AlterNet: Starting a Ruckus Was the Right Thing to Do
They don’t get to make movies or talk to a billion people on Oscar night. They are the American majority who are being asked to send their sons and daughters over to Iraq to possibly die so Bush’s buddies can have the oil.
Who will speak for them if I don’t? That’s what I try to do, every day of my life, and March 23 – though it was one of the greatest days of my life and an honor I will long cherish – was no different.
There he goes again – - speaking for the masses. People have written to me wondering why we think the Follywood crowd is pretentious enough to feel they speak for America? Well, there ya have it – - Mr. Moore, in his own words, stating that he speaks for the majority of Americans. Has he taken a poll? Has he spoken, personally, to the majority of America? He has a really bad habit of making up ‘facts’ as he goes along ~ typical, however, for the land of fiction.
I can’t say this enough – he, and others like him, do not speak for me.
I agree with you, Mo — none of these people really seem to have a solution, celebrity or otherwise! And even if they don’t come right out and say it, you can tell that this is indeed the case.
Sorry about the double-post, btw — I know I critique spammers a bit, but in my case I couldn’t tell whether or not it was going through, so I hit the “Send”-button more than once!
While all this bantering back and forth has been fun, it has become tiresome. It’s too bad that within this great country of great people, we can’t all come together during this time of war and support those men and woman who are defending it, our true hero’s. Put aside your political agenda’s, forget that you are a democrat or a republican, and just for a minute think of yourself as an American. Be proud of the country you live in and treat each other with respect and dignity. After all, that is really what is important. Today a POW was rescued, and I hope all the rest will be able to come home soon. It makes me sad that one soldier or one civilian has to die, but I support them and I hope this great nation that we live in will strengthen. I would like to end this on a quote for Pearl S Buck: “None who have always been free can understand the terrible fascinating power of the hope of freedom to those who are not free”
Well, Michael Moore does speak for me.
Shame on Bush. He wasn’t legally elected (not really, let’s be honest here) and he is spending billions of dollars on a pointless war when money for our kids’ education is getting cut and cut and cut, our own people are starving, unemployment is sky high and the economy is in the toilet.
And now Dick Cheney’s ole company, Halliburton, gets the Iraq cleanup job without even going through a bidding process.
Now, that’s an administration to be proud of!
It’s very interesting how a paragraph is left out of the Michael Moore article which your site gives reference to. For those of you looking for accurancy, please read further. I would also like to note that it saddens me how much hatred has been spewed. Everyone seems to want to prove that their side is just. When will we understand that no one wins this…
Missing paragraph from M. Moore’s letter (it seems he has quite a few like-minded supporters):
My book “Stupid White Men” still sits at No. 1 on the bestseller list (it’s been on that list now for 53 weeks and is the largest-selling nonfiction book of the year). “Bowling for Columbine” has broken all box-office records for a documentary. My Web site is now getting up to 20 million hits a day (more than the White House’s site). My opinions about the state of the nation are neither unknown nor on the fringe, but rather they exist with mainstream majority opinion. The majority of Americans, according to polls, want stronger environmental laws, support Roe vs. Wade and did not want to go into this war without the backing of the United Nations and all of our allies.
That is where the country is at. It’s liberal, it’s for peace and it is only tacitly in support of its leader because that is what you are supposed to do when you are at war and you want your kids to come back from Iraq alive.
that doesn’t prove a thing to me, I don’t take a quote from Michael Moore to be the truth.
and jenny? ever hear of the electoral college? it really is quite legal, in fact we’ve been using it every election for quite some time now…
Cake –
I don’t believe we ‘left out’ anything from Michael Moore’s quote – - quite the contrary, I do believe we provided a link to the entire thing – didn’t we?
You say the country is liberal? I say the recent Senate elections disprove that.
You say the liberals tacfully follow our President because it’s a time of war? I say, by and large – there is nothing tactful about what 1/2 the liberals in this country are doing. (T. Daschle, P. Arnett are good tactless liberal examples).
No one wants war. Everyone wants peace. I think that is something we all have in common. The difference lies in the acceptance of the inevitability and necessity of this war.
Please explain a ‘peaceful’ way of disarming Saddam and removing him from power?
Yes, cake, jenni, all against this war, please explain a peaceful way to remove saddam…
Sorry you guys but I do not think you will get an answer. It has been asked numerous times. All they can come you with is what we did then. I would like that answer too. What could have been done that wasn’t already?
I’m going to try and tackle the question of what might have been done differently. First, though, we have to establish the stated aims of the Bush administration.
1)Disarm Iraq
2)Remove Saddam Hussein from power
3)Free the Iraqi people (somewhat redundant, in light of #2, but perhaps they mean to remove the entire Baath party as well)
4)Install democracy
It is worth noting that discussions and resolutions within the UN centered around #1 (the assumption being that disarmed, Saddam Hussein would no longer have posed a threat to anyone).
