had more bombs). It forced the surrender.

I still contend that the dropping of those two bombs saved many more lives than were lost on that day. That does not mean that I regret the loss of human lives. I regretted the loss on both sides during the terrible battles that took place on various islands in the Pacific. It was war time though, and lives are lost during wars.

One should also take into account the fact that the Japanese were intensely hated by most Americans because of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. I don't believe there were a large number of sympathizers for Japan's position in those days. Perhaps there were in Seattle, but certainly not where I lived in Texas.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It makes experts of us all.

L.H. I simply don't understand how you think the war would ever have come to a conclusion if: 1. Those bombs were never dropped; 2. there had been no invasion of Japan. You think maybe Truman could have TALKED them into surrendering? They certainly had every opportunity to do so prior to the bombs being dropped. If memory serves correctly, days prior to the dropping of the bombs, the Japanese government and the people were warned by leaflets dropped by crews of B-29s that a terrible thing was going to happen. Had they surrendered, the bombs would not have been dropped.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 04:10 PM

Feelings ran very high in Seattle, Doug, because if the Japanese ever bombed the West Coast, Seattle was a prime target. Nearest city to Japan on the great circle route, and Boeing was here. Just across Puget Sound was the Bremerton navy yard, which would have been another prime target. I remember on a ferry trip to Bremerton, the ferry having to wait to be escorted through the mines and the submarine nets guarding the entrance to the harbor.

Forget about the Bomb for a moment and consider this: invasion of Japan was not necessary. One of the plans at the time was to blockade Japan. They were so dependent on imports that a tight blockade would have forced them to surrender in fairly short order. At the same time, it was known that much of the Japanese people, and much of the military, were fed up with the fanatical bunch at the top and wanted to end it. A little patience would have produced the desired result and save a lot of lives, both Japanese and American.

This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. All of this was known at the time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 04:21 PM

Oh by the way--not only did the US use it's atomic weapons as soon as it had them, and remains to this day the only country to have ever used them, I forgot to add, they also used all the atomic bombs they had.

It is well known that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not used to end the war, but as military experiments, as were the atomic weapons detonated exposed both US civilians and military veterans were military experiments.

The atomic veterans include members of the United States Armed Forces who were exposed to ionizing radiation from atomic and nuclear weapons testing during the period beginning with the Trinity Blast of July 16, 1945 at Alamogordo, New Mexico; continuing through the U.S. clean-up of Nagasaki / Hiroshima; during the 235 atmospheric atomic and nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific and Nevada test sites; until the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963. The National Association of Atomic Veterans recognizes that civilians as well as military personnel were exposed to harmful nuclear material radiation, and that many of these personnel have since expired as a result of radiation induced illnesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 04:22 PM

And you're right about the leaflets. But--all sides were dropping propaganda leaflets all the time, and many of them bragged about having an invincibly powerful secret weapon (the Germans were supposed to have a huge juggernaut that could bore through the earth and come up in the middle of London or Chicago to scatter death and destruction far and wide, so we'd better surrender real quick before they used it). All that leafeting accomplished was to 1) provide amusement at the imagination and ingenuity of the propaganda writers (probably science fiction writers in civilian life); and 2) alleviate the shortage of toilet paper.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 05:08 PM

Well, to speak to the words of Nelson Mandela whose quotation starts off this BS list:
While George W is no deep thinker, Nelson Mandela is the one who has no foresight and "can't think properly.

As all this argument is going back and forth, I keep remembering how often people used to brand the Europeans and Americans of the 30's for not realizing how dangerous Adolf Hitler was, and why didn't we stope him before he started the big war? I'm learning just how tough it is to get the world committed to opposing even the most obiously dangerous and heinous of all leaders.

Mandela deserved some credit for his stoicism under the terrible rule of apartheid. But his selling point was his own endurance, not his wisdom, leadership, nor party. His wife unfortunately did not behave particularly well. When he was released and assumed the presidency, I think he acted like a defrosted Marxist with little flexibility and no originality.

As for the atomic bomb, it's a big red herring. Mandela's observations are hackneyed and fatuous. The discussion in the list serve is particularly illuminating and one of the main reasons is that history is not scientific. There is no parallel world we can use as a 'control'. So many of us 'know for a fact' what would have happened. I think that responsible people can come down on both sides of the rightness or wrongness of that decision.

