BS: Courage of Your Convictions

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

the terrorist attacks that the invasion of Iraq might trigger....

Oh, come on.    The FBI can't protect us from the influence of aliens either. But using a scary piece of yellow journalism is hardly an appropriate response to what I said about factless generalizations of danger being anti-social. The fact that big newspapers do it all the time everywhere and infect everything with insanity...sorry, getting carried away there....is no evidence that using these sweeping and, if I may use the word, terrorizing propositions as substitutes for factual reporting is anything but mind-numbing oppression.

I am not interested in being terrorized or staying up at night trembling over non-events. There are enough real events out there requiring intelligent action and understanding without getting thrown into a media-trough fit for baby hogs.



But thanks for the opportunity.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 01:47 PM

Yes, when is a war not a war? When the Boss says it isn't! LOL!

The USA has been engaging in a limited war against Iraq ever since 1989. Like most limited wars, it is an undeclared one, and the rules of engagment keep changing, and it's hard to figure out what they even are. The result of this limited war has been the death of many Iraquis, a few Americans, and a few other people here and there, plus expenditure of a vast amount of money and propaganda, and handy testing out of new weaponry and spying techniques by the US Navy and Air Force.

Saddam has also been engaging in a limited war against Shiites, Kurds, Israelis, and various other people...for a long time now.

Israel has been engaged in a limited war against Palestinians and other Muslims for decades.

Those people have themselves been engaged in a limited war against Israel ever since 1948.

The unbroken period of peace teribus describes in Europe has included a bloody revolution in Rumania, and a horrendous series of wars in the former Yugoslavia, as well as other smaller incidents of bloodshed here and there in various localities...mostly as a result of the Cold War or of old ethnic feuds predating the Cold War and emerging again in the wake of the Soviet Empire's collapse in '89.

When is a war not a war? When the media say it isn't! The media work for the Boss.

And, yes...Japan did invade American territory. So?

So-called "unconditional" surrenders ALSO end with negotiations...but those negotiations come much farther down the road...entailing much greater loss of life than is necessary to secure a victory. Japan and the USA did negotiate various surrender conditions in 1945. It was mostly just a diktat by the USA, Britain, and Russia to Japan, but it did include quietly letting the Japanese know that the Emperor would not be arrested or tried or threatened in any way. That is a negotiated settlement, whether you call it "unconditional" or not.

The claim of having forced unconditional surrender on an enemy is almost always, in truth, a false claim, but it indicates a degree of hubris and self-righteousness on the part of the victor, that's all, Like gloating over the remains of the fallen and completely humiliated enemy. I do not admire such an attitude in victors, whichever side they are on. It lacks humanity. It lacks respect for the foe. It is dishonourable and crass.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 11:30 AM

Perhaps the war wouldn't have happened Teribus, but I don't know that you could say the same about the Holocaust.

As history has shown over and over again, the Western powers are very selected about what acts of genocide they choose to intervene in, and it is pretty apparent from all the historic evidence, that none of the Allied powers were likely to have intervened in the genocide within Germany's borders.

I agree the Allied powers didn't do enough to contain Hitler when they could have. But Hitler was pretty determined to go to war, and there isn't much you can do to stop an aggressor, despite the current fantasies being spun about "pre-emptive" abilities today. The Allies just didn't have their war machine tooled up and ready for the long haul the way Hitler did his--which made a difference too.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 11:26 AM

Hmmmmmmm? What to believe? We are at war. We're not at war. We are at war. We're not at war. We are.................. And the beat goes on.

I've heard Runsfield on C-Span radio saying it both ways depending on what point he's trying to make. So confusing?

I wish that Don would at least have just one answer but being the the man will say naything and min *in love* with hearing himself talk.

Anyone else ever listen to thye guy. I mean, there is one piece of work. And very tricky.

Excuse me, back to pulling the pedals off this flower. We are at war.
We're not at war. We are at war. We're not at..........................................................................................................................................

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 10:36 AM

Not only the Aleutians, but various Pacific Islands such as Guam, Midway, et al.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 07:17 AM

The United States hasn't been "at war" with anyone since WWII -- the last time the Congress declared war. I'm not sure Congress has the guts to do so any more.

Japan did invade the United States: the Aleutian Islands.

And that's all I'm going to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 06:41 AM

Donald Rumsfield - WHO ME ???? Got to be kidding!!!

Getting back to having the courage of your convictions, the current US President certainly has that. And please remember that America is not at war with Iraq. I have stated in other threads what I believe he was trying to accomplish, and he has succeeded in doing it. Now all we have to do is to wait and see what the Iraqi authorities declare and what the inspection teams report.

LH - a lot earlier in this thread we discussed the differences of the terms "unconditional" and "negotiated" with regard to cessation of hostilities.

The Second World War was fought on the agreed principle among the Allies that unconditional surrender was a requirement on the part of the Axis Powers. This resulted in a period of peace in Europe that continues to this day.

Examples of negotiated settlements used to end hostilities during the twentieth century have been:

First World War - What was negotiated contributed directly to the causes of the Second World War.
Korean War - What was in fact negotiated was a ceasefire
Arab/Israeli Wars - All negotiated, with no side honouring what they agreed to do - result continued conflict.
Gulf War - Iraq, the blatant aggressor in this conflict, ended up refusing to comply with obligations it agreed to fulfil - result yet to be determined.

In other threads parallels have been drawn between Hitler and Hussein. In the case of the former, had a number of European national leaders (basically those of France and Britain) had the courage of their convictions, and faced up to their responsibilities, in the face of blatant treaty violations on the part of Nazi Germany, the Second World War need never have happened. Instead, they proceeded on what they wanted to believe would happen, and blythly ignoring what they knew could happen.

The current incumbent of the White House is not making the same mistake.

The USA is not at war with Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 02:55 PM

Good post, Ebarnacle... :-) "the biggest cause of the situation is the sense of a big organization, the rich industrialized part of the world, not listening to the people who consider themselves downtrodden."

Yup. Precisely.

