BS: Courage of Your Convictions

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:19 PM

White poppy debacle? I can't see why debacle is the apropriate word? In fact wearing a white poppy, on its own for everyone, or a white poppy on one lapel and a red on the other, sounds like sense to me.

GUESTS - I agree with you there Doug. The anonymous GUEST (or GUESTS) in this thread had several courteous enough invitations to use a pseudonym, and has failed to either do that or even explain why he thinks not doing so is so important, more important than the topic involved, when it's clearly interfering with the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: DougR
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:08 PM

And I also, McGrath. I made a plea in another thread not to feed the Guest trolls. I am not going to anymore. If and when they get a name, I'll start replying, but no more Guest replies.

Nicole: The Diane Rheme program today I referred to in an earlier post was in the second not the first hour. Her guest was Con Coughlin, a British journalist. I'm sure you know the way to NPR online but it's http://www.wamu.org/dr/ so you won't have to hunt for it if it's not bookmarked.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:06 PM

I refreshed the thread you provided the link to McGrath, thanks. I wasn't aware this had come up before with some of the same people.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Kim C
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:06 PM

Doug - I know just enough about WWII to be dangerous. A lot of that is my own choice, though - my area of expertise in American history is pre-1865. If we ever get to talking about why General Lee chose to do what he did at Gettysburg, I'll jump right in. ;-) (he should have listened to Longstreet, IMO)

However-------- I didn't know until I was an adult that there was any such thing as internment camps for Japanese-American citizens. That was never mentioned when I was in school, and I was in an honors history class. There are a lot of things they don't tell you. The information's out there, though, for people who want to look for it.

I do know this - Hitler had to be stopped. And he by golly got stopped, didn't he? He had the courage of his convictions; unfortunately, his convictions were all wrong. I have often wondered how the world might be different if he had used his talents for a good purpose, rather than an evil one.

My friend, who has been in the Army 16 years, fully supports the idea of military action against Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:04 PM

McGof H do you remember the white poppy debacle?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:58 PM

At least have the courage of your convictions and stop hiding behind the anonymity of guest.

I'm with you on that anyway, Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:41 PM

Your not into the goading game but drop this little gem, "after trying to tangle with me elsewhere". At least have the courage of your convictions and stop hiding behind the anonymity of guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:37 PM

"Do you take into consideration the homecoming the V.Nam vets got, after being drafted and taken from home to fight in a war they did not want, many came home to abuse, from whom anti war protesters."

This often gets said. There was this thread here, BS: Were Vietnam veterans spat upon? which seemed to cast quite a lot of doubt on whether it's actually true. I think most people realised that thing like the My Lai atrocity wasn't the general pattern of things, and that most soldiers felt the same revulsion at that as anyone else would.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: mg
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:37 PM

There are several kinds of people. Some honestly don't know they are causing hurt and will stop if told how their words or actions affect others. Some do know that they are causing hurt, but feel they have a higher purpose and it is a necessary but unfortunate consequence of pursuing the higher purpose, such as stopping a war. Some get perverse pleasure out of hurting. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Tinker
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:31 PM

Ah yes, a community of thoughtfully dissenting individuals lovingly agreeing to disagree and listen and respect each other... how wonderful....

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:28 PM

Their "threats" just don't happen to coincide with yours that's all.

International terrorism is indeed a serious threat. Already several thousands of people have been killed by it. Making war on Iraq is a side issue and a distraction, and I believe it will just further the agenda of the people who have been responsible.

And there are famines looming in Africa which are likely to mean millions of dead. It won't be in America, and it won't be in Europe, but I cannot see that as meaning that matters any the less. That's what I meant by saying that should be the top priority.

