BS: Mandela on Bush

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: CarolC
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 10:51 PM

Here's an interesting site:

Center for Cooperative Research

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: *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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 02:27 PM

Gold star for you, Daylia!


                              *




ttr

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: 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: gnu
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 01:08 PM

You go girl. Well said.

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: 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: 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 - 11:40 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 10:11 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.