Also, that rich industrialized part has helped to maintain a great number of local despots in the poorer parts of the world. Saddam was one of them, a hired hit man, until he failed to "take out" Iran...mistake #1...and then went into business for himself by invading Kuwait...mistake #2. Now the kingpin, the Boss, who lives in Washington, is going to take out the hitman Saddam who failed the Syndicate and disobeyed orders. That's what it amounts to.

Osama was another "soldier" of the Organization, who was useful for killing the soldiers of the opposing mob (Soviet Russia), but he and his people became a problem after the opposing mob went bust and got bought out by the Syndicate in Washington. Now Osama is persona non grata, and will be rubbed out if the Boss can find him. The Boss hasn't found him yet.

Osama and Saddam are disgruntled former employees of the System. Osama, being a religious idealogue, has decided to make war on his former employers and die for the cause, if necessary. Saddam, being more of a pragmatist is trying to figure out how to stay alive and in power when outgunned 500 to 1. It's not an easy proposition, but no one can say he lacks determination...he's sort of like "Mad Dog Cole", if you recall your gangster movies...always preparing for one more glorious shootout.

The Boss in Washington and environs now has the entire "city" (the western world) terrified as to where Osama and Saddam may strike next, despite the fact that they are outgunned, as I said, 500 to 1. When you are outgunned 500 to 1, a direct confrontation can only be suicidal and pointless, so Osama (if not Saddam) has been reduced to hit and run attacks in unexpected locations...in other words, what is called terrorism by those who are not required to use such roundabout methods in terrorizing and destroying people...because they can just walk in anywhere with high-tech weaponry and do it openly.

The truth of the matter is, ALL the involved parties are committing terrorism and have been for A LONG TIME.

It is terrorism to maintain conditions of gross material inequality in the World, to rob people of their land and their civil rights without giving any recognition of having done so, and to maintain heavily funded despotic regimes over people as long as those regimes cooperate with Western corporations.

That is terrorism on a massive basis, and it has killed far more people than the 3,000 who perished on Sept 11th.

It is extraordinary to me that a group of people can be so blind to their own actions as to commit organized legal terrorism on millions of people for decades...and then go into absolute shock and rage when some of those people strike back with illegal terrorism on a few thousand...AND NOT GET THE CONNECTION!

Truly astounding.

I am opposed to ALL terrorism...not just to terrorism committed by the small and unofficially sanctioned players who are outside the wealthy club run by the Boss...and who, in fact, used to work for him as hired guns.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 08:43 PM

Teddy Roosevelt and Bushkin? To amend the quotation that dished Dan Quayle: "Mr Bush, you are no Teddy Roosevelt."

Flaws and all, noone could ever have made a case that Teddy Roosevelt was a coward. Bushkin's "wartime" record on the other hand...

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 07:39 PM

And now I've read that Big Mick post I take it you're referring to, on this thread. And, very unusually, I find myself in disagreement with Big Mick. I can't see where there is what I'd call "disrespect" in the posts I think are being complained about. Maybe I've just missed reading them, or I've read them in a different sense or something.

When someone is trying to argue a pacifist case, that doesn't mean they are disrespecting people who have fought, and so far as I can see that is all that the posts that have been seen as offensive have been doing. As I said, I might have missed the relevant ones, but I've skimmed through this thread and couldn't spot ones that I'd feel qualify.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 06:50 PM

But is GUEST the same as GUEST, or perhaps the same as GUEST...? Some GUESTs have respect where respect is owed, some don't, some posts have respect some don't, some are clearly people who mean what they say, some are just trying to rattle people's cages. Some have even been known to write things I'd agree with - but the lack of a nod of identity devalues them, and they end up in the same bin as the rubbish ones.

Posting without some kind of a handle is bad manners and it's bloody silly, but it's not worth getting upset about, let alone trying to read between the lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 04:31 PM

Mc G of H, Big Mick has rumbled guest, and guest you know that.

You said you did not see the alledged disrespect to vets,read what Big Mick has wrote about guest in the threads this person has started.

This thread is named Courage of Your Convictions, something guest does not have.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:52 PM

Little Hawk, The reason that the Romans and the Jews were unable to come to an accomodation was that there was a demand for major change--in this case in style of worship. The polytheistic Romans were demanding that the Jews violate a central tenet of what made them Jews: monotheism.

"I would try and resolve whatever had caused the overall situation in the first place which led to people having such hard feelings as to resort to terrorism!" While it does not explicitly apply to Bin Laden and company, the biggest cause of the situation is the sense of a big organization, the rich industrialized part of the world, not listening to the people who consider themselves downtrodden.

The current Iraq situation is really caused by the fact that both Bush and Hussein are peace loving men. What could be more peaceful than a world in which everyone agrees with you or dies? There was a parody in MAD magazine about 40 years ago called "The Rifle, Man." In it, the hero goes around protesting that he is a peace loving man as he blows everyone he meets into the great beyond. His son asks him how, if he claims to be a peace loving man, he can justify all the killing he does. His response: "There ain't nothing so peaceful as a dead man, son." Sound familiar?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:38 PM

Sorry, Doug, I didn't mean to ignore you. I got a phone call in the middle of posting and didn't see your "thumbs up" remarks.

How come I didn't know that we might disagree on TR? Jus' funnin'. I'll bet you got TR and Junior's pictures hanging right there in your pudder room.

Two peas in a pod, except TR probably had 2 or 3 more I.Q. points to work with... Jus funnin' again. They were probably about the same in that regard.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:18 PM

Yeah, TR. Heck, we got our modern version of TR livin' in the house that the military industrial complex is renting for him in Washington D.C.

Yep, a couple of blowhards with an insatiable appetite for pushing other folks around...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: DougR
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:08 PM

Thumbs up, McGrath.

dougR

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 12:49 PM

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres42.html

We need more leadership from men like TR, Lincoln etc

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 12:26 PM

It's pointless arguing with an anonymous GUEST by citing quotes, because there's no way of knowing if the quotes come from the same GUEST or not.