Now, as far as the success of the UN sanctions is concerned, the various American administrations in place since 1991 have to take a good deal of responsibility for Saddam’s non-compliance. Why? Because their message to Iraq was totally inconsistent. On the one hand, the UN resolutions spoke quite clearly of requiring total disarmament before the lifting of sanctions. The American gov’t echoed this, but on occasion, would add that they wanted Saddam out as well. What kind of a message does that give old Saddam? Assuming that he’s a paranoid, power-mad fiend, is he likely to let go of his remaining arsenal if he knows that America will not be satisfied until he is killed or deposed? No. He was probably correct in his assumption that he might need them some day to defend his own personal a$$ against American aggression.
It’s possible, had America remained consistent with UN demands, that Iraq would have complied. Of course, that possibility now lays buried in a heap of smouldering rubble at the heart of Baghdad.
For the poster above, thanks for trying to explain why we shouldn’t have gone to war. But here is my question, wasn’t 12 years enough? How much longer should we have waited?
Linda,
I was not so much trying to explain “why we shouldn’t have gone to war” as how America might have avoided it. My point was that the Bush, Clinton and Bush jr. administrations did the world (and American troops) a huge disservice by hi-jacking the sanctions early on. I would postulate that this was a strategic move to deter Iraqi compliance with the UN resolutions. How would such a move benefit long-term American policy? Because a disarmed Iraq would leave Saddam Hussein impotent and the UN could then declare Iraq open for business once again. However, Saddam would be unlikely to award American oil companies with drilling rights – in fact, the Chinese, French and Russians had already negotiated post-sanction deals divvying up the bulk of Iraq’s reserves.
Only by removing and replacing Saddam could the Americans guarantee themselves a share in the oil – the lion’s share. Now I’m certain that the Chinese, French and Russians had their own national interests in mind when debating within the UN security council the legitimacy of an attack . Just as the American administration does presently. The difference is that the oil rights of the former were negotiated peacefully, whereas America is prepared to lay seige to the country (and its neighbours) in order to make a buck.
Go to the New American Century site and read their material related to the Middle East (For those who aren’t familiar with them, they are a Washington-based special interest group founded by, among others, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle). You might in fact agree with much of their mandate, but pay attention to the fact that they again and again make reference to “protecting American interests” in the area. In plain language, that means ensuring that America has unfettered access to and control of the region’s oil. What they forget is that the oil is not theirs to decide the fate of. Nor is the world.
“But here is my question, wasn’t 12 years enough? How much longer should we have waited?”
In answer to your question, Linda, I would paraphrase what Bush is now saying about the war: until the job is done. If it is somehow acceptable to subject the Iraqi people to full-scale war for an indefinite period of time until Saddam Hussein is assassinated or deposed, why would it not also have been acceptable to subject the Iraqi government to further inspections until the goal of disarmament was acheived. Perhaps the American government could have invested money in food aid and water treatment programs until such time as the inspections were complete, thus alleviating the suffering of the people.
I have some of the answers to that question, nicn:
Because it’s much quicker to get rid of the evil dictator thus alleviating the need for the iraqi civilians’ PROLONGED and INTENTIONAL oppression at the hands of their own government. Still confused?
Also, do you really think Saddam’s regime distibuted it’s weath and basic necessities fairly? And do you really think if we handed Saddam a bunch of money or food that he would really distribute it fairly,(which if the Iraqi government was doing its job properly we wouldn’t have to do…)?
Thanks M well put. We have given the man 12 years to disarm. He did some disarming sure, by using Chemicals on his own people. Shoots people rapes people. Puts them through wood chippers. If we were dealing with a sane man then I would say yes give him more time.. This is a man that allows his people to die and takes pleasure in it. I am not trying to be rude, but you need to come back to reality here. Is it Christan and moral to stand back and allow this. You as a Christain, I would think would see this. Everyone brings up the past. It is not the people of Iraq’s fault that the USA sold this. So we need to go there and fix what is wrong, especially if you say that we created it. Why should we sit by and allow this to continue? I do not understand the reasoning of anti war. You say because of the innocent, what about the innocent at the hand of Saddam.
m & Linda,
You may well be right that a military attack would be a faster way of disarming Iraq and ridding the Iraqi people of the threat that Saddam poses them. But one can’t ingnore the fact that such an attack has its own costs. Roadways, bridges, government buildings, public television and radio (protected under the Geneva convention), electrical infrastructure, water treatment plants (also protected), legitimate military capabilities, hospitals, schools, marketplaces, homes, businesses – all obliterated. But nevermind that. With the exception of buildings of religious, historical or sentimental significance, all of this can be replaced. Brothers, cousins, best friends, daughters, neighbours, legs, vision, sanity – are absolutely irreplaceable. Gone. Forever.
Suppose the world were to decide that America in its present form poses too great a threat to world peace (this is not so far from the truth) and that regime change was necessary: Would you prefer a slow, but methodical weapons inspection and disarmament strategy accompanied by trade sanctions, or would you prefer a massive military assault on every border and coastline, risking enormous loss of life and damage to property? Take time to answer this one, remembering that the psychological stress of facing death and destruction on all sides will likely change your life forever.
