 sj |
||
|
||
BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Teribus Date: 15 Aug 03 - 06:35 AM sledge - 15 Aug 03 - 03:06 AM Bush hypocisy?? What on earth are you talking about?? The "US declining to sign an agreement is accetptable" - Of course its acceptable, that is the exercise of free choice, or do you subscribe to the belief that everyone should sign up to everything and accept terms and conditions irrespective of the fact that you believe, or know, them to be impractical and against your own interests? "Iraq doing so is bad and good enough reason to invade" - Come along!! It had nothing to do with Iraq declining to sign an agreement. It was about Iraq having signed and agreed to comply with the conditions stated in a number of UN Security Council Resolutions, then completely failing to honour its obligations to the international community - that's what brought about the invasion. The number of dead reported, at least in UK news bulletins, does include those who later die of their wounds. To paraphrase a typical example of how this is done: "Iraq, US Forces came under attack today in the town of Al-Hilla, there were no casualties reported. One of the American soldiers injured during an attack in Falluja two days ago has since died of his wounds, bringing the total number of dead since 1st May, to XX." I did actually say that I was not making a comparison between France and Iraq. The title of the thread was the point being compared, in a relatively small part of Iraq 58 people have died as a result of attacks over a period of 106 days, in a relatively small part of France 50 people have died as a result of the recent heat wave over a period of four days, reported this morning on BBC news the total number of deaths in France attributed to the effects of the weather over the last two months is around 3000. Now in terms of lives lost and empty seats at tables, etc - which situation is worse? The counter-point, that one situation was avoidable and the other wasn't, doesn't work - both were avoidable, in Iraq Saddam Hussein could have complied fully with the UNSC Resolutions he agreed to from the outset in 1991 (he chose not to), in France, according to the medical profession there, successive governments should have invested more in their health-care schemes and infrastructure. With regard to civilian casualties, some put these down entirely to the actions of the US/UK forces, not one word about Saddam's deliberate tactic of nesting his forces in the middle of his civilian population. That is in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention, but predictable, Saddam had used "Human Shields" before, as I've said, not one word of condemnation raised regarding that in this forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Teribus Date: 15 Aug 03 - 03:40 AM GUEST 14 Aug 03 - 08:02 PM "I suppose a nation that declines to sign the non-proliferation treaty is "perfectly entitled" to develop all the nuclear weapons it wants." - That's right Guest, basically they are, but that "nation" mentioned in your statement must do it entirely on its own, as those nations who have signed up to the NPT are not permitted to provide assistance. Bobert, one of the web sites I previously referred you to gives total casualty figures - killed and wounded for US forces, UK forces, Australian forces, Iraqi forces, Iraqi civilians and those classified as "others", i.e. those killed and wounded from countries not included in the other classifications. With regard to those originally reported as being wounded who later die from wounds received, for that information I would rely on press reports, as I do not know the update procedures and frequency for the individual web sites. Amos, I certainly do not "think" there are any "nice" ways to die in a war. The fact still remains blatantly obvious that if you have not signed up to an agreement/contract/convention/treaty, there can be no way that you are bound by its terms or conditions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: DMcG Date: 15 Aug 03 - 03:28 AM On the UK news last night, it said "1 killed, 2 injured" and then was immediately followed by the military spokesman saying the injuries were not life-threatening but were severe. I doubt if I would have noticed if the topic of injured/wounded and life-threatening versus minor injury had not cropped up in this thread. Thanks for keeping me a little more alert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: sledge Date: 15 Aug 03 - 03:06 AM Just a few thoughts on some of the posts mentioned above, Bush hypocisy again, US declining to sign an agreement is accetptable, Iraq doing so is bad and good enough reason to invade. Only 58 dead in three months, such a nice low number, thats only 58 families with an emptty space that can never be filled again, ever. Not counting the severley injured and those who later died of their wounds. Size Iraq = size France, so what. Large parts of Iraq are desert, incapable of supporting large populations, France, green and lush easily capable of supporting a large population, as a comparison, its a waste of time. Sledge |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST Date: 14 Aug 03 - 08:02 PM For that matter, I suppose a nation that declines to sign the non-proliferation treaty is "perfectly entitled" to develop all the nuclear weapons it wants. Teribus, someone with your military competence shouldn't be shooting himself in the foot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 14 Aug 03 - 09:08 AM The US did not sign up to the 1980 UN convention so they are perfectly entitled to use these types of munitions I am not sure anyone should even think the thought of being "perfectly entitled" to drop burning napalm on another human. Perfectly entitled? My Gawd, what a villainous proposition. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,CrazyEddie Date: 14 Aug 03 - 08:52 AM As Don Frith Said ..."There are no longer any American troops being wounded in Iraq. Now they are "injured." Listen closely to the news and you will be hard pressed to hear the word "wounded." "Wounded" conjures up a different image than "injured,"... So they gathered the crippled, the wounded, and maimed, And they shipped us back home to Australia. The legless, the armless, the blind and insane, Those proud wounded heroes of Suvla. And when our ship pulled into Circular Quay I looked at the place where me legs used to be And thanked Christ there was nobody waiting for me To grieve, and to mourn and to pity. And the Band played Waltzing Matilda As they carried us down the gangway, But nobody cheered, they just stood there and stared, Then they turned all their faces away. Same shit, different day! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 14 Aug 03 - 08:12 AM And, BTW, T-Bird, do you have any links on the number of deaths of Americans, as Don pointed out, die of their wounds days after they are wounded? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 14 Aug 03 - 08:09 AM Now, the the old Teribus that I know! Good to have you back, kickin' and scremin' and pickin' on my bad spellin'... But when I say Iraqis, I mean, ahhhh, Iraqis, which to me includes troops. Do any of your links address those numbers, too, or are they focusing strictly on what they may define as civilian losses? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Teribus Date: 14 Aug 03 - 04:39 AM Boberts shock and horror - "Now we learn that a modern day napalm was also dropped on Iraqis." Report on use of Napalm, Mk 77 Firebomb, call it what you will: "American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions. The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy. A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm,..... The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad. "We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers." From the above, and from other articles on this subject, we get the following: The targets were clearly identified military targets, therefore "legitimate" under the terms of the UN convention mentioned above. The use was minimal, "dozens" not thousands, not millions. The use was selective and restricted in application. From other articles the press present reported that the weapon was used last, i.e. after positions had been hit with artillery, bombs or missiles. Use was mainly for, "its psychological effect on an enemy" - by and large that seems to have worked, the Iraqi forces made no attempt to manouevre, or stand and fight. The US did not sign up to the 1980 UN convention so they are perfectly entitled to use these types of munitions, and it should be noted that the UN convention only bans its use against civilian targets - It dosen't ban its use period. As you have brought the subject up Bobert: How about the number of Iraqi casualties? - Have you bothered to go the sites I mentioned when I originally challenged your totally arbitrary and fictitious figure? - No didn't think you had. 30,000 bombs of which 80% smart. - Targeted at what? When were the bulk of them fired, day or night? "..., milions of rounds of tank, artillery and small arm weponery fired in the direction of Iraqia.." - Where the hell is Iraqia? "...and according to Teribus, between 1400 and possibly 5000 Iraqis." No Bobert, not according to me, according to world press reports and an extremely anti-war web site. The upper range figure that particular site gave was in actual fact closer to 6000, but then you never have been all that great at posting factually or accurately Bobert. Quagmire Iraq? Last report I can remember hearing was something in the order of 58 US personnel killed in Iraq since 1st May this year, a period of three and a half months, 106 days. Area of incidence is very localised to areas known to be loyal to Saddam Hussein - his own tribal area. That is in a country the size of France, beginning of this week the French reported 50 people dead from heat-stroke, over a period of four days, in and around their capital. No intention of drawing parallels but it does put some sort of perspective on the numbers and time-frame. So quagmire Iraq? - Hardly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 13 Aug 03 - 09:22 PM And how about the number of Iraqi casualties, Don?\ 30,000 bombs of which 80% were supposed to be "smart" (oximoron going on there), milions of rounds of tank, artillery and small arm weponery fired in the direction of Iraqia and according to Teribus, between 1400 and possibly 5000 Iraqis. What a crock of manure. Now we learn that a modern day napalm was also dropped on Iraqis. Someone don't want anyone knowing about casualties, American or Iraqi!!! Hmmmmm? Could it be the same someone who lied thru his teeth to lather up Amercians to attack a country with a 3rd rate army? Nah? I mean like how could that be? The current silence of those who were doing the biggest huffin' and puffin' here in this joint prior to war, speaks volumes about the validity for attacking and now occupying Iraq. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 13 Aug 03 - 02:30 PM On CSPAN last night, I heard Rep. Jim McDermott, the Congressional Representative from my district, speaking to the Veterans for Peace meeting in San Francisco. After his remarks, there were several questions from the audience. One had to do with the actual number of casualties in the Iraq war, and the daily drumbeat of reports of "one soldier killed and three injured" and "two soldiers killed and eight injured in rocket propelled grenade attack" and on and on, almost every day. What, the questioner wanted to know, had become of the "injured?" How bad were their injuries? How many recovered? How many died a few hours or days later? "You never hear about that," he said. "What is the real number of casualties?" McDermott answered that the Department of Defense does not make those figures available to the news media. This, he said, is a lesson they learned from the Vietnam war. When people back home knew the actual number and nature of the casualties, it added substantial impetus to the anti-war movement. The Bush Administration is not about to let that happen this time. The following is an excerpt from an article by Sam Goff, author of Hideous Dream: A Soldier's Memoir of the US Invasion of Haiti and of a forthcoming book, Full Spectrum Disorder. There are no longer any American troops being wounded in Iraq.It seems that those who are the most adamant about making sure there are wars in our country's future have never actually fought in a war themselves. Or even bothered to show up for their National Guard meetings. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 30 Jul 03 - 04:37 PM Very good point, T. When you throw in the all the money thats flows thru the Defense Department, it is quite staggering. Especially for a country that has enough "paid for" weapons to easilly defend itself... But that wouldn't keep the military industrial complex merrily rolling along while the average worker works mighty hard to pay the taxes that go to the DOD... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,cittern Date: 30 Jul 03 - 06:17 AM Well, The Project For The New American Century has been pushing for increased defence spending for some time. I last visited their website a few days ago to see if they had anything to say about "Quagmire Iraq". I noticed that their focus now seems to be on China (including references to China's links to Saddam's regime and current links to other "rogue states"). Perhaps the Middle East is only the start ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Teribus Date: 30 Jul 03 - 05:35 AM I just looked up what the US spends on defence. Don's link says that shows the cost of the war in Iraq and currently is just under US$ 72,000,000,000. US defence spending 2000 was around US$400,000,000,000. so if you open Don's link and watch as the number increases, note the rate of increase. Then try to imagine what that would look like at five and a half times the speed - that is what was being spent in 2000, when there was no war in Iraq and no war on terror. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar Date: 29 Jul 03 - 07:48 AM The Carlo d'Este biography of Patton portrays Eisenhower as a bit of a duffer. But the more I learn of his post-WW II warnings against the military-industrial complex (see Don's "'Nuff said" blickie), the more respect I have for him. The fact that he was a Republican and a soldier makes his warnings all the more credible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Teribus Date: 29 Jul 03 - 03:19 AM Don Firth - 28 Jul 03 - 06:29 PM Thanks for the link Don - pity in the comparison links offered they don't do one for US Defence spending - because without that you do not know what the "War in Iraq", or the "War on Terror" is actually costing you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 28 Jul 03 - 06:29 PM Thanks Don. Both links are very useful. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 03 - 06:29 PM Quagmire? 'Nuff said!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 03 - 06:05 PM Yes, Janey, and therein lies one of our problems. The Bush administration may talk in future months about getting out the vote, as all political parties do, but in actuality, they count strongly on continued voter apathy. A good, fairly brief article HERE is well worth reading. Among other things, it explains a good chunk of the Bush administration's overall policies, both foreign and domestic. Someone once said, "Sometimes the best way to understand what appears to be a folly is to ask what it accomplishes." For example, why tax cuts when we're heading into a recession and the government is about to go to war? "Trickle-down economics" has nothing to do with it. In institutionalizing the "war on terrorism" the Bush administration acquired a rationale for expanding its powers and furthering its domestic agenda. While the nation's resources are directed toward endless war, the White House promoted tax cuts in the midst of recession, leaving scant resources available for domestic programs. The effect is to render the citizenry more dependent on government, and to empty the cash-box in case a reformist administration comes to power.But why would they want to do that? Well explained in another fairly short article HERE. I think these articles are not only enlightening, but they contain a lot of good talking points. Anthropologist Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." That's what keeps me going. Keep pluggin' away. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Jul 03 - 05:57 PM Scientists say 'nay' to computerized voting Group assails machines as 'inherently subject to programming error' But that's the very reason, both in the UK and the USA, the people in power are rushing to get away from paper ballots. Too bad your Founding Fathers didn't stick in an amendment in your Constitution providing for the right to use a pencil when voting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 28 Jul 03 - 05:26 PM GUEST,pdc: There is a bill in the House for "paper ballots". I don't have the HR number but I heard about it on WPFW today... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 28 Jul 03 - 03:07 PM This past Sunday I finally got up my nerve to stand in church and speak out about the arrogant, harmful course the Bush administration is following both at home and abroad. After the services a number of people came to me and WHISPERED their support and agreement. This is a socially liberal Episcopalian congregation. And they are so afraid to express their opposition views publicly, that they whispered?!!! Looks like there is an awful lot of work to be done to get the American electorate mobilized. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST Date: 18 Jul 03 - 05:30 PM Mr. Firth: Enigmatic statement was meant in a much more general way. Thanks for response, more than some offer, my friend. (PS: just keeping 'ya honest!). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Deckman Date: 18 Jul 03 - 04:13 PM Actually ... supporting a dead horse is a bit tricky! But it's not nearly as tricky as trying to continue this charade happening in Iraq. Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 18 Jul 03 - 02:20 PM GUEST, you're post is a bit enigmatic, but if by "dead horse" you are referring to the Democratic Party, my answer to that is that there is nothing Bush and his Merry Men would like better than to have any opposition automatically assume that that it's hopeless, thereby making only a half-hearted effort. Despite what the polls you read might say (and just who conducts these polls, anyway?), there are plenty of people in this country who are pretty steamed, and they're not about to roll over an play dead. It ain't gonna work, my friend, it ain't gonna work! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST Date: 18 Jul 03 - 11:45 AM Bet you can convince some of your supporters that your dead horse is actually doing some wonderful tricks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 16 Jul 03 - 01:58 PM I didn't see the same TV coverage that Bob (Deckman) did, but here's a story from today's paper that seems to cover the same matter (TWING!!). And here's another article that may belong in another thread, but I find it interesting as well (TWANG!!). Last night, having fried my eyes by sitting in front of my computer monitor all day, I naturally turned on the television set. Nothing but summer re-runs. The most likely candidate for watching was a re-run of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, but I had already seen that episode at least eight times, and it wasn't one of my favorites anyway. So I channel-surfed. When I hit CSPAN-2, John Kerry was speaking, so I watched. It turned out that it was a presentation for a large audience made up of gay/lesbian groups and individuals who were there to hear what the Democratic presidential candidates had to say about the civil rights of gays and lesbians re: civil domestic partnerships, same sex marriage, place in the military, etc., along with a number of other issues. I came in late, so, at the time, I didn't know who all it included, but I did hear John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Carol Mosley-Braun, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, Al Sharpton, and Dick Gephardt. Each candidate had a two minute opening statement. Then Sam Donaldson plied them with questions about a number of issues. Then each one made a two minute closing statement. Here is the New York Times story about the forum (PLINK!!). Being a flaming, out-of-the-closet heterosexual, the subject under discussion was not an issue for me personally, but it is for a number of friends and acquaintances, and it is a civil rights issue, so I was interested in what they all had to say. Also, it was an opportunity to hear at least seven of the nine all in a row and make some comparisons. I have no particular ax to grind here (other than getting the Bush administration the hell out of there!), and what I am really looking for now is a candidate that I can support whole-heartedly and who will even get me enthusiastic enough to get up off my butt and go to work for. Impressions:— The candidates I found the most interesting were Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton. Next in line was John Kerry. These three had real "fire in the belly." Their remarks were solid, clear, and unequivocal. No waffling here. And all three were very dynamic speakers, particularly Kucinich and Sharpton. I have heard that some people, including Democrats, regard these two as something of a joke, with no chance of ever winning, but to my mind, they were the ones who offered the most clear-cut, least ambiguous ideas and intentions, and who also offered an unmistakable