And no good trying to make sense of the personality quirk involved, or pointing out that adding a pseudonym to GUEST in no way infringes their total anonymity, but merely helps avoid people getting at cross purposes, and it makes it much more convenient for other people. When someone isn't listening they aren't listening.

The best policy is to totally ignore them, and hope they'll either slope off, or preferably in some cases (and in spite of what some people have said, I'd say this is one of them) the GUEST will just quietly add on a pseudonym and keep posting, and probably we'll never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:34 PM

My land is bare of chattering folk;
the clouds are low along the ridges,
and sweet's the air with curly smoke,
from all my burning bridges.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:41 PM

Right on, bro, but don't burn too many bridges, my friend. We've got a war to stop.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:09 PM

Bobert, who said anything about quitting? I just said I was done in the thread, bro. I'm still here, still fighting, just doing it in other threads, where I don't have to put up with the grief I'm getting here. That sort of thing doesn't further the debate, or amuse me, so I don't play the game.

Hey--but just to give 'em all something new to bitch about, I just told Big Ole Mick to go to hell in the "A Final Vet's Day Thanks to Wellstone" thread.

Don't you worry about me Bobert, there is plenty of fire here to fight fire with!

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 09:57 PM

GUEST: I said you were different. I said you were not typical. I stood up for you. I asked you to just identify yourself by a number if that's all you could do. Anything to differentiate your posts, which I recognize with out such, so that others would be able to know which GUEST was posting.

You speak of wanting to do what you can in them anti-war movement. Well, quittin' ain't an option. You have a responsibility to *yourself* brother or sister and to the brothers and sisters world wide who's lioves will be spent for the jollies of a bunch of rednecks. If you quit, then you can take every thing that you have posted and run it thru a shreader machine.

I'm sure you have your reasons but you can work around not registerin'. Get over your poutin' and get back to standing up for humanity. Tough! Hey, sometimes we all gotta set the ego on the shelf, paint up a sign and march. That time is now, GUEST! Or just send off your contribution to the Bush drum beaters....

Sorry,

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: JedMarum
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 09:35 PM

Doug - you're much better looking then Cheney!

When I was at school I knew kids who were afraid to say anything that might piss the schoolyard bully off. If I took risks and didn't cower to him, sometime my friends would get pissed at me because they thought he would beat us all up. And it happened a time or two - but the bully always got some back from me - and eventually he figured out it was going to cost him if he f*cked with me - even he if won. So he left me alone. Tortured my poor cowardly friends though.

I fully and firmly support the UN's push for issues resolve in Iraq. I fully and firmly supported the US and its allies in their efforts to crush the terrorists in Afghanistan. I am firmly convinced that the US and its allies, if/when they take military action in Iraq - will do so with a design to spare as much civilian life as possible - and I am firmly convinced we are justified in taking military action to crush Sadam.

I would go, and I would send my sons - if it comes to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: DougR
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 09:10 PM

Interesting that you said that, Nicole. There are those who have said I could be a double for Dick Cheney.

Peter T.: you may be surprised to learn (shocked actually) to learn that no everyone in the United States saw what Ellsburg did as a patriotic gesture. He is the darling of the left, to be sure, but I doubt those of us to the right would give him the time of day.

The New York Times? Well, were they going to be shot, as you suggest, I would suggest that they would need a very good reason to be pardoned by the governor. They printed Ellsburgh's information.

Bobert: I'm not slighting you, but I haven't had time to check out your "Might is right" statement.

DougR

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

Guest are you the same person who wrote this
"I see a history of Mary interjecting herself into threads on war and peace, and inappropriately admonishing individual posters on occassion for what she perceives as attacks on veterans which clearly aren't there. That, to me, is the sign of someone with problems, of someone who needs help, at the very least"

Mary is a vet and whoever wrote this is attacking her.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 09:00 PM

I'm also not going to flog dead Hitlers. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:58 PM

Everyone is entitled to their opinions of what posting anonymously in chat rooms means, and to expressing them freely. It doesn't change the fact that there will always be people who, like me and a number of other fine anonymous posters who often contribute to Mudcat, choose to post anonymously, without giving any explanations for doing it.

C'est la vie. I'm not going to flog the dead horse on veterans, or rehash the Vietnam War, though I have no problem surrendiring to those who wish to do just that.

There are plenty of good music and BS threads where my presence isn't made the issue, and I can carry on the conversations there. But I'm done in this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:55 PM

I'm meant to be asleep,so I must be computer walking type thing.

McG of H, guest wrote this "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",complete and utter b-ll-cks, it was this that I was answering,btw I do not have any respect for anonymous guests.

Hitler was attacking the Jews as we all know, what sanctions would have stopped that. Now saying such and such was doing it elsewhere avoids the issue,in reality it should not have happened any where. But back to guests point it was a sweeping generalisation based on un-truths,Hitler covered his hate for Jews during the 1936 Olympics putting on a front, how many Jewish ghettos were there in Germany? Now guest failed to address my points why?

Hitler could not have been contained in the way Guest suggests he had too big an Army, which McG of H has pointed out many times.The advent of nuclear weapons means that the containment of any country with the bomb is academic, we can surround them all we want unless we put a net over them how are we going to prevent a nuclear strike.

I'm not using this as an excuse or justification for a war with Iraq, what I am doing though is asking guest to substantiate the tripe he/she writes. Simply and truthfully I have taken offence at other postings that guest has posted and the perverted pleasure he/she gets from it. So I question why this person has posted what they did and do not see any merit in the posts at all. And guests replies are? well we can all read.

Point is I probably share your views more than you think, but in no way will I give into the like of guest.

One point though McG of H, Germany was inventing zyclonB(sp)and other nasty gases and building up the numbers of the weapons they were suspose to not have and telling the world they have no such weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:39 PM

That's a bit silly really, because at least some of the posts by GUEST in this thread are fair enough (but of course there's no telling which are which, which is the point of complaining about the practice), and the article posted initially was worth reading, which many articles posted here tend not to be, or so it seems to me. And I couldn't actually see the alleged disrespect to veterans that has upset some people.