I think it was right. I think it was justifiable. I think that much that is good came out of it:

The end of the war.

Keeping the Soviets from seizing more Asian territory than they did as they ramped up their Pacific effort.

Establishing as a fact in evidence and not just theory how terrible indeed the new weapon was.

And after challenging the usefulness of facts I'd like to bring out a few more 'facts':

1) The Japanese military was for continuning the war. The emperor himself decided to 'endure the unendurable' and went on the radio to the Japanese nation with the statement that the progress of the war "had proceeded not necessarily to the favor of the Empire". (This puts even English understatement to shame).

2) The issue of 'unconditional' surrender is also a bit of a red herring. One of the aspects of a 'conditional' surrender would still have been giving up the deification of the emperor, and this was a main sticking point to the Japanese. The allies, (or the U.S. alone) could have simply bombed the emperor (non-nuclear) if they had wanted.

3) There was a third bomb that had been released to the authority of Curtis LeMay, the air force general who directed the bombing campaign. After the second bomb, Truman directly ordered that no further atomic bombs be dropped, and took back the final authority to dispose of nuclear weapons.

4) The amount of thought and soul-searching that went on in the scientific community and the political establishment in the United States was immense and is well documented. Good people from the Manhattan Project found themselves on different sides of the bombing issue. There are good books and web sites devoted to every part of the story, which is a fascinating one.


My opinion: If Pres. Mandela has any knowledge of this, it didn't show up in his statements.

As for the U.S. going it alone in Iraq, this is not the case. Britain is with the U.S. Most of the other European countries are with the U.S. Germany is exploiting the situation as a means to assert dominance in Europe and isolate Great Britain, and they are luring France into bed with them.

And of course oil is a factor. We'd be idiots if we didn't acknowledge that. So what? Nuclear weapons, biological toxins, and oil make a powerful inducement to trouble.

COmments INvited!

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 05:18 PM

I understand your puzzlement, Doug. You probably have not read the same references on the situation that I have, that's all.

The USA had only 2 bombs made and ready at the time, and they used both of them.

The Japanese were at first not even sure exactly what had happened at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. To expect an "immediate" surrender was completely unrealistic, as they were still trying to sort out just what the heck was going on. For this reason alone, the bombing of Nagasaki was extraordinarily callous.

Japan absolutely would have surrendered, had the USA & its allies simply blockaded the mainland for a few more months (or even weeks). Their economy was in a shambles, their government was tottering, the Russians were overwhelming them in central East Asia, their Navy was gone, their air force was impotent, they were finished. The Emperor would have moved to end the war quite soon, regardless of the atomic bombs. This is so clear to me from what I have read that I am truly chagrined that many Americans don't know about it, and can't see it.

You see, if they did know about it, then they would have to re-examine their own assumptions about themselves and their government in the World War II era. And they don't want to do that. It's called "denial". If Hitler had won World War II, do you think that any Germans would presently be admitting to the willful extermination of 6 million Jews and a great many other innocent people in the concentration camps?

They would not even know it had happened that way, if they knew anything about it at all. They would be under the firm and unshakeable impression the Nazi Germany had * saved the world * from barbarism, communism, and other horrific threats to civilization.

That's denial. It is practiced by all victorious Empires, following their ruthless destruction of whoever stands in their way. They teach it to their kids, and their kids believe it because children just naturally trust their parents when they're young.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Frankham
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 08:17 PM

Robotmatic,

You said, "Mandela deserved some credit for his stoicism under the terrible rule of apartheid. But his selling point was his own endurance, not his wisdom, leadership, nor party."

People all over the world supported his leadership. They respected his courage but I don't see that he lacked wisdom. How? His party certainly supported him in spite on Winnie's misbehavior.

You said," people used to brand the Europeans and Americans of the 30's for not realizing how dangerous Adolf Hitler was, and why didn't we stope him before he started the big war?"

The reason is that there were special interests in the US at the time that supported Hitler as a deterrent to the Bolshevik "Menace". Bank of America was one. The American Bund was another. And possibly Lindbergh.

Re: the infamous flight of the Enola Gay,
you said,
"I think it was right. I think it was justifiable. I think that much that is good came out of it.
The end of the war."

