War with Iraq ... an interesting alternate view

[Anonymous]

LOL check out this website! It's got some stuff on Iraq too.
http://whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/

[Mobius]

Quote

"I still think Saddam's not worth fighting"

I agree, there's a lot of other dictators, oppressors that are far worse than Saddam, but hey, Somalia & Zimbabwe don't have anything worth sending aircraft carriers, battleships, stealth bombers etc for.

Quote
"Why should we waste expensive weapons on him?"

How else do the armament companies show off their wares & attract new customers, without giving potential buyers a demonstration via war, of how effective their product is? It was worked out that during the Gulf war (round 1) that it cost the U.S government 2% of it's yearly budget, so war could be waged for years without too much of a dent in the budget.

Quote

"If we don't fight and win this war, oil prices are going to rise dramatically over the next few years, and there is going to be tremendous suffering as a result".

Oil is not an infinite fuel source & has to go sooner or later.Most people in 3rd world countries don't have thirsty V8 motors to push along, in fact, most of them don't have a vehicle, so what difference does oil make to them?

The only reason that countries like France, Germany & Russia (as BD hugh pointed out with his links)are against the war, are their own oil interests & trade with Iraq. So once they are payed off, they will quickly forget their "moral" stance on the U.S war against Iraq.

Besides, Europe didn't band together & form the Euro for no reason. It was/is a direct attempt to weaken the U.S dollar/strengthen their own resource based economies, so I can't see them wanting the U.S to get ahead.

Quote

"Let's be clear: Saddam Hussein is a fascist monster who has murdered thousands of his own people"

I agree, but so has various American presidents. History is written by the winners & Saddam doesn't have control over most of the worlds media.You just don't hear about it when it's on your own soil.

The Roman empire had Imperialist tendencies too & when you race around the globe taking peoples livelihood away from them, to make your own lifestyle better, it only makes many an enemy you need to watch & it makes the target so much easier for your enemy, because they KNOW who has the money & where they should concentrate their efforts.Of cousre the empire will attack if it's homeland is attacked, but what came first, the chicken or the egg? Who attacked who first?

Oil is a short term fuel source, so how is America & it's allies going to improve the lives of 3rd world countries, by ensuring 1st world countries have a better lifestyle? We are at the end of oils run in history, so far I havn't seen 3rd world countries benefiting when it's been the best of circumstances as far as oil supplies go, so how is it going to improve, when wars need to be waged to secure a foreign countries lifestyle & a dwindling supply of oil?

Men & Women from the age of 30 onwards,in first world countries have billions of dollars in investments through superanuation & shares in America. As they watch their bank accounts dwindle as shares plummet, they will suddenly warm to the idea of war & forget about how much harder those in 3rd world countries are doing it, even if it IS for the short term & largely for the benefit of the baby boomer generation.

Peace all

Mobius

[Anonymous]

And you didn't even acknowledge that cool website I posted up? For shame! (j/k) . Yeah, Americans are too wayward and short-sighted. We're gonners just like the Roman Empire. I think these forums are good but now I have reached a point where talking about the corruption of our country can only do so much. It's time to take action. Better late than never. Protesting was not what I had in mind, however. A peaceful gathering for people who do not believe in this war would be more ideal. Protesting makes us look bad because it almost makes us look like we're trying to pick a fight with the guys in charge- All the signs, angry voices and taunts, etc. But a peace rally would be good for people who want no part in the war, now that's different. We can protest by not paying taxes (hey, they don't have room for all of us in the jails), not doing our "civil duties" (because the government is not doing its duties for the people) and boycotting companies like Microsoft (because it would have a large effect on our economy and it would be something the government could not ignore). And then there's always the Ghandi approach. I wish I could get a whole bunch of people and stand between the two armies so there would be no killing. But most combat these days is done with aircraft. It's just stupid. I hope someone affiliated with the government is reading these posts.

[PeacefulWarrior]

Italy, along with a host of other European nations are taking sides with the US on the Iraq issue:

Berlusconi discusses Iraq with Bush  
Italy Weekly  January 31, 2003
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told U.S. President George W. Bush during a meeting in Washington Thursday that Italy was among his closest allies in the Iraqi crisis and that he was there "to help President Bush convince everybody that only by standing united - the EU, the United States and Russia - we will be able to force Saddam Hussein see as his only option giving up weapons of mass destruction." Berlusconi mentioned the fear that after the Sept. 11 attacks, terror groups might be planning another horrible assault with weapons of mass destruction that Iraq is known to possess and has not yet destroyed.
.
Berlusconi also said a war against Iraq was "the last option." He stressed that the "decision on peace that everyone wants is in Saddam Hussein's hands." Bush said Thursday he will give diplomay "weeks, not months," and said the United States would welcome Saddam going into exile.