Much more sensible to add a pseudonym to the GUEST, as a gesture of respect for people here and stick around. But clearly that won't happen. Strange.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:36 PM

Guest: In the past, there have been a lot of issues here with trolls who merely seek to insult people and stir up fights among our relatively polite debating folk. I don't think that's your intention, but I'm afraid you're getting the aftermath.

I personally don't have a problem with folks remaining unregistered, but it's hard to have a discussion with an unknown quantity of one or multiple Guests who all refuse to even use a pseudonym. "Anonymous One" would work, as long as you use it consistantly. Failing to do so is kinda the internet version of heckling performers.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:21 PM

I'm the guest who started this thread, the thread on Kerry speaking at the Wall at yesterday's ceremony, and the thread on Wellstone, with the copy of "When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloomed" as well as a couple of posts in the Veteran's Day thread.

I started these threads because these are the issues I'm interested in. I want to know how, as an anti-war activist, what shorthand I can use to get my points across, without having to reargue the Vietnam War. That war is behind us. There is a war with Iraq looming ahead of us, and my sole motive and intention in discussing that war here, and any tactics I can find out about to that end, is that.

Now then, my agenda is different from those who are attacking my anonymity, but really are doing so because they either are supporters of Bush and his foreign policies, or they have an agenda of their own, thanking and honoring and respecting veterans, which is fine by me. What is not fine by me, is the claim that I have said disgusting, horrific, and disrespectful things to veterans. The cyber equivalent of spitting on vets, perhaps? Why would they do this? I don't know, you'll have to ask them.

I'm fine withdrawing from Mudcat discussions if people are so offended by a poster's choice to remain anonymous. I am not going to change my practice, and I am not going to offer explanations for it.

So Ireland, Mary Garvey, Big Mick, Tinker, et al, you win. I withdraw. You've made Mudcat safe again from people like me.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:00 PM

LOL, Nicole!

Now, Doug? I have somewhat figured out and "Cheney" works fir me, but a "kinder and gentler" version. He'd sure like to have Cheney's dough, you can bet on that...

But now T-Bird? Whew! we're talkin' *piece of work* here. T-ster might scare Rumsfield half to death...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:57 PM

LOL! Omigod... I'm getting chills, Nicole!

WHAT IF SOMEONE ON THIS FORUM IS ACTUALLY...WILLIAM SHATNER???

(I'm hyperventilating....gotta get a drink of water or something stronger, and calm down...)

-LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:56 PM

I know it says the 17th in the article - but according to the Radio Times it was actually scheduled to be broadcast on last Sunday 10th November, and no repeat is indicated for 17th.

I missed it too. And one thing that makes it more plausible is that at the time Enoch Powell resigmed from the government in protest at brutality against prisoners in Kenya, a fact that is often forgotten.

One way and another this whole episode has been shunted out of public view very effectively.

The point is, nasty things happen when people try to hold empires together - and that is maybe a more appropriate context to fit Saddam into, rather than analogies with Hitler. (Even the use of gas against the Kurds harks back to what the Britishn had done back in the 1920s - though that had had less murderous consequences than Saddam's bungled butchery.)

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:51 PM

'Cmon, Bobert. You know Teribus is really Rumsfeld and DougR is Dick Cheney.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:43 PM

Yeah, we do, LH. A few of the world's leaders would do well to check in here from time to time to see just how far a bunch of folks with different opinions, cultures and experiences *do it*... Yeah, they could learn a lot. As far as I know, there are no known casualties here and even if we were all to get together face to face, I'd go on record of sayin' that there wouldn't be any casualties there either.

Maybe the leaders need a web site? Seriously...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:34 PM

That's cool with me. I can say the same about you, Ireland. One of the things I appreciate about this forum is that we slowly do learn more respect for those of different viewpoints as we talk things over. At least I hope so.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:34 PM

It's not on until the 17th haven't missed it after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:29 PM

Garbage I wanted to see that too, McG of H.I'm off to bed see ya later.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:20 PM

LH I'm not taking you for an idiot, I'm happy to carry on but with the understanding that I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you in any way.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:14 PM

In what way did they mass murder tens of thousands of Kenyans?

Read here - - this is an article tied in to a documetary ("Kenya: White Terror") shown on BBBC2 this week.

Dramatic evidence has been unearthed of such systematic British brutality in the former colony of Kenya that it may require the rewriting of imperial history. Hitherto secret files show that the then colonial secretary, Alan Lennox Boyd, sanctioned a policy of violence towards interned guerrilla suspects...

...Professor Elkins says the scale of suffering and death was far higher than previously thought and the Kikuyu death toll could have been as high as 50,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 06:55 PM

Ireland - Where do you get the idea that a country which doesn't frequently fight with its neighbours would necessarily have forces with "no combat experience"... or, even in that case, with no ability to fight effectively if attacked? The Finns fought very effectively against the Russians in '39, and they did not need the experience of prior attack upon their neighbours to do it. Canada has fought very effectively in several wars without having launched pre-emptive attacks on anybody. The army that Canada sent into the 2 world wars was pretty much an amateur army without prior combat experience, but they fought magnificently. There are numerous other examples. What you need to fight well is patriotic fervour, good modern equipment, and good training (especially of the officers).

"LH is Bush and Blair not doing this?" [consulting their "best" available advisors, as I recommended]. Yeah, sure they are. Absolutely. I just don't happen to agree with their conclusions based on those consultations, that's all.

A common mistake made in most debates by most people is the assumption that the guys on the other side of the debate are idiots who don't have a clue what they're talking about...I am not inclined to make that assumption, Ireland, and I hope you're not inclined to make it about me either, just cos we may arrive at different conclusions about what's best to do. Intelligent and capable people often differ as to what is the best course of action in any given situation.

Where they err is in their assumption that anyone who doesn't see it their way is a dummy or an enemy or both. Not necessarily so.

Differences in opinion are usually the result of key differences in BASIC BELIEFS about life...or differences in personal background, religion, culture, race, political affiliation, etc. (BASIC BELIEFS). A different working philosophy, in other words.