We don't call November 11th Veterans Day, we call it Remembrance Day - and so far as I am concerned it's a day to remember all the people killed in wars, not just the people in the armed forces. And in modern wars the overwhelming majority of people killed are civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:26 PM

The immediacy of the timing of the war against Iraq is not something peace activists have any control over. I don't have a clue where this demand that all peace and anti-war activists must stop their anti-war work on Veteran's Day to honor vets is coming from, as I've never seen it mentioned anywhere but here in Mudcat in the Veteran's Day thread. It is just a bizarre idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:10 PM

If you think that is the glorification of war NicoleC with respect you've got it wrong. You will get no greater opponent to war than a vet. But there is a time and a place for everything and protesting about wars on vets day would be insulting to me,the day is predominately to remember the fallen of all wars not an excuse to criticise the act of war. Can you understand how that would be seen as insulting,people are telling vets they and their fallen comrades got it wrong.

They may have, but we have to respect they felt they were doing right at that time and in many cases they were right.

Do you take into consideration the homecoming the V.Nam vets got, after being drafted and taken from home to fight in a war they did not want, many came home to abuse, from whom anti war protesters. Now some of these people shift their attention from soldiers who had no choice but to go to where they were sent,to the politicians who sent them there. Not a bit of wonder why some vets have little time for such people during Veterans Day because in condemning them they condemn the fallen.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:09 PM

Ireland, please, please read more closely before you use your trigger finger on the reply button.

The quote in your last post was not written by me, but the author of the article I quoted from--I am not sniping at anyone, but trying to discuss and learn ways we can stop the war machine. Those are my motives and intentions.

This thread was titled according to the title of the sermon/article I posted. My purpose for posting it was to engender discussion of the ways that some veterans and supporters of the military interject their own agendas into the debate among those looking to find non-violent and peaceful solutions to international problems, in an attempt to undermine their work. If THAT is something you want to discuss, then let's go for it. I quoted in another thread, another article by Christopher Hitchens, which is quite germane to that very problem. NicoleC has addressed it here too, in her post of 1:27.

Many of us feel a definite sense of urgency to stop the war train here in the US, and in Europe. What we do towards that end isn't just being done here in the discussion forum. But the forum does allow those of us with a sincere interest in these issues, the opportunity to clarify our thoughts, debate the salient points, and respond to current events. It is one tool among many that some of us might use in our anti-war work.

So when chicken-hawk posters intent upon being contrary just for the sake of being contrary raise their heads in these sorts of threads, it can be frustrating. I want my thoughts and ideas to be challenged, because we need all the good ideas and arguments we can get to stop the war train, and that is the only way to sharpen and clarify them. I'm really not interested in arguing with people who are happily riding the war train into Baghdad, unless their challenges are substantive, and not just abusive and reactionary.

I learn from people who disagree with me--I learn a lot that way. But I've really no time or sympathy for people who are just trying to throw a wrench in the works for jollies. Now, I don't know what your motives are, nor will I try and second guess what your reasons are for suddenly popping up here, after trying to tangle with me elsewhere. But I'm putting you on notice here, I'm not playing the goading game. I'm here to discuss things--hopefully with respect and some humor (though mine is pretty ironic, which I know offends the literally minded). And with good intentions.

But you will judge me your way. That's fine. I can live quite easily with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: DougR
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:02 PM

I don't think that the Mudcat has yet reached the point where an unidentified "Guest" can dictate what a MEMBER says in any thread. IMO, you only believe that Ireland is flaming, because you do not agree with his point of view.

Bobert: "If mankind is to survive, which is debatable, our leaders are going to have to show courage and become proactive in pro-human activities, rather than reactive which has solved little but created a high level of distrust, vengence and insecurity." You didn't put that statement in quotes, so I assume it is yours. Are you concerned because President Bush is not acting pro-active rather than reactive? He IS being pro-active for the citizens of the United States who want to continue to live in the same world they lived in prior to 9/11.

You counter your own argument against war at any time, when you say in a later post, "Might can be right ...etc., etc. Where you coming from my friend?

Davetnova: "Japan did not invade America."?? Would you agree that Japan attacked America?