But you know what? This is all hypothetical. It’s too late to discuss the what-ifs. What I would like to know is what you believe the consequences of this war will be (middle east relations, trade relations with Europe, the future of the UN, the likelihood of terrorism, your freedom to travel abroad, etc.) And how do you, as supporters of this war, propose to deal with such consequences? I am sincerely interested in hearing your ideas.
America is busy paving a brand new road in world relations. Has anyone yet looked up from the asphalt long enough to see where that road might be leading?
Strangely, I came across this discussion through Michael Moore’s website. I’d first like to congratulate “Not in Christ’s name” for very impressive, intelligent, and well considered messages, which are difficult to find in this discussion. It seems that those who oppose the current war and voice their opinion here, where they are a minority due to the people this website overwhelmingly attracts (that is, intolerant pro-war Americans who boycott the services of those who do not share their views), are quickly blasted down with the accusation that if they do not support this war, they must support the torture, rape, and murder of innocent Iraqis.
I think that one can only validly make that accusation if the person in question actually says, “I support the torture, rape, and murder of innocent Iraqis”. And no-one who is against this war has said that. I think it’s unfair for intolerant pro-war individuals to project their rigid views and flawed logic (“if you’re against war then you must be for Hussein”) upon others. So please don’t resort to abusing anti-war people if you can’t think of any other way to rebut them.
“Mo” (or “m”, if that’s your new identity) – you never actually answered Jack’s very interesting point. You essentially accused him of being stupid because he couldn’t see the connection you made between Elizabeth Smart’s plight and the current war. Yet you never explained this correlation. Admittedly, I also don’t recognise any correlation, yet I was Dux of my high school and now am an academic scholarship holder at the most prestigious university in my state. (I’m not stupid.) In case you can’t remember Jack’s exact question, he wanted to know, “What does declaring war with hardly any international support and no proven justification on a country whose weapons program we started and supplied, have to do with a dillusional Latter Day Saints follower who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl and attempted to make her his wife?”.
“Mo”, or “m”, I can’t wait for you to enlighten me with your response.
PS: It’s also not a good idea to make sweeping generalisations like, “there’s not a lot of intelligence on the left… I believe if Bush called the sky blue they would be laying in the street whining because they believe the sky is plaid… Really they’re not peace lovers, they’re TERROR SUPPORTERS.” That’s just not true at all. It’s a very ignorant thing to say.
‘interested’ (if that’s the ‘identity’ you’re currently using…),
Ok, since you can’t grasp it I’ll go ahead and spell the correlation out for you, although I’m getting a sense it won’t help you. Here it is….
Elizabeth Smart was being oppressed and harmed and needed help via the physical intervention of professional personnel whose job it is to intervene in these issues among others.
The Iraqi people are being harmed and oppressed and need help via the physical intervention of professional personnel whose job it is to intervene in these issues among others.
One action is being protested by a minority of indiduals and one is not.
Are you still confused?? My guess is yes. But that’s not my problem. Hey I’m not a magician. Good luck with that!
Also, if you’re interfering with our country trying help the Iraqi people have a real future, then what are you if not supporting their terror?? What are you doing to try to stop it?? Nothing?? If not then you have no right to interfere with those who are.
P.S. I have a news flash for you: We ARE at war, you’re not getting your way, and you’re not going to. Stop whining about it.
From reading this discussion, I have come up with two points I would like to put forward to everybody, of both sides of this debate.
1. Very few people are actually “pro-war” or “pro-terrorism/rape/etc” (as ‘Interested’ pointed out.) What I am saying is reinforcing what ‘Interested’ said, only I want to say that it can be applied to both sides. Many of you who think this war is the best option in this situation- most of you seem to agree that war is a horrible thing and you’d rather not have it even though you think it’s the best solution, and although you detest people claiming that you are pro-war, violence, attack, etc… you still seem to think it’s perfectly acceptable to do the same thing to those who have the opposite view. Although you don’t like being labelled as someone who wants a bloody and destructive war, you go ahead and claim that those who don’t share your view, are pro-terror. Well, that’s quite hypocritical too. And those people who are supposedly “pro-terrror” don’t like being labelled as such, don’t seem to mind calling others “pro-war”, even though those people have also claimed that they don’t actually want war- they just support it. Obviously, both sides have disadvantages- that’s how they can be argued against. I think that each side to this argument can acknowledge their own disadvantages, and still keep their view, because obviously neither solution is perfect. So labelling each other based on our own views, is a ridiculous and narrow-minded thing to do.
2. I think it’s also crazily hypocritical to read people on here complaining about Michael Moore saying that he is the majority, and then disputing it by claiming to be the majority themself. If Michael Moore can’t claim that he’s the majority because there has been no world-wide vote, then how do you know that you are the majority? Nobody can claim such a thing, most probably because the majority of people aren’t passionate or convinced enough to have actually publicly announced their views. Many people have rallied against the war; many have expressed their support. But has everybody expressed either one of these opinions? I don’t think so. So, until there is REALLY a valid poll, neither side should be making claims on behalf of the majority.