The longer we talk, I suspect the more we will find that both of us are quite rational thinkers, but are proceeding from a different philosophical basis which functions at a deeper level than mere surface events.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 06:32 PM

In what way did they mass murder tens of thousands of Kenyans?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 06:24 PM

Is it rational for a leader to gas its citizens,I think Saddam based on that fits into the irrational category above,but there is our difference in opinion.

Wicked, yes, but not irrational, unless being wicked is irrational. These were citizens who didn't want to be citizens, Kurds who had welcomed the Iranians as liberators (which they were). It's not at all rare to find governments all over the world who aren't toobeen too worried about killing their own citizens when they are seen as "the enemy within". When the French murdered tens of thousands of Algerians, they were killing their own fellow-citizens. And when
the British murdered tens of thousands of Kenyans, they were killing fellow-subjects of the Queen.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 06:09 PM

I would call on the experience and expertise of whoever in my own military, intelligence, and political ranks I most trusted and had confidence in, based on prior experience. I would bear their advice in mind, use my own judgement as best I could, and try to make the best decisions accordingly. Those decisions would depend on the particular situation involved.

LH is Bush and Blair not doing this? Because Bush and Blair come across as airheads does not mean their advisors are.

Where would your military advisors and military personnel get their experience from,would you be using soldiers who have no combat experience. Considering you do not advocate war you would presumably have a country with no combat experience. Would you feel comfortable in using military advisors from allies who have such experience?

Is it rational for a leader to gas its citizens,I think Saddam based on that fits into the irrational category above,but there is our difference in opinion.

Your example of Japan taking the war to America is the perfect your dammed if you do/don't example. FDR was applying sanctions to Japan, America far out weighed Japans might but still they attacked. The point is there is no real logic in war, what people think they would not do is the very thing that happens. History is full of such example's from Troy who would have thought of soldiers being in the horse? up to the colonies taking on mighty England and Napoleon fighting the half of Europe. Should we not learn from this?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Peter T.
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:42 PM

I think the idea that Daniel Ellsberg was treasonous is amusing. For giving aid and comfort to the Vietcong? Presumably the New York Times should be put up against a wall and shot as well.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:40 PM

Your right debacle was a wrong word to use,just because I do not agree with does not mean I have to run it down, it means something to others.

You should know that all war dead are remembered on Remembrance Sunday not just the military,so I was not referring just to soldiers.

Mary has said it for me in her above post,and I believe guest is well summed up in the last line.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:39 PM

Ireland - Well, let me try and answer your question, which was: "How would you do that LH [*defend a country I was in charge of],what experience would you use whose expertise would you call on? If you had intel of a foreign country wanting to attack yours, would you stike first?

There is no one simple answer to that, Ireland. Every single case is unique.

It is when people insist that there IS one simple answer to a generalized question, one panacea for all cases, that they go seriously astray and become idealogues (or religious fanatics).

So, I would have to access the situation according to its own unique qualities, and decide on that basis what to do.

I would call on the experience and expertise of whoever in my own military, intelligence, and political ranks I most trusted and had confidence in, based on prior experience. I would bear their advice in mind, use my own judgement as best I could, and try to make the best decisions accordingly. Those decisions would depend on the particular situation involved.

If directly assaulted by foreign military forces, I would issue orders for as vigorous a defence as my own forces were capable of...that again would depend upon the unique conditions involved, and I would mobilize the entire country as effectively as possible in every way to resist the attack.

If assaulted by terrorist forces, I would treat it not as a "war" in the normal sense (that is, a war between nations), but as a civil crime...and I would use all possible means of intelligence and police work FIRST to determine who was directly or indirectly responsible, THEN all means of negotiation and peaceful influence with other countries (if necessary) to track down those responsible and capture them...AND...I would try and resolve whatever had caused the overall situation in the first place which led to people having such hard feelings as to resort to terrorism! I would not respond to a terrorist attack by launching a conventional war upon another nation. I don't consider that an appropriate or (in the end) a useful response to terroriam. One may achieve an emotionally satisfying temporary victory and mollify one's feelings of outrage by such means, but one will NOT end terrorism but only encourage further acts of terrorism in the future by so doing.

The last part of your question: If I had reason to believe that another country was planning to attack my country, would I launch a pre-emptive strike (a war) on that country?

Almost certainly not, except in a VERY unusual situation. I would prepare my own defences in the most judicious way possible, to the extent that the other country would be VERY unlikely to even consider attacking me...knowing that it would lead to their own defeat.

Again, however, each situation is unique. If my country were smaller and weaker, then no amount of preparedness might prove sufficient to deter an aggressor (consider the case of Finland vs Russia in 1939...). If so, neither would a pre-emptive strike work. In such a case one hunkers down like the Finns did, prepares for the worst, and fights like hell when the attack comes. The Finns did that, and they seriously embarrassed the Russian army, but lost part of their land eventually to the large foe. They did the best they could. That's all anyone can do under those circumstances.

If you are enormously more powerful than your presumed foe...as is the USA compared to Iraq...then it is not necessary to launch a pre-emptive attack unless your foe is totally irrational and insane, and capable of hitting you hard, and will attack regardless of his own inevitable defeat and destruction. This is a very unlikely situation. So unlikely that it is almost inconceivable.

I do not believe Saddam is that irrational, nor do I think that he is capable of being a real threat to the USA. I do think he is capable of menacing a certain number of people (mostly within his own borders at this point), but so does the USA menace a certain number of people in the world (quite regularly), and the USA seems to feel that it's OKAY when they do it. This is hypocrisy...or it's simply an inability to see outside the "box" of one's own cultural identity.

I repeat, I do not consider an isolated terrorist attack to be adequate justification for launching a conventional war on a small country. I do consider it to be a handy excuse for such a war, however. A very handy one.

As every situation is unique...yes, I can imagine a hypothetical situation where I would at least consider a first strike on a potential attacker...but the reasons for it would have to be FAR more compelling than any that Mr Bush has come up with yet vis-a-vis Iraq.