alternative to the current administration. Kerry was very good also. Pretty much up there with the other two. So far, that would be my short list: Kucinich, Sharpton, and Kerry. Carol Mosley Braun was impressive, as was Dick Gephardt. Regarding Howard Dean, having heard him before and learning something about his background, he was the one I preferred as the Democratic candidate (and I may still, depending), but after last night, I'm back to pondering again. He was very good, but he was not as clear-cut and dynamic as those on my "short list." If Joe Lieberman turns out to be the Democratic candidate after the convention, I will work for him and vote for him in preference to letting the current administration stay in, but only with reservations. He said some good things, but I was not as impressed by him as I was with the others. Two WOWs!! When Sam Donaldson asked Kucinich if he would appoint an openly gay or lesbian person to the Supreme Court, he responded, "Certainly! Provided they support Roe v. Wade!" (Audience explodes in cheers and applause). Al Sharpton, while talking about political activism and participation in civil rights marches and peace marches, said, "Anyone who has reached the age of fifty and has not been thrown in jail for supporting an important cause has no reason to brag!" (Another powerful audience response). I, personally, am not endorsing anyone at this point. I'm still watching, reading, and thinking, and I will continue to do so for many months to come. But after seeing these Democratic candidates in this forum, believe me, any reports that the Democratic Party is dead or no longer relevant is just wishful thinking on the part of the Republican Party. Hang in there, people! It ain't over 'til it's over! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,pdc Date: 16 Jul 03 - 12:01 AM Bobert posted: And they own the media which manipulates public opinion as craftily as a surgeon. They know how to show their guys screw ups so that it will have the least negative effect. They know how, when things are getting a little out of hand, to create diversions. I agree with you totally -- but consider the good news! Even though they own the media, Bush is still dropping in the polls, more and more people are complaining, more and more of his (and their) machinations are coming to light. They may control the media, but they can't seem to control themselves, and this is having an effect. You also said: These folks are practically unbeatable and when you do beat them they have lots and lots of lawyers to screw with you. Like intervening in the vote brokering between the Gore and Nader camps. And they paid hired goon squads to be in Florida just hours after the polls closed to intimidate poll workers. And we all know the rest... This is more worrisome. But given what happened in Florida last election, there are bound to be more watchdogs on the next election, and they would have to be much more blatant to carry anything off. They had the advantage of surprise and novelty the first time -- this time their tricks will be expected. The main thing that worries me is the computerized voting machines you have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 15 Jul 03 - 11:05 PM Yeah, Deckman, I hear you but I'm thinkin' why would the Republican owned media want to air this negative stuff now, instead of later? Hmmmm? Well, they are gonna get as much of ther bagage off Bush now so they can build him up in time for the '04 elections. Timing is everything and now is the time to *flush* the crap so they can get on in getting Bush re-appointed/selected 'er whatever they want to call it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Deckman Date: 15 Jul 03 - 10:39 PM For the FIRST time since President bush (I refuse to capitalize his name) started HID war, I am slightly encouraged. Tonight on nationwide TV, some soldiers in Iraq were shown, on camera, expressing their frustrations and confusion. Their unit has been held over for the third time. Wait 'till the voting parents, and the local politicians back home get hold of this. And, can you begin to imagine just how much grief is going to come on those soldiers, for having the courage to speak their minds. Perhaps there should be a special medal for bravery awarded them. Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 15 Jul 03 - 10:18 PM So, what do each of us as individuals do to try to stop our collective values from being marginalized? There is definitely a national emergency here, and the threat is not from terrorists or from overseas. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jul 03 - 09:44 PM Just heard a statistic this morning. Maintaining our forces in Iraq is costing one billion dollars a week. [To our British friends, that's one thousand million.] At the same time, many domestic programs such as Head Start are being cut, and funding for a whole variety of programs promised in various campaign speeches, press conferences, and in the State of the Union speech are not forthcoming. The reason, we are told, is that there are insufficient funds. And regarding one of my points above, read this and think about it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 15 Jul 03 - 08:47 PM GUEST, Jaze, Ifr the progressive side of the equation was funded by big money, then Clinton's situation wouldn't have made Page A-8 of any newspaper and Bush would be fighting an impeachment as we speak... The reality is that