Besides- is it really the most important thing who the majority actually is? The leaders seem to be making their own decisions without consulting the people, anyway.
Why is this America’s war, and where does september 11 come into Iraq at all? I don’t understand the link. Even if saddam is being a tyrant to his people, why is it up to america to throw him over? isn’t that what the UN is for? and if the UN decided not to, then why can america suddenly decide they have the right, or duty, even, to do so? And why did the focus of september 11 suddenly jump from Osama bin Laden, to Saddam Hussein? Can someone please explain this to me? because it is currently making little sense.
‘m’.
Leader cuts off negotiations. Signals from gov’t are mixed.
You seem to have a mind for observing the parallels between what at first appear to be dissimilar situations, so check this one out: back in February, while the war debate was still raging, I watched a documentary about Waco, Texas on Frontline’s website. Afterwards, I was horrified by what I saw to be the similarities between the Branch Davidian situation and that which Iraq finds itself in. Here are the common elements:
1) A power mad leader and his supporters (some willing, some not).
2) Rumours of a huge cache of weapons.
3) An initial assault by the American state.
4) Assault fails to oust leader, leader lives on.
5) Two government teams work together in a flawed synchronization to arrange leader’s surrender (one team hopes to win through negotiation, the other through force).
6) Negotiations seem to have success. The leader meets some, but not all terms.
7) Limited strikes are used as pressure tactics.
9) Leader is convinced to resume negotiations.
10) Strong divisions between the government teams. The negotiators demand more time.
11) Arbitrary deadline is met and despite negotiators protests, the hardliners attack.
12) Mad leader and his people do not respond as anticipated. Women and children are used as shields. The whole thing goes up in flames. Innocent lives are lost.
13) Oklahoma City, 1995. Sympathizer commits heinous terror attack against American people.
I almost get sick thinking how uncanny the similarities are between the two situations. I just hope to God that events don’t repeat themselves in Baghdad. I recommend people watch the Frontline documentaries on both Waco and Iraq. Chilling.
Thanks, ‘m’, for explaining. I’m still not convinced, as you predicted. I’ll tell you why.
You have broadly simplified both the situation of Elizabeth Smart and the Iraq situation, and when these situations are overly simplified, I do recognise the similarities you pointed out. Yet I believe that the two situations are much more complicated than you make out. So I feel that the broad similarities you point to still can’t be used to conclude that people who don’t view war without UN approval as the best solution for the human rights violations in Iraq, must necessarily support the actions of the man who abducted Elizabeth. However, I’ll still take up your analogy in more detail to show why I don’t understand it.
Elizabeth represents the innocent party, the oppressed Iraq people. The police force and the wider community represent the international community who morally should ensure the welfare of this innocent party. Elizabeth’s oppressor represents Hussein. In both cases, the oppressed party needs liberation, as you said, in the form of “physical intervention”. But (and this is the difference between many pro-war people and many anti-war people) we disagree about what TYPE of “physical intervention” is best.
How was Elizabeth found? Elizabeth’s oppressor, with a disguised Elizabeth, was recognised walking down a street. Police arrived and questioned them. Elizabeth was identified and returned to her parents. This seems to show that violence is NOT necessary for a solution. If the police had found Elizabeth and her oppressor by using armed force to advance through areas where Elizabeth ‘might’ be, killing, capturing, and wounding many who crossed their path, severely wounding Elizabeth herself (the innocent party – the Iraqi civilians), before capturing the oppressor, then your analogy would show that perhaps violence is the best solution. But this was not the case. (Would it be just to severely wound the innocent party in the process of capturing the enemy when viable alternative options existed?) I agree with you that physical intervention is needed; however, I do not interpret “physical” to mean violent, as in a war without UN backing. I interpret “physical” to mean substantial and effective, like the non-violent means that “Not In Christ’s Name” has already outlined.
Also, I’m not interfering with anything, in the sense that I am not stopping any of the war plans from proceeding. Passively expressing an opinion does not necessitate interference. As you said, we are at war, and I am aware that neither my opinion nor yours is going to affect George Bush’s plans in the slightest. I’m not against the Iraqi people having a real future, but I believe a war that defies the UN as well as international opinion is not the best option. That does not mean that I support terrorism. (I said this in my first message anyway.) To answer your postscript, I don’t hold opinions to get my own way – that’s irrelevant to me. If getting my own way were all that mattered, then I would have been pro-war from the beginning, after seeing Bush’s mindset. I express my opinions only when I feel that I am informed enough to defend them.