I have not yet seen a case where such action was justified. The Japanese considered their attack on Britain and America to be just such a "justified" and pre-emptive first strike, by the way. They felt that war had already BEEN launched upon them in 1941 through economic and trade moves by FDR...and in the sense of realpolitik they were absolutely correct in that assessment. This did not, however, justify their launching a military first strike, in my opinion. They were in the pickle they were in due to their own prior aggression upon China, which was no one's fault but their own.

What you are asking for is the moral right to go ahead and do essentially what the Japanese did on Dec 7/41. At least that's how it looks to me...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:32 PM

Thanks for link, Doug. I don't have NPR bookmarked; call me a Luddite, but I tend to listen to the radio on the actual RADIO. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:25 PM

Bobert, this thread is a continuation of guest getting rumbled by others where guest was insulting vets, in no way was this a separate issue at all.

Guest has made some disgusting statements and claims at the same time keeping anonymity so they can deny their own words. Guest Big Mick rumbled you.

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.

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

The next time we have to defend ourselves against whoever, what means do people suggest we use, attack them with prose,anti war poems or demonstrate the life out of them.

George Harrison shouted Hari Krishna at the person who attacked him,it did not stop the attack nor awakened the love of God in his attactors heart and mind. Harrison had to fight back to protect his life and that of his family,was he wrong did he break some anti war or pacifist code? Was he a fool to fight?

When Hitler decided to go on his rampage,would there have been an alternative way to stop him? I see no politician who would have instigated the war just to forward his/her career, to suggest so is crass and arrogance. Arrogance in the fact that we have hind sight to sit,in times of relative peace, and point fingers at those who HAD to take decisions in the time of war. Crass that people think someone would really want that responsibility without using others means to avoid war.

Japan as we all know initiated war with America, would a couple of protester's sailing between the Japanese navy al a green peace mode, have stopped them attacking the American fleet at Midway? Can anyone come up with an alternative strategy to the one that was took.

How would Australia or Hawaian Islands have handled the invasion by Japan if they had mounted a successful one. Considering the barbaric treatment meted out to those over run by the Japanese army I'm sure these people would not have wasted time on protesters. And Hare krishna chanting would not have awakened the love of God in their hearts and minds.


"and soldiers, mostly fools", I'll agree with this, yes they were mostly fools for giving their all, for what,some ingrate to quote such tripe and believe it.

Who stands up to the aggressor? Who is willing to hare Krishna the attacker while they take lives? George Harrison tried it and it nearly got him killed, until he turned the aggressor himself.

I mean no offence to the followers of krishna and apologise if I have caused any.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:47 AM

Well, now we have nukes to play brinkmanship with. So what happens when our nation decides, and it will, probably much sooner than any of us cares to think, to throw negotiations out the window, and just nuke the nation we don't like?

No, we need to study and commit ourselves to non-violent means of working out our disagreements, and of containing empires and despots. War isn't the answer now, and it won't be in the future. The costs to societies are much too high, and the payback doesn't justify it.

42 million people are uninsured in this country. Schools are overcrowded and underfunded, and fewer and fewer middle and low income families can afford to send kids to college each year. Affordable housing doesn't exist in most major metro areas where the urban poor are concentrated. Police and fire departments, the coast guard--all woefully underfunded.

There are so many social demands for government tax dollars that are going unmet, just to fund the bloated military industrial complex, which does very little to enhance the military security of our citizentry. As a nation, we won't be able to ignore those problems forever, if we wish to retain the standard and quality of life we have. There is no security for a citizenry besieged by the problems being ignored, because it just puts the problems in our neighborhoods, in our schools, on our streets.

We might be vulnerable to terrorist attacks in certain parts of the US, but that is inevitable in this day and age. What we aren't in danger of is invasion. The genuine security issues the nation faces have been put aside by fear mongerers, to further the economic and power interests of the securocrats.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST,Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:23 AM

History, n.: An account, mostly false, of events, mostly
unimportant, brought about by rulers, mostly knaves,
and soldiers, mostly fools.
       Ambrose Bierce

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Davetnova
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:08 AM

It often seems to me that the only reason for war is to secure our leaders a place in history. I would think that most people can name the leadres their country had in times of war but who can name the leader whose term of office was marked by peace prosperity and absolutely no crisis at all. Our leaders need crisis and war to justify their extremely expensive existance. They are the ones who say WE must fight and I am the right person to send YOU to die so that others may remember ME.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:58 AM

LH, the requirement for imposition of unconditional surrender on all of the Axis powers was agreed and set by the Allied heads of governments much earlier in the war. The option to negotiate individually did not exist and would not have been countenanced. Stalin's Russia did not declare war on Japan until the early part of 1945.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 04:52 PM

In 1944 negotiation would have worked with Japan. It was never tried. The Japanese tried, attempting to send messages through Stalin, but Stalin did not pass those messages on to the British and Americans. He had plans to attack Japan as soon as Germany was disposed of, so he could grab lands in Asia. Nevertheless, the American secret services were aware of the Japanese desire to negotiate, but they also chose to ignore pursuing anything BUT unconditional surrender (which was virtually unthinkable to the Japanese mentality at the time...national death seemed preferable to them).

Why did America insist on unconditional surrender? Was it sheer arrogance and hubris? Was it a habitual pattern ever since Ulysses S. Grant? Was it an assumption of complete moral superiority? Or was it a desire to use their atomic weapons under actual battlefield conditions while the opportunity to do so was still there...without any risk to the user? Or was it all of those?

Had the negotiated surrender occurred, the Japanese military would have been utterly ruined in the eyes of the Japanese public (as happened anyway), and Japan would undoubtedly have embarked on another period of civilian government...and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved.

But the unanswered question is: would the A-bomb have then been used somewhere else...such as in Korea? Quite possibly. So maybe we got off lucky...in a sense.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Kim C
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 04:31 PM

Negotiation is always the first, and best, option. But what do you do when that doesn't work?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 04:19 PM

War never HAS to occur...prior to the first shot. Someone decides on that first shot. It's after that first shot that war becomes unavoidable for a whole lot of people.