And the beginning of the Cold War culminating in Korea and Vietnam.

You said,
"Keeping the Soviets from seizing more Asian territory than they did as they ramped up their Pacific effort."

This is giving the Soviets more credit for military power than they actually had.
As it turns out, they wouldn't have grabbed China. They couldn't even grab Afghanistan.

Also stated,
"My opinion: If Pres. Mandela has any knowledge of this, it didn't show up in his statements."

His earlier statements are probably not known since he was not at that time in the headlines. We don't really know what he said.

You said,
" The Japanese military was for continuning the war."

This is possible. They were not going to give up. But the question will remain, did the use of nuclear weapons really keep the war from being prolonged? Or is this just propaganda by people who would like to believe that? As you have pointed out, there is no "parallel universe" to substantiate that historical theory. There is evidence however that Japan was badly defeated at that time.

You said,
"The amount of thought and soul-searching that went on in the scientific community and the political establishment in the United States was immense and is well documented. Good people from the Manhattan Project found themselves on different sides of the bombing issue. There are good books and web sites devoted to every part of the story, which is a fascinating one.

This is undoubtably true. Einstein was shocked that the US had used the weapon on Japan. He had hoped it would be for Hitler. There were many consciences at work. Oppenheimer, Harold Eurie (sp?).

You said,
"As for the U.S. going it alone in Iraq, this is not the case. Britain is with the U.S. Most of the other European countries are with the U.S. Germany is exploiting the situation as a means to assert dominance in Europe and isolate Great Britain, and they are luring France into bed with them."

Don't be too sure that the British people are behind Blair. Most of the other European countries are not with the US. As you recall, the Nobel Peace Prize went to Jimmy Carter and there was an aura of politics about that. Perhaps it would be helpful to enumerate those countries that are supporting the Bush adminstration in the impending war.

Germany maintains quite a bit of dominance already in the European community. They are doing quite well financially compared to others.

You say,
"And of course oil is a factor. We'd be idiots if we didn't acknowledge that. So what? Nuclear weapons, biological toxins, and oil make a powerful inducement to trouble."

The question is who is reaping the benefits of depleting oil? Who has the most to gain? Not the American people since they would do better with alternative energy sources that Detroit could supply in a New York minute if they wanted to. The oil cartels and special interest groups won't allow that.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 06:59 AM

Little Hawk,

The "Unconditional" stipulation relating to the defeat and surrender of the Axis Powers in the Second World War was demanded by Stalin and was not negotiable at any time. The fact that, at the time it was made, Stalin was totally focused on Germany is immaterial. It also must be remembered that Soviet Russian did not declare war on Japan until the very end of the war.

Robomatic, thanks for your post above - very well put, accurate and informative. Your post and Little Hawk's are so close together I doubt if he saw your comments relating to the third bomb and the withdrawal of authority to use it.

Frankham, in your post above you say:

"You said," people used to brand the Europeans and Americans of the 30's for not realizing how dangerous Adolf Hitler was, and why didn't we stop him before he started the big war?"

The reason is that there were special interests in the US at the time that supported Hitler as a deterrent to the Bolshevik "Menace". Bank of America was one. The American Bund was another. And possibly Lindbergh."

America at the time was rigorously pursuing an "isolationist" policy and had deliberately chosen not to be part of the "The League of Nations", proposed by Woodrow Wilson at the end of the First World War. There is therefore nothing odd or sinister about the attitude of American business to what was happening in Europe at that time.


"Re: the infamous flight of the Enola Gay,
you said,
"I think it was right. I think it was justifiable. I think that much that is good came out of it.
The end of the war."

And the beginning of the Cold War culminating in Korea and Vietnam."

Certainly by Yalta, the Americans realised that the Soviet Russia, would pose a threat to peace once Germany was defeated - that was long before either bomb was dropped on Japan. Unfortunately the Americans had other things on their minds at the time of that conference and as a result may have deferred too much to Stalin. Certainly a very sick FDR, and his advisors, completely ignored Churchill's warnings on the dangers potentially posed by Stalin's Russia.

Earlier in this thread, and in other threads relating to "war crimes", the Dresden Raid and the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are proferred as examples where vicors have allowed such crimes to go unpunished.