Kim: your statement about not knowing much about WWII. I think that is sad, but I don't think it is your fault. The schools in America have become so traumatized by the politically correct community they are afraid to report history as it happend, for fear of offending our enemies in WWII.

Guest: (I know not who of course) "We ourselves have become what Britain once was--a greedy, bloated, bloodthirsty empire." What a bunch of horse shit. How many countries have we over run and made our own in the past hundered years? I wish you would take your trolling to another forum. You're having too much fun in this one, though, I guess. Someday we will learn not to feed you (hopefully).

Do I feel safer? Yes, I do. Because we are more aware of the dangers that could befall us. I think we are one hundred percent more alert to those possible dangers than we were prior to 9/11.

McGrath: "And I dearly wish that people in power could focus their attention on the real threats ..." They are McGrath, they are. Their "threats" just don't happen to coincide with yours that's all.

Guestjhop: Anyone who is not familiar with Daniel Ellsburg and his treasonous acts should not be in discussions such as this, IMO.

Nicole: For a comprehensive discussion on the subject of why we probably will, and should, invade Iraq, I refer you to this morning's Diane Rheme show on NPR. The first hour. I'll check out a website for you if you like and refer you to it. Diane's guest was the Editor in Chief of a British publication who has studied the Iraq situation over the past several years and has just authored a new book on Saddam and the Iraqi situation. Sorry I don't remember the name of the publication. It was an excellent discussion I thought.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:46 PM

Ireland:

I mean absolutely no disrespect to you but there is no attack on vets occuring on this thread. I spoke of my own losses and my intent to relect upon their lives on another thread this pat Sunday night. In a manner, those of us who have suffered thru the horendous wars of the last 60 years are all *vets*. We have all lost frineds, some, myself included, have lost family members and we have all seen the mindlessness of the fruits of bad foriegn policies.

This isn't about vets verses folks working for peace. Not at all. We are brothers and sisters united in a single vision.

The drum beaters would have us at each others throats but there is no "each others" unless we buy into that PR ploy of dividing and conquering. You are my brother and I am yours. And as my brother, I love you.

Now, lets get back to the unfotunate task at hand of stripping away the PR campaign that has been waged against *us* by the drum beaters and try to figure out a way to let the drum beaters know that *we* expect them to set their drums down and consider breaking a cycle of failed human behavior and repalce it with a pro-human, pro-Earth policies that foster trust, communication, sharing and caring.

Too much to ask? How can peace loving people ask for anything less?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:29 PM

"I would be uncomfortable in saying that you should relax and say, 'The FBI or the CIA is taking care of that issue.' "

Apart from sniping at the FBI and CIA Guest what exactly are you doing? At least they are trying.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:27 PM

I see what you are saying, but I honestly disagree. To say that "anti-war bumph [bunk?]" has no place on Veterans' Day (as we call it here; it's for all veterans, not just the dead ones), is, to me, to say that we wish to glorify war, instead of recognizing the service of veterans for what it is -- a sacrifice. Not a lark; not glory. But a sacrifice.

I see nothing contradictory in saying that the service of veterans deserves respect, while trying to promote peace so that we end up having a whole lot fewer of them around. What better day?

If veterans perceive it as attack to say that you wish to prevent more people from dying in war, or suffering the mental and physical damage that many vets have, well, I don't know what to say to that. Perhaps they need to consider who their allies really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:26 PM

Guest ask me your self.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:23 PM

This one is for you Amos, from MSNBC:

Not Even the FBI Can Protect Us
Updated Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 7:21 AM PT

Lawmakers and experts doubt that the FBI can prevent the terrorist attacks that the invasion of Iraq might trigger, the Washington Post reports. The C.I.A. believes that Saddam Hussein will help terrorists attack the U.S. as his last chance for revenge. Iraq is meanwhile ordering vast supplies of an antidote against nerve gas from Turkey, probably to protect Iraqi soldiers during gas attacks on U.S. troops.