I’m sorry, ‘m’, if my last message was nasty towards you. I had read 73 messages, most of which I disagreed with, before I wrote what I did. I respect your opinion. I find it interesting to learn about other people’s beliefs (I’m studying Psychology at University). Oh and for the record, when I say ‘pro-war’ I mean those who support this war (not just those who want it), and I was careful to say that not all of these people are intolerant. When I say ‘anti-war’, I mean people who do not support this war, and equally, some, but not all, of these people are intolerant.
Dear Canuk,
You like the F-word don’t you? Makes you feel special (My best church lady voice)??? I do have Iraqi friends and I have looked at this whole war from their eyes, and you know what? They are in full support of it!! They want freedom for their friends and family who are still there!! So Canuk, you and Moore can both go to Iraq along with all of your other Hollywood friends and let the Saddam put ya’all in a Plastic shreaded and rape your sisters and wives!! Then you tell me and the Iraqi people living in the USA that it’s all about oil!!
Oh and by the way, put some soap it it buddy!!
canuk, NO! I voted for him, and so did almost everyone I know-I love Bush, He has the courage to do the right thing whether it’ll make everyone happy or not, he is liberating those people and standing up for America. Whereas some of those European Countries such as Russia, Germany, and France on the other hand have trade agreements with Saddam, some illegal. IT IS ABOUT MONEY FOR THEM.
There’s been plenty of footage of them cheering and laughing, some of them come forward after denouncing America, and say they are so glad America’s there to get rid of Saddam and they couldn’t say so because of the Fedayeen being right there among them watching them.
You need to stop listening to the sore losers who keep whining that they lost the election unfairly. We have an electoral college here in America it’s a system that assignes a representative number of votes to different parts of the country. We have been using this same system for many many years and we’ve all accepted it. If anyone doesn’t agree with that system then they need to try to change it. If you enter into a game with one set of rules, well you can’t change the rules for that play retrospectively if it doesn’t go your way. And YOU BET Bush won fair and square, there’s been NO mistake. Thank god Algore is not president it’s frightening to think if he was.
Please do your research before throwing in your rants, canuk, until then have fun worshipping your, er, hero, Michael Moore. (shudder)
I can not believe that you are making a connection between the enforcement action taken for Elizabeth Smarts captor and Saddam. The action taken against the person that kidnapped Elizabeth Smart were in steps with the “LAWS” set forth by our country. What we are doing in this war has nothing to do with the “LAWS” of our country. So, that analogy can not even be made. It is comparing apples and shoes. They aren’t even both fruits.
Second, I am outraged that everyone here believes that just because someone does not support this war we are in they are accused of being un-american and the general belief is that they do not support the troops.
That could not be further from the truth. I too do not agree with the war. I do not agree with what George Bush has done. However, I have family in Iraq. I wish them well and want them to come home safe and soon.
We are not obligated to believe in what our president does. It is our American duty to speak out and make our voices heard when our loved ones are being sent into a country to fight and possibly lose their lives for his cause.
It is our duty as Americans to look at our neighbors that are being kicked out of their homes because they have lost their jobs in this economy and ask our President what his plans are for rebuilding our country after his war. Where is he going to get the funds he needs to rebuild the countries he is promising economic recovery to. Where is he going to get the funds to keep the schools open, to bring employment back up?
It is our duty as Americans to ask how our President plans on mending the bridges he has burned with going against our allies.
It is our duty as Americans to believe in the Constitution of the United States.
Article the third [Amendment I]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.
Not true susan, you are just trying to find dissimilarities between two things because one seems convenient to you and one doesn’t. And as far as disarming Iraq—UN article 1441.
Yes it is your right if you disagree with this war to say so. However perhaps you’ve noticed there are a LOT of people right now really mad at the abuse of that right such as the following: Vomiting on public property, shutting down major streets and highways, draining police forces and overtime (that costs a lot of money)-especially when we need them the most to be doing other things, some people feel they’re being outright harassed just trying to go about their daily lives. There is nothing in the constitution that provides for that.
If you want to know the one thing of it all that disgusts me the most about some of these protesters, I will tell you: It is general lack of knowledge. About 5 or so days before the war started, one reporter wanted to know if any of the protesters even knew the facts about what they were protesting. He went out on the street with a microphone and a camera. They had signs and indignant, angry looks on their faces. He had a camera man and a microphone and asked them VERY basic questions. Here are some of the things the protesters didn’t know: Which country was at issue, Who was the leader of that country, The fact that the war hadn’t yet started, One girl kept saying, “People are dying!!!”. He said, “Well you do realize that the war hasn’t even started yet, don’t you?”. It was really pretty pathetic.
That does not surprise me at all M. The people on this site that continue to bash anyone that disagrees with their call to arms against Hollywood is a good case in point that you will find people that speak their mind about things where they have no knowledge. Also, a UN Article is different than “The Law”. So there is still no similarity between the two.
There have been several “Support the War” rallies in the town I live in. Is it wrong for them to gather? What about the cost to the police force then? Again, everyone has the right to peaceful assembly as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. It is one of the few thing that we still have the right to as our rights and civil liberties are so quickly being stripped away by Bush’s Homeland Security Act. Your problem is, unless it suits your cause, you disagree with it.