Bush represents big, big money and has even more PAC's that meet weekly to discuss just how to stay in power. Thewy did thids during the Clinton years as well. These folks would make a "dirty trickster" like Lee Atwell look like a Boy Scout. These a re some purdy danged ruthless, greedy people who hate anything that that might be construed as the working class getting any greater share of the wealth. They hate Social Security. They hate Medicare, Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children. All they want is, ahhhhh, .... it all for their own greddy selves and friends. And they own the media which manipulates public opinion as craftilly as a surgeon. They know how to show their guys screw ups so that it will ahve the least negative effect. They know how, when things are getting a little out of hand, to create diversions. These folks are practically unbeatable and when you do beat them thay have lots and lots of lawyers to screw with you. Like intervening in the vote brokering between the Gore and Nadar camps. And they paid hired goon squads to be in Florida just hours after the polls closed to intimidate poll workers. And we all know the rest... So that is the enemy. It's their game and if yer gonna change it, yer gonna have to start by changing the thinking of just one person, and then another. Yes, it will take a "revolution" to take back America. But it can be done. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: NicoleC Date: 15 Jul 03 - 08:05 PM Especially since Guantanamo Bay -- being outside the US -- is also outside of the jurisdiction of any US court. Which neatly circumvents that nasty little balance of power inconvenience and rights of judicial review. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Jul 03 - 07:44 PM When I say "fascist isn't accurate", I'm not saying it's excessive, because these guys aren't really all that bad; I'm just saying that they are coming from a different direction. But it's true enough that all the different movements and regimes that commonly get called fascist had a lot of differences, and not that much in common, other than a nationalist stance, a disregard for legal niceties, an appetite for power, and a willingness to be extremely violent in holding on to and extending it. So maybe it's not such an inaccurate word at that. I note that the papers here are saying that efforts by the UK Government to get British citizens held in Guantanamo Bay sent back here for trial have run into the sand - the sticking point being that the US authorities believe (probably rightly) that in a British court there would be no realistic chance of them being found guilty. So instead they are facing a possible death sentence in a US Military Tribunal. Now that is very reminiscent indeed of the way justice works in fascist regimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,Jaze Date: 15 Jul 03 - 07:02 PM It's pretty ironic isn't it, how outraged people in this country were when one president lied about a blowjob! Yet lying about the reasons for going to war, taking over another country, and snubbing the UN and rest of the world doesn't seem to cause half the uproar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 15 Jul 03 - 03:30 PM Hurray--I finally made a working blue clicky (I hope) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 15 Jul 03 - 03:29 PM This is not really thread creep, I don't think. We are in for more than a quagmire. Seems the bottom line is our president is a cowboy. If his political philosophy was different, he would still be a screw-up. Unfortunately, the rest of the country (and the world) are going to get screwed too. Ex-defence sec. says USA losing control of N.Korean crisis |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,heric Date: 15 Jul 03 - 02:55 PM You guys had me all scared and now I see that the Project for the New etc is a Dan Quayle production. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jul 03 - 01:45 PM What I quoted is from a couple of political science texts that I have. Puns are possible in Italian, too. The main defining characteristic of fascism is the unity of corporation and state and the policies it leads to. To be fair to the members of the Bush administration, I doubt very seriously that any of them consider themselves to be fascists, or even treading close to fascism. Nevertheless, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't what one considers oneself to be that defines one's political position, it's what one's policies are and what one does. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Teribus Date: 15 Jul 03 - 07:21 AM The use of fasces by the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini is quite another story. In 1921, he called his political movement Fasci di combattimento, fascio being the Italian word for peasant organizations and labor unions. When il duce chose the ancient Roman fasces as symbol of the fascist party, he was at the same time playing with the similarity of the words fascio and fasces, chosing an ancient symbol, and drawing a parallel between fascism and earlier progressive movements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 14 Jul 03 - 01:18 PM Kevin, and others, I'm not really all that sure that the word "fascist" is necessarily excessive and inappropriate, nor, for that matter, should one declare it "inaccurate" without closer examination. If you use this term in relation to the current Bush