The FBI hasn't penetrated domestic terror networks that might carry out attacks in retaliation for a U.S. invasion of Iraq and hasn't made much progress in identifying Iraqi agents and émigrés loyal to Saddam. Testifying to Congress in October, FBI Director Robert Mueller conceded as much, saying, "I would be uncomfortable in saying that you should relax and say, 'The FBI or the CIA is taking care of that issue.' "

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:20 PM

LH-Ireland is obviously a true believer in the Bush doctrine of supposed offensive "pre-emptive attacks" being justifiable. They are not according to international law, international precedent, and international consensus in the UN.

Until you ask him if it applies to the Irish Republican Army using such a justification for attacks against the British occupying forces, that is. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:17 PM

Thought you went to work!

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:13 PM

Ireland, you are trying to stoke flames, nothing more. Veteran's Day is over, I withdrew from the conversation, and so have the others. Which begs the question, why is a supposed Irish peace activist trying to provoke a flame war about the US Veteran's Day?

Give it a rest, like everyone else. This thread has drifted onto another subject entirely, which is fine by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:09 PM

And neither would a country be helpless if I were commanding it, I can assure you.

How would you do that LH,what experience would you use whose expertise would you call on? If you had intel of a forgein country wanting to attack yours, would you stike first?

I'm not being aggressive or offensive just trying to cut down on the typing.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 02:59 PM

My involvement in this thread is simply due to it being raised over the Remembrance period, I usually do nothing but reflect on my lost friends over this time. Although my friends lost their lives in July and August,but in the spirit of remembrance I think of them on Remembrance Sunday as a part of the group of people who lost their lives in world conflicts.

We have all year to have such sentiments that guest has raised, it was imo wrong to have these views raised at present. The should I shouldn't I quandary that was posted was done so to get a reaction, which plays on the emotions of the veterans.

That is why we get vets who are peace activists take offense at such posts as it undermines the service they and their friends gave to their country. Guest is wanting to have his/her views respected but is unwilling to do the same for others.

Why on one of the most important times to vets raise such issues,why not let them have their day and show some respect to them for what they went through,I'll not apologise for asking for this,they deserve it.

I'm not attacking any peace activist Nicolec, the way I feel about it is simple,no matter how well meaning people are,the anti war bumph has no place on vets day because to me no matter if people mean it or not I see it as an attack of those I remember and a slight on what they stood for. Vets of all people do not need to be told of the consequences of war and how bad it is,they have not the luxury of reading about it or going to films they went through it. I know people like guest know that this is a highly sensitive time for vets but they still post such threads.

Think of it this way how many vets protested the V.Nam war and how many remember their friends on Veterans day,probably all of them that's not saying they agree with war does it.But they will not tolerate condemnation or the idea of it of their fallen friends,it's part of protecting their memory and what they went through. Well thats the way it is for me, plain and simple hands off.

Living in a world of be nice and get along is wishful thinking which I am guilty of,fact is no matter where we go there is always going to be someone who wants that little bit more gets it and then wants it all. How do we cope with that hopefully with peaceful means,but sure thats wishful thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 01:38 PM

Amos, we have not punished or brought to justice, those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. We did invade and topple the despotic government of another nation which was giving refuge to terrorists, but it has never been proven beyond doubt that the terrorist cells operating in Afghanistan were in fact connected to the terrorist cells which carried out the attacks.

The reason why we haven't been able to bring those responsible for the 9/11 attacks to justice, is our poor intelligence capabilities in this regard, and our insistence on propping up illegitimate leaders like the Saudis, while the terrorist cells continue to breed under the noses of those leaders (nay--from their own families!).

Or our foreign policy vis a vis Israel and the Palestinian territories--the double standard we uphold there, which essentially manifests a cruel double standard for the world to see--we value the lives of Israelis more than we do Palestinians, because we control the government of Israel through our foreign policy military appropriations, which has armed them to the teeth, and looked the other way when they commit war crimes and gross human rights violations. Sharon/Netanyahu--again "our bastards", so we justify continuing to fan the flames of violence in the region, rather than diffuse them.