I support those that gather in support of the war. I support those that gather in opposition to the war. What a bunch of lazy Americans we are when we gripe because we are detoured a couple of blocks to bypass the rally or we have to sit in traffic an extra 15 minutes because Americans are choosing to have their voices heard.
The very things you are complaining about are the very things that our troops are over in Iraq losing their lives to fight for. Instead of complaining about people that voice their disagreement with you, you should rejoice that they are able to disagree with you no matter what their opinion is. “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.” Isn’t that what our troops are doing now? How ungrateful you are by not supporting our troops in their fight for freedom by attempting to suppressing any opinions contrary to your own.
susan,
Actually – I agree with a lot of what you have said. Except I do take issue with just a small part of it.
I am speaking for myself here when I say that I (as one of the owners of this website) do not have a personal mission to ‘suppress any opinions contrary to my own”. This website was developed to express my own opinions. Just as those who oppose the war have taken to the streets to block traffic, or like the celebrities who launched their “Virtual March on Washington” – we simply created a website.
We encourage those with opposing viewpoints to speak out. Keep ‘em talking, is what I say – - they have every right…just as I do.
I am not ungrateful at all. Quite the contrary – I am very grateful for our troops, for the freedoms we enjoy in this country and grateful that we have a President who is able to do his job in a way in which I support and agree with.
And just to keep things in check, susan – I do believe there are many users of this website, from all sides of the argument, who do their fair share of ‘bashing’ others with opposing viewpoints.
Thanks.
Yes, Susan, that is what my brother is doing for you, and what every member of my family has done for you for many generations, including my mother.
I truly hope YOU appreciate it.
I know I do. And I know he voted for and LOVES President Bush, as do I, and feels very strongly about his mission. He and his coworkers are disgusted by people who are protesting what they are doing to try to help the Iraqi people.
I know I for one would *NEVER* do *ANYTHING* whatsoever that might question or undermine his mission, while he is in harm’s way, which might be quite some time.
Also, I really don’t know what you’re talking about some imaginary person trying to stop you from protesting…Protest all you want!….But remember….Free speech allows others to express their opinion about it– and we will.
‘m’ & susan,
I would like to clear up a few items with regard to the legality of this war. First of all, ‘m’, UN resolution 1441 cannot be used as a legal justification for the American-led invasion of Iraq because it does not explicitly sanction the use of war. Instead, it warns of “serious consequences”. This terminology does not in any way resemble the language used in previous UN resolutions related to other conflicts. For instance, in the resolutions regarding Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, and Bosnia in the 1990s, the phrases “all necessary means” and “all measures necessary” were used. In all these instances, the Security Council responded to actual invasion, large-scale violence, or humanitarian emergency, not to potential threats.
As well, the final line in the resolution reads “the Security Council shall remain seized of the matter”. This means, that according to international law – to which the USA is subject, mind you – no action may be taken without its consent. Consent which Tony Blair and Colin Powell tried very hard to gain, but ultimately did not receive.
And Susan, the UN is different than “the Law” of the United States of America, but not in the way you might think. It is, in fact, SUPERIOR to the law of the US.
“The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and as such forms part of the “supreme law of the land” under the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The UN Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding states’ conflicting obligations under any other international agreement. (Art. 103, UN Charter)”
This quote was borrowed from a document put together by a Washington-based group of lawyers which investigated the legalities of a conflict with Iraq.
http://www.lcnp.org/global/iraqstatement3.htm
oh yeah, ‘m’,
I forgot to pass this little morsel along. You’ll find that it applies equally to Bush jr. and Clinton, both of whom are guilty of launching undeclared wars without a vote from congress – the only governmental body in the States with the power to do so.
“At Nuremberg, the United States and Britain pressed the prosecution of Nazi leaders for planning and initiating aggressive war. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the head of the American prosecution staff, asserted “that LAUNCHING A WAR OF AGGRESSION IS A CRIME AND THAT NO ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL SITUATION CAN JUSTIFY IT.” He also declared that “if certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO LAY DOWN A RULE OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT AGAINST OTHERS WHICH WE WOULD NOT BE WILLING TO HAVE INVOKED AGAINST US.”
- Walter J. Rockler, Prosecutor at Nuremburg War Crimes Trial
What’s the little Bush boy got himself into?
Actually, NICN, a congressional declaration of war has only been used 5 times in our history. Think of all the wars and military action we’ve taken in other countries….then compare that to this list of wars that actually had a declaration of war from Congress:
A. War of 1812
B. The Mexican War
C. The Spanish-American War
D. World War I
E. World War 11
You can visit this website: http://www.poliedu.net/WarAmericaP2f.shtml for a listing of war and military conflicts that the United States have been directly involved with that did not have, nor did they require, a Congressional Declaration of War.