That's why it's best to give a great deal of thought to deciding whether or not to fire the first shot.

Most wars of aggression have been arranged in order to convince the public of the aggressor that the "other guys" fired the first shot. Japan's war in China in the 30's was launched through such a ruse. So was Hitler's attack on Poland, which brought about the Second World War. So was America's large scale intervention in Vietnam and her war on Spain in 1898. Etc...etc...etc... All of these were trumped up ruses...or fortuitous circumstances (the battleship Maine most likely blew up in Havana harbour due to her own ammunition magazine exploding from unstable ammunition...NOT due to any action by the Spanish).

It's usually quite easy to convince a given public that the other guys shot first. A cinch, in fact. But it may not fool too many people in other nations...

When will the death of a few justify the further death of many? Ask yourself that before launching a war.

When is a negotiated surrender of the losing side preferable to unconditional surrender and total humiliation of them? Ask yourself that before dropping atomic bombs on people.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Kim C
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 12:59 PM

I believe that most people want peace. But I also know, because history has proven it, that sometimes war has to occur before peace can be won.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 12:15 PM

Well said, Jed.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: JedMarum
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 10:16 AM

But most people are better balanced then you, Guest. Most people do not suffer the conflict that you do, over matters of import such as these. Do not presume that the angst you feel is universal and typical of human nature - and therefore worthy of public debate. You are simply missing the intellectual tools and spiritual stability that others around you have.

You stand in the shadows and preach to us anonomously because you know that these shortcomings are real. You know that we will recognize your failings instantly and we will discount your comments immediatley - you are right. But you are wrong in assuming we will pay more attention to you when you remain anonomous.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 09:47 AM

You are very welcome. For me, it touches on the conflicted feelings many people have when they don't support a war, but can't quite figure out a way to pay the personal social costs of fighting against it, which is actually the opposite of what this person is describing. This sermon is told from the perspective of a lay person in a congregation where the "paradigm of pacifism" is perceived by him as being unwelcoming to veterans.

I find that to be a very common misperception among people trying to do peace work, who fear the wrath of some Vietnam Vets for not caring about them. I personally don't have that fear of being judged, but perhaps that is because I'm Catholic, and despite there being a very strong anti-war movement in the Catholic community--there were leaders like the Berrigans, and others who were at the forefront of the anti-war movement--the Catholic community as a whole (there are always exceptions) didn't seem to have a problem welcoming the vets back. But there were many Catholic vets who refused to return to the Catholic community in New York where I lived, when they got home, my dad among them. But many of them have either returned to the church now, or at least to what my dad calls "the secular Catholic community"! ;-) Glad someone took the time to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 06:50 PM

That is quite a remarkable, little essay. There is quite a lot to which one must give serious thought. Thank you for posting it.

Subject: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 11:04 AM

The Courage of Your Convictions (Wounded Warriors)
Berrien UU Fellowship
Veteran's Day, November 12, 2000
© 2000 Matthew S. Cockrum

I was twenty years old and a sophomore in college when Operation "Desert Shield" became "Desert Storm" and was officially declared a war. I can clearly remember hearing the news when someone came to play practice that night, telling us that it had been made official. Later that same evening, I sat on my couch in my dorm room, smoking a cigarette and staring out at the night sky…listening to the television in the background reporting as events unfolded. I was hearing about how units of the National Guard were going to be called into service. I was thinking about who I knew that would be going.

But most of all, there was one thought that was slamming repeatedly into my conscience -

"You should go, Matt."

Simple as that.

"You should go."

I was scared to death. What should I do? The year before I had toyed with the idea of joining the Marines but had backed out of a scheduled meeting with the recruiter. Was this my "second chance"?

All of my life I knew the military. My father had ascended to the rank of Major in the Air Force before being passed over and forced into retirement. He was in Vietnam when I was born, a pilot flying reconnaissance missions. Intercepting enemy messages and attempting to determine their whereabouts.

His father is an Air Force veteran of Korea and World War II. Two of his three siblings served in the Navy. My dad offered both my sister and me to use part of our college funds to buy us new cars if we joined the military immediately after high school and then went to college.

We both refused. My own decision based largely upon a distaste for the military that I perceived had spoiled my family, my father and, for that matter, the world. Me? In the military? Armed service? Never!

So why was I sitting there, two years later, feeling like I ought to go into the service? That duty called me to go fight in a foreign land for causes I did not understand?

Confused, concerned, and - frankly - a little bit cranky that I was being forced to consider these issues at all, I walked across campus the next day only to discover another surprise.

While I had been sitting in my room, pondering and puzzling, a group of students had organized a candlelight peace rally on the campus green. Their picture took up half of the front page of the school paper. And right smack dab in the middle of that picture was one of my closest friends. I don't remember exactly what the caption read but I imagine it said something about concerned students gathering to protest the newly declared war in the Middle East.

I can't remember ever having felt so proud
So ashamed
So enraged
And so confused all at once.

Here I was, worrying about having to go off to war. In the meantime, a friend of mine attended a peace rally and stood out in front of cameras to demonstrate that she didn't support what was going on.

It wasn't that I wished I had been at that rally. And it wasn't that I wished I could have been in the gulf already…although that might have been closer to the truth at that time. What the problem was, was that I didn't feel like I fully belonged in either place. I couldn't see myself at the rally, singing and chanting for peace. But I also couldn't fully see myself marching off to battle in a war I didn't believe in.

I felt caught
Stuck In-between
Without place

I imagine that's what Veteran's Day does for some folks in our churches. I imagine that my own sense of disorientation and, honestly, fear of judgement might be felt by other folks. It's not always easy - even within our churches which claim to affirm the use of conscience - to express an opinion that is perceived to be unpopular or not in line with the majority…or something that might run contrary to the views or experiences of another. Having stalwart pacifists and staunch military veterans in the same gathering of any type - UU or otherwise - is bound to create tension. Add in there the event of Veteran's Day and you're just asking for trouble.

So…what do we do?