I don't feel we have been made safer in this country from attacks from within, like the Oklahoma City bombing, or from without, as with 9/11. Or from things like the anthrax attacks upon the US government and it's citizens, which was a circumstance where it has never proved whether it was an attack from within the US or from outside it. I don't feel more safe, in fact, I feel less safe, because I know that the results of the new Bush foreign policy doctrine is only fueling anti-American hatred on the ground, around the world. That is going to come right back at us, which is exactly what happened on 9/11.

Sorry to bow out of the conversation here folks, but I've got to get to work. It's a great thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 01:28 PM

teribus - Yes, you're quite right that the Allies had agreed much earlier in the war to fight until achieving unconditional surrender of Germany, Italy, and Japan. I'm suggesting that that was a bad decision...and one that should have been reconsidered AS SOON as any Axis power showed a genuine inclination toward a negotiated settlement. Stalin would never have agreed to negotiate with the Germans...but Stalin was not even AT war with Japan until the last couple of days of the war, so that would not have been a problem in that case.

The only one of the 3 Axis powers that was totally disinclined toward a negotiated end was Nazi Germany...specifically because of Hitler, who was a madman and was in total control of the country. That is why a lot of German officers conspired on various occasions to assassinate him...but unfortunately they did not succeed!

I think it is extremely wrong-headed and unnecessary for anyone involved in a war to insist on unconditional surrender of their enemy. It simply pushes the thing to the utter limit of destruction and human suffering. Negotiated surrenders with conditions are almost always possible, given a little common sense on both sides.

Some exceptions to the common sense rule: Hitler in the Berlin bunker, and the Jewish zealouts who were slaughtered by the Romans in Jerusalem and committed suicide at Masada (mind you, the Romans might well have slaughtered them anyway...but their absolute refusal to compromise with Rome on anything was the main reason for that circumstance...they were the only subject people the Romans ever were unable to reach a mutual arrangement with as far as I know).

It takes a willingness on both sides to admit that the other guy is human. Then negotiations can always find a solution to a bad situation without stretching it out to the final catastrophe.

Ireland - When people suggest that a certain course of military action is not advisable in a given situation, why do you respond by acting as though that means they are incapable of defending themselves in ALL situations? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why must it be all one way or all the other? While I may well object to the unnecessary or excessive use of force in any particular situation, I have never suggested that anyone not defend himself if attacked. I'm basically non-violent by nature (which means...I don't ATTACK people), but don't let that fool you into thinking that I am helpless if attacked. :-) No sir! And neither would a country be helpless if I were commanding it, I can assure you.

George Harrison reacted in the way that was natural to him, and then fought because he HAD to fight. That doesn't prove anything one way or another about people who are for or against a given war...or plans for a given war.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 01:27 PM

Ireland, I have NEVER met a peace activist that viewed soldiers with contempt for following orders. On the other hand, I have met numerous war-mongers who insist that we do, and, sadly, many soldier and veterans that believe them.

If veterans were the only ones who made decisions about wars, there'd be a lot fewer wars.

No one hear abouts the views of the peace activists until there's a war, and precious little then. So it's easy to assume that no one was worried about the possibility of a terrorist attack on US soil. We were, and we were talking. No one was listening. The intelligence community was worried, too, but few were listening to them. My first numbed thought when I turned on the TV the morning of 9/11 was, "Oh, they finally did it."

But in regard to the attack on Iraq, there's been no evidence presented that Iraq was involved with any kind of terrorist attack on the US or our allies. Nor would he want to. The fundamentalists and Saddam's secular government would like nothing more than to take each other out. Using 9/11 as a justification for and attack on a Iraq is simply a PR ploy designed to play on the emotions of the public to drum up support for a war that is essentially unjustified.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Kim C
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 01:24 PM

You're right, McGrath, and I think the problem is that we're not getting the whole story. Or we're getting it in so many different pieces that it's impossible to put together.