Sorry to burst your bubble
NICN,
It looks pretty clear to me that “Serious Consequences” is EXACTLY what Saddam’s Regime is getting. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean a slap on the wrist or 12 more years of “diplomacy”. And when Saddam didn’t comply, certain members of the UN failed to follow through.
A lot of good arguements have come up on these posts.
But-
I just don’t understand why everyone is making Bush out to be as bad as Saddam and his regime.
For the past month I have been reading as much as I can read about Saddam and researching the sources that have wrote the info on him.
One story I read about an athelete for Iraq under Uday Hussein made a tear come to my eye.
Saddam is pure evil. Nuclear bombs are pure evil. I know our country sold nuclear arms and so forth. But why don’t some people understand that this man Saddam is a threat to the whole world?
Saddam has been into nuclear arms since 1979 no one can argue that he spends more money on weapons than his own citizens.
George Bush isnt killing people for burning the flag or depriving any American citizens of food.
I don’t understand .
Even Bill Maher said that comparing Bush to Hussein
is irrelevant.
Have any of you that are so against this war read testimonials of Iraqi people who have been tortured by this man and his sons especially Uday!!!!
What about the other victims of Saddam that have not been heard and there is a lot of them I am sure.
Do any of you people really -really understand what mass destruction means?
With all of the evidence of Saddams tyrancy do you feel comfortable with this mans possesion of nuclear weapons? If not why?
He wants to rule all of the middle east. One of his half brothers died for telling the world that.
Imagine if he did gain control of all of the middle east. He went right on into Iran and killed the high priest and not only that- he kidnapped the poor guys sister and had her raped repeatedly infront of him then hung her. Then killed him.
Have any of you people noticed that Iraqi or any one from the middle east who is against Saddam may list their credentials but wont list if they are married for fear of their families being attacked
by secret Iraqi agents.
Even in America. We just had a guy here in Arizona go on T.V and say how Saddam tortured him but wanted to remain in the dark while being interviewed.
I read the arguments of how we sold nuclear weapons but we aren’t killing people and trying to take the over other countries.
I don’t get it. Okay if you think this is an unjust war please tell all of us what can be done. Do any of you people have a better idea?
Please say so. Do you feel comfortable with Saddam having nuclear weapons when he allows his son Uday to torture soccer players by throwing them into a 12 foot bucket of raw sewage to insure that their open wounds from torture will become infected BECAUSE THEY LOST A f**kIN GAME OF SPORTS????
Whats your arguement to that and why the f**k isn’t Michael Moore doing a documentary on that one????
Some ignorant a$$ posted on this web site “What has Bush done for you lately?”
Well nothing for me personally but what has he NOT DONE TO ME LATELy?
C’mon!
PUhleeze give me solutions to this regime instead of making Bush out to be some tyrant because he isnt.
LisaS,
Thanks for the link; it’s an interesting site. I was stunned, however, going through the list of undeclared wars the US has fought. Together with the War of Independence and the US civil war, as well as those few wars that were declared, the US has been involved in 48 armed conflicts since it was founded! That’s an average of one every five years!! Add to that the numerous coups that other branches of the government have been involved in throughout the world, predator drone strikes, support for others’ wars, etc. and you’ve got a pretty strong case for removing the phrase “we are a peaceful nation” from the administration’s vocabulary. I recall reading one of your supporter’s state that “actions speak louder than words”…
Renee,
“Nuclear bombs are pure evil.”
No argument there, friend. I’d go further and say those that stockpile the damned things and renege on international treaties designed to reduce their numbers are misguided, if not in fact, evil.
“With all of the evidence of Saddams tyrancy do you feel comfortable with this mans possesion of nuclear weapons?”
With the exception of his close, personal friends, I’m sure that no one would answer in the affirmative. Also worrisome is a nuclear policy that does nothing to reduce the present glut of nuclear arms in the world. And a president that won’t rule out using them.
“we aren’t killing people and trying to take the over other countries.”
That is, in fact, exactly what you’re doing, Renee. Not you personally, but members of your community are right now in the act of killing other people so that they might seize control of THEIR nation (albeit from a vicious brute). And when the dust settles, I think you’ll find two things to be true: a handful of American petrochemical companies are going to be doing some very brisk business and a whole lot of folks are going to be enraged, not because you freed them from a ruthless dictator, but because you insisted on killing their sons and raping their country in order to do it.
War is effective, yes. But it’s effects are not controllable. And that is why it is the absolute last option, ever.
Would all the liberal Hollywood elite be so against this war if B.J. Clinton were in the White House? This is anti-Bushism at its worst. The liberal democrats don’t have a leg to stand on.
-Feo2yp
if we care about Iraq, why did we force sanctions that included a ban on ambulances, baby catheters, ECGs, dialysis machines, medicines, etc? If we care about people in 3rd world countries, why don’t we pay the people who work in our sweatshops to make us our Wal-Mart products a living wage EVEN FOR THEIR OWN COUNTRY? if we care, why don’t we make labor rules for our corporations, forcing them not use child labor at ALL??? I saw a video this year in school that was taped last year in Honduras, from a Wal-Mart sweatshop. Two girls were raped because they were caught talking. They were ages 10 and 12. Is this what Liberation is? No.