The bombs on Japan were, I believe definitely necessary. Talk about blockading Japan to end the war are pure fantasy - it just could not have been done. Logistically it was impossible. Where would such a blockade have been based from? The condition of most allied ships having fought across the Pacific would have rendered it impossible (In an engineering lecture while in the Navy regarding the necessity of boiler cleaning, the lecturer gave the figures for the number of ships that would not have been available had Olympic gone ahead - It was quite amazing the numbers that would have been considered unoperational, therefore not available).

The Dresden Raid was another matter - at the time there were four targets under consideration. I believe they were Berlin, then to the south there were Chemnitz, Leipzig and Dresden. The Americans main push from the west was to the south to link up with the Russians. Bomber Harris strongly favoured continuing his assault on Berlin and could see no point in attacking any of the other targets nominated. At the insistence of Stalin, Churchill and Portal ordered Harris to direct his command to attack Dresden. I believe this was done for two reasons:

1. Of all targets Dresden was closest to the Russian Front, an attack there might affect what was happening immediately in front of his troops. If the raid was successful it might speed up their advance - where his armies met the Americans would be the line - should he chose to honour it.

2. He wanted to see what British and American airpower was capable of achieving. Immediately after the German Armistice, Soviet Air Force commanders were astounded at the devastation wrought by the use of strategic air power - a power that they did not possess - their own air forces were primarily tactical.

If the Soviets were amazed at what conventional strategic bombing could do - they were totally horrified at the effects the A-Bombs had. So in a way they did result in the "Cold War" as it became known - but far better that than what the Soviets might have been tempted to do had they not been so impressed.

As to who is with who, the jury is out on that and I believe people may yet be convinced - the UK government has solidly supported the USA from the start - that line has been followed for a reason, I believe they are good reasons, others may differ, that is their perogative.

Your comment regarding Germany within Europe:

"Germany maintains quite a bit of dominance already in the European community. They are doing quite well financially compared to others."

I would agree with your first sentence if it were applied to the Germany of a few years ago. France and Germany used to run the former EEC, then latterly the EU like the inner circle of a members club - everything exclusively for their benefit. As the community expands that influence is waning - they know that. Biggest stumbling block is France's down right refusal to equalise the CAP, Germany supports them in their old back scratching way. Your second sentence as applied to the current situation is totally wrong - Both Germany and France are in a horrendously, perilous financial state.

You mention oil cartels - OPEC and the Oil Companies themselves. Russia could beggar both tomorrow if it so wished.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 07:06 AM

Clarification to my post above:

Where I have said:
"The Americans main push from the west was to the south to link up with the Russians."

That should of course read:
"The Americans main push from the west was eastwards through Germany to the south of Berlin to link up with the Russians."

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: mooman
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 07:59 AM

The bombs on Japan were, I believe definitely necessary. Talk about blockading Japan to end the war are pure fantasy - it just could not have been done. Logistically it was impossible.

Then why was it being done and why were Allied warships bomarding Japanese ports with their large guns from the sea?

For reasons I and others have posed above I believe the atomic bombs were definitely unnecessary from a military point of view as Japan would almost certainly have surrendered within weeks in any case.

mooman

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 11:23 AM

Mooman,

From your post above, are you trying to tell me that Japan was under a full and effective naval blockade in 1945? Facts show otherwise.

That Allied warships were bombarding coastal ports (All of them? Some of them? With what frequency?) implies little - During the First World War it was a fact that German warships bombarded British east coast ports to little effect - it signified nothing. Tip-and run raids, close the coast during the early evening, blast away, then get out to sea before first light.

With regard to necessity, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. With regard to fact, after the second bomb was dropped Japan did surrender, what your opinion is based upon is pure conjecture.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 11:30 AM

Teribus; Robomatic, good posts. Thanks.

It seems we have reached an impass on whether or not the A bombs were necessary. I am still in the camp that believes they were.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: mooman
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 11:34 AM

Dear Teribus,

Just because my premise is based on a hypothetical conjecture (albeit based on the opinions of more than one person who was involved in the naval bombardment and blockade of Japanese ports) rather than "fact" does not make it wrong. Just as your assertion that dropping the bombs that resulted in the Japanese surrender does not necessarily add up to that action being right,

As you correctly say, we are both entitled to our own opinions which, at least, is a good and healthy thing.