Well, I just don't know. I have a lot of mixed feelings about the whole thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 01:16 PM

Ireland, you make a lot of sweeping, damning allegations which are poorly organized and thought out, so it makes it difficult to discuss anything with you. You seem to be in constant attack mode too, which also makes it difficult to discuss things rationally.

McGrath, I think you nailed it dead on. The democratic nations of the world have a duty and responsibility both to their own citizenry and the international community of which we are all citizens as well, to do all in their powers (which we all know is a considerable amount more than is currently being done) to prevent violence and warfare from breaking out, and addressing the root causes of terrorism.

Zimbabwe is just one other current example of the need to stop propping up "our bastards" who, once we withdraw our resources and attention from them, turn on us. Somebody should certainly get that message to the Bush administration's armchair generals straight away.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:55 PM

Of course it is the civy that has went to Afghanistan to get shot at,but in your context your right.

People have to question their government,that's part of the system,using half truths to defend their opinions is wrong especially when they accuse others of the same tactic.

When people attack certain actions rather ambiguously,not many point out they are against the premise of that action not those who are charged with carrying it out, i.e. following orders and that's disengenuous. The assertion that leaders are war mongers, bearing in mind the military commanders are soldiers also,it not hard to see why people see it as an attack on the vets.

No one is more anti war than veterans, because they have experienced the consequences of war. If we have to go to war the decision is not taken as lightly as others are putting across. So attacking the decision makers is also attacking the people who carry out their orders.

As an ex soldier I would go through hell and back to prevent my sons from going to war, but the fact is, I felt I contributed to my country and as much as it would hurt I could not deny my sons the same.

Sept.11 showed the world the threat of complacency, many in America thought that distance made them safe, how grateful were people to have the state troops and the USAF who represented some security. What do the leaders do stand and weight for the next strike?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST,jhop
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:30 PM

If you want to see how someone summoned the courage to act on his convictions, and helped bring a war to an end, get yourself a copy of Daniel Ellsberg's memoir, "Secrets," which came out just this fall. There's a whole lot there about how we got into Vietnam on false pretenses, and how the public and Congress were deceived by four or five presidents in a row to keep the war going.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:29 PM

Of course the other thing they said about George Washington was that he was a traitor and a terrorist. Which in a sense was true enough, but wasn't quite the whole story.

Historical analogies can set you thinking, but they can never settle an argument, because history doesn't repeat itself. It's really no more helpful drawing up lists of ways in which Saddam's regime and situation has similarities with Hitler than it does to do the same for Bush, with his "my patience is exhausted" speeches and all.

I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that in the present circumstances Iraq poses any kind of threat to the United States or to Europe, or indeed to his immediate neighbours. I'm glad that inspection teams are likely to go into Iraq with a view to eliminating any Weapons of Mass Destruction; and the sooner similar teams with a similar mandate go into a lot of other countries, including the one I live in, the better.

And I dearly wish that people in power could focus their attention on the real threats, famine top priority, terrorism next, and could work imaginatively and energetically to avert disaster and to eliminate the things that are pushing us in that direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:20 PM

In answer to your upthread question, O Nameless One, I have to answer "Yes". I do feel safer than I did on September 12, last year. The state of the organization that launched those attacks has been significantly depressed, and an international standard has been promulgated such that those who once felt secure launching such surprise attacks are at least on notice that the penalties will arrive, sooner or later, and they will be most painful.

Is this good? Well, no, not in any ideal sense. But it is real. Are we as secure in fact as we thought we were before those attacks? Not really, but weren't then, either. The sense of security which we felt back then may have been simple ingenuousness.

As for the scariness of our times, I don't think so. I see no benefit in promoting generalized "Dangerous environmental threats" point of view, without specifics, especially from an anonymous perch. I believe it promotes an atmosphere of ineffective timidity and does no service to anyone.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:20 PM

I always find it ironic that those who seek justification for war always accuse those who support peace of being the ones who have disregard for the lives of American soldiers.