administration, Republicans will scream blue murder and put you down as a hysterical kook. Democrats will blanch, say you are overstating the case, and try to shush you up because they feel you're embarrassing them. But many people (I would venture to say most) have a somewhat distorted and inaccurate idea of what actually constitutes fascism. This comes from the historical picture that most people have of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco. Each of these three variations on fascism has its own unique images. The most vivid, of course, are images of black uniforms, jackboots, swastika armbands, and shouts of "Sieg Heil!" Or Mussolini's massive chin as he stands on a balcony with his arms folded, staring, like a Roman emperor, down at the assembled multitudes. But these are only images and outward manifestations. They vary from case to case, and do not constitute the essence of fascism. For a clearer interpretation of the word "fascism," perhaps one should go to the source. Benito Mussolini, considered the "father of fascism," said, "Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism,' since it is the merger of state and corporate power." The word fascism comes from the Latin, referring to a fasces which is a bundle of sticks tied around an ax. This was used in Rome as a symbol of imperial authority. Mussolini is said to have adopted it as a symbol of the unity of corporations (the sticks) with the authority of the State (the ax). The unity of corporations with the authority of the State. Work it out, folks. Work it out. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 14 Jul 03 - 04:56 AM Perfectly, Amergin. (Correct.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amergin Date: 13 Jul 03 - 11:31 PM When i was growing up i frequently had nightmares about nuclear holocausts...for that was still (is was still correct in this instance?) a very valid threat in the 70's and 80's...I have been having them again quite a bit in the last few months... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 13 Jul 03 - 10:54 PM Janie: That is exactly what needs to be done. If everyone would just stop for a minute and decide what it is that is important, then lots of folks would fear nothing from expressing their feelings in front of their church, their peers and their families. Thois is the way we're gonna take back our sister and brothers. One at a time.... Sorry, Boss Hog, but America has been taken off the market.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Greg F. Date: 13 Jul 03 - 10:40 PM I dunno, Kevin- seems to be a sort of convergence in the works (neo-cons & fascists, that is, not rattlesnakes & crocodiles)- now more similarities than differences. Time will tell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 13 Jul 03 - 09:07 PM With colossal effort, there is still time for the American people to force our government to change, or to at least change its policies. But the American electorate is the only thing left in the world that has the power to stop the government of the United States of America from doing whatever it damn well pleases. It may be impossible, I don't know, but those of us who appear to see where Iraq is taking us have a moral responsibility to work to raise the consciousness of the American people about the pervasive changes that are beginning to occur in our society, and that are self-generated. All of us who care about this need to start working very hard in our own communities to educate people, and get them to take political action. I am not a good organizer or initiater of collective action. But I, for one, will be standing up in church to speak about this issue, will engage my co-workers in discussion to get them more involved, will talk to my extended family, etc. These are simple things that we can all do. We can copy some of the well-reasoned discussions from people like Don Firth (see about any of the threads on national policy) and pass it out or mail it to other people. A print copy is more likely to be carefully read than an e-mail. And taking the time and expense to mail it conveys how important you hold it to be. Hope I don't sound preachy. I'm justing getting fired up, and writing it out helps make the work begin to seem tangible and doable. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 13 Jul 03 - 08:49 PM Google, for 'Project for the New American Century': The page cannot be displayed. The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings. Very interesting. Do you suppose "they're" trying to keep from needlessly alarming paranoid readers? Will there be a paper "explaining" to the ignorant masses what was really meant in the original paper? disdainful snort... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 13 Jul 03 - 08:29 PM Kind of a sandy Vietnam, toadfrog? Well, yeah, it's looking very much like that. The difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that, hmmmmmmm, well..... not a lot, come to think of it. Vitnam: rubber and tin. Iraq: petroleum. Hmmmmm? I'm seeing the pattern here. Man, I'd hate to be, ahhhh, like Etheopia right about now 'cause it has oil, too. Might of fiact, I'd hate to have much of anything worth stealin' right now.... Like I said, this doctrine is gonna get us hurt in the long run and the long run might not be too far off. Bush must go and someone with a bigger view of peacefull co-exhistence and cooperation is very much needed.... Like yesterday! Bobert |