Regards,

mooman

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 11:41 AM

On 16 Jul. 1945, Wisconsin again unlimbered her main battery, hurling 16-inch shells shoreward at the steel mills and oil refineries at Muroran, Hokkaido. Two days later, she wrecked industrial facilities in the Hitachi Miro area, on the coast of Honshu, northeast of Tokyo itself. During that bombardment, British battleships of the Eastern Fleet contributed their heavy shellfire. By that point in the war, Allied warships were able to shell the Japanese homeland almost at will.

from a website about USS Wisconsin (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/battleships/wisconsin/bb64-wi.html)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 03:07 PM

The blockade of Japan following the fall of Okinawa was so complete that what was left of the Japanese Navy was holed up in harbours without fuel, being bombed and sunk helplessly at their moorings by American carrier aircraft. The Japanese merchant marine had practically ceased to exist, such devastation had been wrought, resulting in American submarines attacking even tiny fishing boats from coastal villages, for lack of larger targets. The American and British battle fleets were able to bombard Japanese ports wherever and whenever they desired, with little or no way for the Japanese to fight back beyond a small number of kamikaze aircraft (most were being held back in reserve for the presumed invasion attack).

Tojo had resigned, in disgrace. The high command was still planning a defence of the mainland, naturally...that's what soldiers do, they plan for the next battle.

But...if the expected invasion had simply never come, the military government would have fallen or captitulated sometime in 1945. It was in such disgrace that it could not have endured. The Japanese army actually NEEDED another land battle on home territory to justify its continued authority over a collapsing nation. Not given such a battle they would have fallen from within.

Not only was the blockade by air and sea very effective, there was absolutely nothing the Japanese could do to change that. They were finished.

Mass murderers will try by any logic possible to justify their actions after the fact. They will wriggle, and squirm, and justify. And that is what the USA has done ever since it dropped those bombs. Tell a lie often enough, and most people will believe it, specially if it's the only version of the event they have ever heard.

People's basic viewpoints tend to be formed when they are fairly young...the childhood to teenage years...and then those viewpoints become the bedrock of how they see reality for the rest of their lives.

That is why we find ourselves endlessly arguing from opposing positions on issues like this one, and refusing to budge.

Okay, you believe as you wish, and I shall believe as I wish, and no amount of evidence or reference material will probably ever change how we each feel about it, because we just interpret the evidence to support our chosen loyalties.

See y'all in the next life, where we will probably have a whole lot of new myths and prejudices foisted upon us by our new parents and system, any maybe find ourselves on the same side for a change, and maybe still be dead wrong while we're at it.

Would you issue the order to drop an atom bomb on a city? Think about it carefully.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 03:27 PM

All history is revisionist, or it wouldn't be history. Checking out the facts as to what actually happened, and taking account of the facts that had been left out; and then trying to understand why it happened that way, and draw lessons from it.

Whate we are told at the time is more often than not distorted propaganda. It needs to be revised to get at the truth - and that is what history is about.

Of course it's equally possible to set out to distort the facts, and conceal them and tell lies. That's not history, even if it can be called "revisionism". Holocaust deniers, for example, aren't doing history, they are doing propaganda, completing the circle.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 05:41 PM

True, McGrath, history can be distorted either by the originators, or the revisionists. I guess it just depends upon which evidence each offers.

L.H. I'm confident Harry Truman gave it a LOT of thought, both before and after. As far as I know, he never stated that he regretted dropping the bombs, only that he had to.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 08:49 PM

Yes, and he may have believed that too. Who knows? Only Harry Truman can say for sure. I'm glad I didn't do it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 09:01 AM

And Harry is saying much these days, right L.H.?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 09:11 AM

Not on this level of reality he isn't, no. (I assume you left out the word "not"?)

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 10:54 AM

Be interesting to hear what Harry would have to say about Bush and the Bushites; he had Tricky Dick sussed early on:

Richard Nixon is a lying son of a bitch. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at once and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in.

          Harry S. Truman

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 11:53 AM

L.H., yep, I did.