I do not believe that we are there for that reason. I know it’s a lie, and someday everyone else will too. Please people, please. I am not an anti-American. I love my country. But I also love my fellow humans. Get independent media, get educated. Honestly, do it for the world’s good, and for our children’s good. We cannot live in isolation with the world against us…at least think about these things. Thank you, Anne from Minnesota
Anne – who is the ‘we’ you speak of? If you are talking about the US enforcing sanctions, you couldn’t be more wrong. They are UN sanctions – put in place until Saddam complied with 18 UN Resolutions, after 12 years of noncompliance.
If only Saddam had complied – the sanctions would not have been in place for so long.
Our troops are bringing the Iraqi people food, medicines and equipment they’ve been lacking due to Saddam’s continued noncompliance and his allowance of continued sanctions.
Our troops are liberating Iraq from a murderous dictator who routinely tortures and murders his own people – - including the arrangment of the rape and torture of the women and children in his country.
I don’t believe you are Anti-American…I also believe you love America and your fellow humans – - but do those fellow humans include the tortured people of Iraq? I should hope so.
the state can’t give you free speech, and the state can’t take it away. you’re born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume. Then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist, is the degree to which you are free.
–Old Campbell
nicn, I think almost all of us agree that sometimes war is necessary but it should be used as a last resort, I think that where you’re in disagreement is where you believe we hadn’t reached that point yet. I think a lot of us would like to hear what you think we could have done to get this mad man off these peoples backs that we hadn’t already tried? I know we gave him lots of fair warning, we would have accepted exile, and we have tried really hard to make a precision strike right on him. (which we don’t know yet whether it worked). And another thing to remember is it is now a moot point. Which may do more harm than good at this point.
And Anne, I doubt anyone would disagree with you about ill treatment of workers in foreign countries but leaving Saddam in place doesn’t help those little girls in Honduras. But in regards to that I know a lot of people boycott certain clothes or stores because of things like that, and maybe if people knew more about that then they would boycott them more.
I do not want to create an experience for our soldiers to come back to like they came back to from Vietnam, and that is why I will do nothing but support them.
I certainly disagree with hollywood… they are constantly wrong. Bush is a god -fearing man that will strive to return American back to moral, proper and correct ways – a righteous America. We must rid ourselves of Miliant Muslims and muslims in general and spread in a crusade the Right and Godly Religion of our Country – Born Again Baptists. We must rid ourselves of all who disagree with our proud Leader. Rid ourselves of the North Koreas, Russians, Middle Eastern rulers, and let us not forget to aid the UK in there fight against the IRA in Ireland – those dreaded and evil catholics. We need to return to moral vales, no more affirmative (afro) actions, back to the 1950s went saying I AM AN AMERICAN REALLY MEANS SOMETHING – SUPPORT BUSH AND THE SENATE AND CONGRESS. Those who disagree should be and need to be barred from having the rights we do because they are TRAITORS and traitors should be shot- is the Federal law! Contact me at: righteous_american@yahoo.com for further discussions.
would somebody in here please answer the confused chocoholic? everyone ignored him, but he has a interessting question:
“Why is this America’s war, and where does september 11 come into Iraq at all? I don’t understand the link. Even if saddam is being a tyrant to his people, why is it up to america to throw him over? isn’t that what the UN is for? and if the UN decided not to, then why can america suddenly decide they have the right, or duty, even, to do so? And why did the focus of september 11 suddenly jump from Osama bin Laden, to Saddam Hussein? Can someone please explain this to me? because it is currently making little sense.”
well? i’m waiting for a answer…
Maryjane – just so you know, this is an open forum..people are not required to answer your inquiry, or anyone else’s, for that matter.
That being said – I’ll take a shot, from my opinion. It’s not simply America’s war – there is a coalition of 35 nations currently supporting the war. The US spearheaded the campaign against Iraq because of the threats it poses. No one has said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 – however, the terrorist ties to Iraq are clear – - and are becoming more clear every day with the findings in this war. The hunt for terrorist, including Osama Bin Laden, continues. We know who is responsible for 9/11 – but the US stated back then, that we will not tolerate nations who harbor and train them. I could cite for you the news sources that outline the terrorist ties in Iraq, most specifically the ones that have been found since the start of this war – -however, it’s all over the news, if you look for it.
The UN has proven ineffective at gaining any kind of compliance out of Saddam and his regieme. 12 years later – the US will take the necessary steps at protecting itself, while liberating an oppressed people from the murderous dictator that rules their country.
Maybe no one answered the question because, after three weeks…mass graves, torture chambers sarin gas findings, cyanide findings, mustard agent findings…people are less concerned with ‘why’ and are more concerned with ‘what’, ‘when’ and ‘how’?
Just a speculation on my part.