Well, we could just ignore it. Maybe it would go away if we pretend it's not there. Some of us have tried that with Easter and Christmas and it doesn't seem to be working. Troublesome issues do not disappear when we avoid them. Determining their meanings in our lives and our times, however, is another thing entirely.

I think another solution is in order. I think we need to engage Veteran's Day. I believe that a critical examination and a careful honoring of Veteran's Day will benefit all involved in the long run.

Here's why:

First of all, Veteran's Day, in our time, and perhaps far into the future is and will be about military service. I believe that there is something honorable about that. That there is something worthwhile to be celebrated, named and explored. And that is the first part of my goal today.

Secondly, I believe that we can accept this as a challenge to look at our lives and the ways in which we struggle for the courage to be the heroes that our convictions call us to be.

There are tensions here, to be sure. But these differing viewpoints are not irreconcilable. As a matter of fact, they might be complementary. If we are patient, understanding and serious about listening to one another, I believe that it is within this tension that we can find the creative energy to be harnessed for transformation, healing and wholeness. This is a project worthy of the attention of religious community.

In pursuit of my first goal, the honoring of veterans as those with military experience, I think it is essential to look at what we think we know about someone when we hear that he or she is a veteran. As with any other general category of people, there are many stereo-types about veterans of the armed forces…some positive and some negative. Patriotic, strong, war-mongers, aged, courageous, brave, violent and authoritarian are just a few. I think that within our congregations, where a paradigm of pacifism seems to reign, the negative stereotypes are often those most immediately heard and sensed. If I were a veteran, I imagine that I wouldn't want to even acknowledge that part of myself when I entered the doors of my UU church. It would be like walking into a room and feeling like I had to hide the fact that I was gay, or a republican, or a Christian, or taking medication to treat mental illness. Being a veteran is not the complete and total defining attribute of a person. But it does certainly tell us some things about them.

What does it tell us? The title of veteran, by definition, tells us that someone has experience. In this context, we know that the convictions of these persons have led them to enter the military service of our country. Ideally, I think, this service is about protection, peace, justice and democracy…values expressly stated in our own UU principles and purposes.

At times, the title of veteran indicates that someone has served in the military service overseas and even in a time of armed conflict or war. What does this tell us?

I believe that this tells us that these persons felt so strongly that they were willing to risk their lives in the service of, not only their country, but their convictions and ideals. I believe that this is the prevalent motivator leading folks into the service of their country in the military. I believe that it is this ideal that we can claim, name and honour on Veteran's Day. We do the same for civil rights activists, peace activists, and other agents of social change. I believe it is honorable, admirable and worthy of praise.

Nonetheless, I do not fully understand it. I cannot completely embrace it. I have yet to replicate or embody it in my own life. But I know that it is buried within me somewhere and it surfaces at times like that night in my dorm room in 1991.

Neither, however, could I fully understand or embrace the actions of my passionate pacifist friend on that same evening. Granted, she was not directly in the line of fire that night at the candlelight vigil. She was not obviously putting her life in jeopardy. She was however, strengthened by courage to act on her convictions. And this is where the second part of my proposition comes into play.

How, in our own lives, are we veterans? How are we warriors in the battles of our lives? Am I the only one here who sometimes falls short of my ideals? I want so desperately to have the courage and strength to live out firey convictions. But I seldom feel as though I am coming through. I often don't even know where to start.

I think our readings today have something to say about this. And they bring me to not only an explanation of this question but also to the ground whereupon this discussion becomes religious.

First, let us look to the words of the writer of Ephesians. The recipients of this letter are encouraged to "put on the armor of God" in order to contend with wickedness and principalities of destruction. What is this armor? Truth. Righteousness. Faith. Salvation. Spirit. And…peace.

Ironically, we are told to don the garment of peace in order to do battle. Where does this peace reside? The author says, "…having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace." Hence, we are to walk in peace. Somehow, we are to make peace while being ready for battle. And our defenses are those of truth and faith, righteousness, salvation and spirit.

We are talking about struggle. The religious life is one of struggle. The language of struggle is often one of battle or warfare. Some who may be ardent advocates for peace would rally behind the "war" on drugs or the "war" on poverty and the "battle" for civil rights. Struggle exists. It is a struggle for peace. It is a religious issue. And in any struggle there are those engaged in the battle. There are those whose convictions, fed by courage, have led them to take action. I believe that Veteran's Day honors that.

Our second reading today calls us to take a step back and look at the wounds of war in another way, by bringing to our consciousness another wounded one… the veteran.

The words of poet, James Dickey, call our attention to how his experience impacts the way he plays the guitar and watches his children swim and climb. It's impact, like shattered glass, "small, but with world-fury". The jagged pieces have spread throughout his life…shimmering, glinting in moonlight when he least expects them…burning like poison… "coming over me year after year," he says, "I lie with it well under cover, the war of the millions"

Well under cover.

Is this the way we want those, both inside and out, of our congregations to feel about choices that they made, in the service of what they thought was right…what they may still think is right? Do we want them to feel the need to hide this aspect of themselves when they walk through the doors of our churches, societies and fellowships? Would we ask the same of someone who wanted the church to be a sanctuary for refugees? Or to perform gay and lesbian weddings? Or to sponsor a politically sensitive, anti-oppression training?

My answer is no.

And further, I think this can provide us with an opportunity to do exactly what it is that I believe religion and religious community is about…healing. We bring ourselves to this place each and every week to make sense of our lives…to struggle and search for meaning. We come, sometimes joyous and dancing and sometimes limping, barely able to squeak out "good morning". And what we bring…

…is ourselves…

We are all searching…together…for peace…healing …and wholeness...individually and collectively…at a local, national and global level. At least that's what my understanding of the religious quest is about. And asking someone to leave a part of their experience at the door is asking them to leave part of themselves outside of the quest for wholeness. It is an impossible task. It defeats the very purpose of our common religious quest.

I welcome you, veterans of life and of military service who have enough courage to bravely act for what they believe is right, even at great personal risk and harm. I admire you, I celebrate you, and I thank you. Not only for the changes you make in the world, but also for the encouragement you are to me…to do the same.