Greg: and yes, Truman was right.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST,boromir
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 12:16 PM

All that bitching and moaning from a guy who includes necklacing in his methods of operation.

Who cares what he says.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 12:21 PM

'Necklacing' GUEST boromir? Please explain.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 01:43 PM

daylia- necklacing is slitting the throat and pulling the tongue out through the wound like a necklace. ick

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 01:53 PM

Oooo, sorry I asked. Thanks Beccy

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 02:38 PM

I think "necklasing" was the practice of placing a burning tire around someone's neck. I have heard that this was practiced, but I would be interested in seeing evidence that it was practiced or promoted by Mandela.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 02:39 PM

(please pardon my spelling)

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 03:19 PM

Carol is right. It's a gasoline-soaked tire place around the victim's neck and set on fire. Before believing that Nelson Mandela was involved in anything like this, I would need evidence. All I have been able to find on the internet regarding this are several forums in which people make the same accusation that Boromir just made.

Boromir, can you provide such evidence, or, at least, a link to something more convincing than the same allegation on other forums?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 03:23 PM

Here's a report describing the practice of necklacing, linking it to the ANC. And here's some pictures of the practice. Brace yourselves, they're not pretty.

And here's a link describing the involvement of Winnie Mandela in this practice and her husband's response.

Well, if these reports are true, I don't know what to think of Mandela now. Except that he is of course a product of the horrific social environment of apartheid he fought to end. Guess I'll leave the judging to the more qualified judges.

Yuk. daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 03:28 PM

The promoting necklacing (in a speech) accusations have been made against Mandela, that's true, however the first name of the one accused is Winnie, not Nelson.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 03:49 PM

Re the ANC's involvement in necklacing, here's a link that refutes that claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 03:51 PM

Re: Nelson's pardoning his wife in response to her alleged inolvement in the practice of necklacing... my understanding is that that was the agreement under the "Truth and Reconcilliation" agreement. And that anyone else who committed atrocities and confessed to them was pardoned also, on both sides of the conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 04:03 PM

Thanks Carol. I didn't find any information linking Nelson Mandela himself to these atrocities, but of course I didn't examine all of the sites the search produced.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 04:06 PM

"Truth and reconciliation" doesn't apply for Ms. Mandela for one vital component was missing: a confession.

BBC News on Ms. Mandela

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 04:31 PM

Interesting article. Thanks Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 05:39 PM

What I gather from this (tentatively, at least) is that Nelson Mandela was probably not involved; but it looks like Winnie is a real piece of work.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 06:14 PM

Winnie Mandela and Nelson Mandela are not the same person. Winnie was locked up in a prison cell from 1962 to 1990.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 06:25 PM

And here is a potted biography of President Mandela.

And, to give this thread a music related touch,here is a taster quote:

Locked up in his cell during daylight hours, deprived of music, both these simple pleasures were denied him for decades. With his fellow prisoners, concerts were organised when possible, particularly at Christmas time, where they would sing. Nelson Mandela finds music very uplifting, and takes a keen interest not only in European classical music but also in African choral music and the many talents in South African music. But one voice stands out above all - that of Paul Robeson, whom he describes as our hero.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 06:55 PM

I may be going out on a limb here juggling dates, but according to the report above necklacing was first used as a 'war tactic' in 1985, while Nelson Mandela was in jail. So he couldn't have had any personal involvement in it then.

After his release in 1990 the incidents continued until 1994-5, but it's notable that according to the biography McGrath posted "... shortly after his release on Sunday 11 February 1990, Mandela and his delegation agreed to the suspension of armed struggle." It seems highly unlikely that he would have engaged in the practice of necklacing while agreeing to end the violence. According to the same biography however, he had refused to denounce violence while he was still in prison in the 80's, even when he was offered his freedom in exchange.

One thing's certain - Nelson Mandela was no stranger to the methods of violent armed conflict. But IMO that does not make him guilty of condoning or engaging in these horrific methods of torture and execution.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 08:39 PM

I don't think anyone who knows anything at all about South Africa has ever truly believed that Nelson Mandela carries any blame for that stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 12:22 AM

Geeze, McGrath, what an arrogant statement! Sometimes I think the Internet is a curse rather than a help. Anything posted on a site on the Internet is considered gospel by some folks. The Sites given do not exonerate Nelson Mandela, but McGrath gives him dispensation simply because he cannot accept the fact that such a man could have been involved in such an atrocity.