Who protects democracy? Every person who votes. Every person who speaks their mind (even if it's unpopular) and every person who supports the right of others to do so. Every person who questions government, questions officials and every person who finds good reason to support government.

Protecting democracy is not solely the job of soldiers, it's the job of citizens, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:11 PM

I see guest you cannot defend your bs so you cry off,why start it in the first place? At least you have realised you cannot defend your postings, just a step closer to realising your wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:11 PM

PLease, please GUEST or GUESTS - this is a serious issue, a serious discussion. But it gets confusing with all these posts by what may be the same person or several people, so noone can tell without doing textual analysis whether one point lead son to another. And it invites comments like that of Jed Marum up the thread, focussing on this anonymity issue. And this post here for that matter,

So wouldn't it be simple, maybe just until this war is out of the way, to give up on the anonynmous posting?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:01 PM

Guest who protects your democracy? Will you? The use of the word "we" were have you fought? Or are you riding on the back of others efforts,oh *we* fought well that day didn't *THEY*.

We ourselves have become nothing more than what Britain once was--a greedy, bloated, bloodthirsty empire.

Are you turning down any advantages that has come about from the above,some how I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:50 AM

On the issue of using Hitler as a synonym for Hussein, Ireland, I disagree with both your conclusions, and your tactics.

I'll leave it at that, as I'm not interested in pursuing those sorts of arguments, as they aren't relevant to the fact that by this coming Saturday, that the president of the US may make a defacto declaration of the US and Britain being at war with Iraq.

Bullshit arguments about Hitler notwithstanding, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Kim C
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:45 AM

Mirror image..... so THAT's why we drive on the opposite side of the road!

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:43 AM

And that country is now the mirror-image of the colonial empire we fought to overthrow to found it.

We ourselves have become nothing more than what Britain once was--a greedy, bloated, bloodthirsty empire.

That doesn't say much for us, IMO. Especially considering the potential we've squandered, because we could have been so very much more than that with our democratic traditions, our resources, and what essentially is, I believe, a deep desire to be generous and fair.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:41 AM

Know who said peace in our time? In defense of the 1938 Munich agreement Neville Chamberlain practically bent over backwards to appease Hitler, who broke his agreement anyway. How do you combat that? Everyone signed this and that document went home thinking everything was fine and dandy we know what happened.

Saddam is at the same thing, is he buying time to do another Hitler? Is it worth taking the chance?

To put you theory across that Germany could have been contained shows a lack of understanding of the situation. Germany had the military might to do what they wanted, while most countries were maintaining their armed forces Germany was increasing theirs.

Your holocaust theory is shear disingenuous ignorance, Hitler showed his animosity towards the Jews in 1933 when he proclaimed a one-day boycott against Jewish shops, his introducing of Nuremberg laws in Sept 1935, also shows that your off with that notion. Hitler had it in for the Jews and nothing was going to stop him based on diplomatic means. Compare that with Iraq and the plight of the Kurds, has the sanctions against Saddam helped them?

Be anti war most soldiers are, but don't peddle you wares on half truths and accuse others of scare mongering while you employ the same tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Kim C
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:36 AM

A lot of people thought George W was nothing but a country bumpkin, a farmer, who had no skills in either public speaking or the military. Most of the people around him didn't want to go to war. They believed it was nothing but folly. They were happy with the way things were.

George W and his clan went ahead anyway, and exercised a little might.

George Washington became the first president of a new country.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:22 AM

Amen to that Bobert. Also, I think we need to draw attention to the fact that this is the British and American empires acting as one. That too has serious policy implications for the rest of the world, especially the European Union, and in the Middle East, where Britain's imperial record is quite dismal.

There is so much more at stake here than just the securocrats' cry that America has the right to defend itself anyway it sees fit, because of the attacks on 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:04 AM

Might can be right, but with a history strewn with destruction, it doesn't have a good batting average.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:04 AM

How to contain an aggressor in the post-nuke era is the most important challenge we face right now. The main problem is, it is the nuclear powers themselves who are some of the worst aggressors.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was an act of aggression. Now, whether it was the international community's responsibility to deal with that militarily was open to debate, but the fact that Iraq was the aggressor wasn't.