Give us a break, Kevin.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 05:01 AM

Winnie was locked up in a prison cell from 1962 to 1990. (McGrath)

LOL. Winnie Mandela and Nelson Mandela are not the same person. (McGrath)

Aside from that slip, McGrath is completely right here, Doug. No serious source (from all sides of the political spectrum) I know of has ever accused Nelson Mandela to approve of that practise. Necklacing has been done; supporters (or even members) from the ANC fringe have been involved; the ANC leadership has officially denounced the practise; Winnie Mandela has at least once made a very careless speech which can be interpreted as her approving necklacing. It was one of these politicians' speeches in which a politician appeals to the lowest feelings in her most extreme supporters with carefully chosen words that later can be said to have a harmless interpretation. The supporters get the message, but to inquiring journalists the harmless interpretation is sold. In Europe, J.Haider is a master of this tactic.

Nelson Mandela, like everyone else, is not without fault, like for instance divorcing his wife too late, but this man singlehandely has done more than anybody else to ensure that the handing over of the power from the minority to the majority in SA has been extremely peacefull in comparison.

I once was a great admirer of Nelson Mandela and I still am.
I once was a great admirer of Winnie Mandela and I am now considerably less so.

Winnie Mandela and Nelson Mandela are not the same person.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 12:19 AM

I'll take your word for it Wolfgang. The practice of Necklicing is a new one to me. I just do not share your admiration for Mandela. Especially so after his recent vitriolic speech against the U. S. administration. I respect your feelings for the man though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST,Bearheart
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:50 PM

I'm on the road teaching again and I guess I pushed the wrong button-- Anyway I'll try again.
I must say this thread is bringing up a lot of strong feelings in people. I'm no exception.
Speaking from my own experience and the discussions I've been having with family, friends and acquaintances , there are a lot of people in the US who think Bush's agenda is not a sane or moral one. He of course is not acting alone, but to say that he has the backing of most Americans is probably not the case. I personally have met almost no one (and in my work I meet a lot of people and talk to them about all kinds of things, and this topic almost always comes up)who has any faith that Bush can be trusted on this. Most people make no bones about describing him in unsavory terms. And many of these folks are not intensely political, nor would I describe them as radical. Most are probably moderate, some are left-leaning. Many are alarmed at his administration's willingness to pursue this course.

What's more, people who are not the kind to demonstate or speak up are doing so. Just because our media here has been slow to follow up and publicize the demonstrations happening all over this country does not mean they haven't been happening. And it's not just college students--who have been at the forefront of the movement. A friend in Columbia SC went to the October rally in Washington DC. She is an office worker in a computer firm. She went with a group of people from her church. She was gratified to see housewives, college students, grandmothers, blue collar workers of every description, bank presidents, and people of many races and ethnicities present. She couldn't believe the wide appeal-- people from all walks of life and all economic backrounds. If you don't think the January rallies were even bigger...! And this despite the weather. I personally feel that those at the rallies are also the tip of the iceberg. Many people have voiced their desire to attend these events who can't because of health, work or family obligations. There are online organizations where you can register your concern, as well. Make no mistake, if there weren't a strong feeling against this war effort, we would have been in it weeks, maybe months ago.

The bottom line is, most people do not see that there is justification for a war, particularly of the kind this administration wants to wage.

PS for a well written and informative take on the current situation regarding oil and its influence on all this, read The Hydrogen Economy. Not only will it open your eyes as to the influence of energy companies and big business in all of this (and he is not rabid-- just reporting facts) it will make you realize how desperate Bush /cronies are. Even the best estimates, which are probably way too optimistic, say we will be out of oil world wide by the year 2050. The world as we know it will change a lot by then. It does make you wonder why we aren't looking into alternative energy. Do you know in there are places in Eurasia where every little village does its own hydroelectricity, on small creeks and streams? And what about wind power? Seems to me we are asking the wrong questions and getting some very screwy answers when we do ask the right ones...

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 05:19 PM

Oh wait... I'm thinking of the Godfather and "necktying" not "necklacing". Whoever said it was the burning tire thing was right. Both gruesome options, to be sure.