Now however, we have a situation where Iraq is not an aggressor, and the US and Britain are trying to make an argument that their nations have a right, which supercedes the rights of the international community, to "pre-empt" Iraq before it becomes an aggressor nation again.

That is highly problematic. Again, people don't realize that the Bush administration has introduced (and it can be found at the White House website) this completely new foreign policy doctrine. The tactics the Bush administration intends to use are those which have previously been defined as illegal tactics by the international community. There are serious sovereignty issues at stake, at minimum. The defintions used in this supposed "national security doctrine" leaves unanswered many questions, such as what if the Saudis decide to throw the US out of their country--does the US have the right to invade because it needs Saudi oil for all of us to get to work?

These are most dangerous times.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Davetnova
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:48 AM

Hitler was a politician and as far as I know didn't go on his rampage but sent the people he had convinced that he knew best. Likewise Japan did not invade America but the Japanese obeyed their leaders who told them to invade for their glory. In a war there are two sides both have leaders and both have common people who have to die to prove their leaders right. Saying that though I have no answer on how to counter an agressor. It would seem in this world that might is right, sad though that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:33 AM

I am not suggesting we shouldn't have the ability to defend ourselves from direct attack. Trying to compare the non-cooperation of a well isolated and contained despot with Hitler, is disingenuous. If Europe and the US had contained Hitler the way we have contain Iraq, Libya, and other despotic regimes, the Holocaust couldn't have happened.

Think about it. There is precious little beyond intelligence gathering that we can do to defend ourselves from terrorist attacks like 9/11. Except to clean up our act overseas, and support democracy outside the empire the same way we do within it, to defuse anti-American hatred building to the point it has today. The double standards we employ in our foreign policy has come home to haunt us, as is always the case when imperial nations overreach like we have.

The Jean Kirkpatrick foreign policy model (he is a despotic bastard, but he is OUR despotic bastard), which has been the modus operandi of US foreign policy for the better part of the past two centuries, has to change if we are to maintain our quality of life and standard of living. Such bold, successful attacks as the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11 demand a new paradigm, not more business as usual from the securocrats.

C'mon people, do you really feel safer now than you did on 9/12/01?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:33 AM

Well said, GUEST, and you are absolutely correct in the cost of war on the Earth's society. It has become too small and dangerous for mankind to continue solving conflict with violence. If mankind is to survive, which is debatable, our leaders are going to have to show courage and become proactive in pro-human activities, rather than reactive which has solved little but created a high level of mistrust, vengence and insecurity.

America's Boss Hogs won't get it until the working class is so squeezed that it just can't take it any more. That is certain to happen. Everywhere we look we see his greed and we see just how little he cares about the working class. Like you say, GUEST, our schools are a skeleton of what they used to be and Boss Hog has a plan to gut them even further with a voucher system that benefits the wealthy, not the working class. In Social Security, the same plan. Gutting in favor of the wealthy. Health Care? Like you say, 42 million without any and those who do have insurance have no protections from Boss Hog's PPO's and HMO's deciding what *level* of care you're gonna get or just *drop your butt* fir having the audacity to get sick.

So, GUEST, the squeeze play is on. The working c,lass will figure it out sometime and when they do, things are gonna get real ugly, as national strikes become the tool of the little man and when Boss Hog uses the National Guard and Reserves to force Joe Six-Pack to work. Yeah, Boss Hog is very much like the pigs in "Animal Farm" and we know how that ended, don't we...

Greed is some purdy evil stuff...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Kim C
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:08 AM

LH, I don't know enough about WWII to comment.

All I know is, when I was a little kid and I acted up, I was told what the penalty would be if I didn't shape up. When I didn't shape up, I got the penalty.