< < Back to Start of Article Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told U.S. President George W. Bush during a meeting in Washington Thursday that Italy was among his closest allies in the Iraqi crisis and that he was there "to help President Bush convince everybody that only by standing united - the EU, the United States and Russia - we will be able to force Saddam Hussein see as his only option giving up weapons of mass destruction." Berlusconi mentioned the fear that after the Sept. 11 attacks, terror groups might be planning another horrible assault with weapons of mass destruction that Iraq is known to possess and has not yet destroyed.
.
Berlusconi also said a war against Iraq was "the last option." He stressed that the "decision on peace that everyone wants is in Saddam Hussein's hands." Bush said Thursday he will give diplomay "weeks, not months," and said the United States would welcome Saddam going into exile. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told U.S. President George W. Bush during a meeting in Washington Thursday that Italy was among his closest allies in the Iraqi crisis and that he was there "to help President Bush convince everybody that only by standing united - the EU, the United States and Russia - we will be able to force Saddam Hussein see as his only option giving up weapons of mass destruction." Berlusconi mentioned the fear that after the Sept. 11 attacks, terror groups might be planning another horrible assault with weapons of mass destruction that Iraq is known to possess and has not yet destroyed.
.
Berlusconi also said a war against Iraq was "the last option." He stressed that the "decision on peace that everyone wants is in Saddam Hussein's hands." Bush said Thursday he will give diplomay "weeks, not months," and said the United States would welcome Saddam going into exile. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told U.S. President George W. Bush during a meeting in Washington Thursday that Italy was among his closest allies in the Iraqi crisis and that he was there "to help President Bush convince everybody that only by standing united - the EU, the United States and Russia - we will be able to force Saddam Hussein see as his only option giving up weapons of mass destruction." Berlusconi mentioned the fear that after the Sept. 11 attacks, terror groups might be planning another horrible assault with weapons of mass destruction that Iraq is known to possess and has not yet destroyed.
.
Berlusconi also said a war against Iraq was "the last option." He stressed that the "decision on peace that everyone wants is in Saddam Hussein's hands." Bush said Thursday he will give diplomay "weeks, not months," and said the United States would welcome Saddam going into exile.

[MJ-12]

dv

[Mobius]

Hey Enderwiggan

I was actually wondering whether you & Clandestino are on the same mailing list I'm on called "VML", as the "your happy & you know it" & the "patriotic posters" were posted there about 2 or 3 days before you posted them here, either that, or it's a small world. I did enjoy those posters though.

After I saw those ones, I searched for ones on my own primeminister here in Oz, but turned up nothing. Something like a small lap dog or a rendition of that old looney tunes cartoon, where the little yappy dog follows around this big brute of a dog, doting & agreeing with every word & motion. Except, the little yappy dog (my primeminister)doesn't end up being the top dog, as he is only the toe jam in the big dogs nails.

Although I'm against war, I couldn't see myself using the same negative energy & protesting against war, but I will support peace & rally for it's cause any day.

Some good links there from Mj12 as well.
A quote from the link

"What is missing from the demand and supply argument is the concept of depletion. Depletion is the gradual exhaustion of a natural resource through consumption. The concept of depletion has tremendous implications for our future world that could play havoc with world economies and ultimately, war or peace."

Regardless of what the fuel source, the trade of the day etc. I can't help but feeling it is money itself, that is the biggest killer & there can NEVER have equality while it exists. Talents, abilities, productivity, progress are all squandered & destroyed in the name of money. It only serves as a bench mark for us competitive humans to dream of & try to attain ourselves & be as wealthy as the top 10 in the world. Meanwhile, the cost of this acheivement, has been a slow & erroneous destruction of our planet to supply that drive for the top.

Good journeys all

Mobius

[Anonymous]

Hey Mobius- No I am not on the same mailing list as Clandestino, I just happen to know about www.milkandcookies.com because of my former roommate. He IM'd me the link. You should also check out www.matazone.co.uk it's a website with some intelligent animations and some rather bizarre stuff . It's one of the most original sites I've come arcoss.

I like your point about supply and demand. It definitely does come down to money, and I also agree that only when it is gone will we all be equal. Money is what allows third-world countries to exist. There should be no such thing as a country where the starvation and widespread sickness and exploitation of its men, women, and  children are just a part of daily life. Someone really needs to do something about the World Trade Organization. America is no different than the British when they had their huge empire. The Americans founded this country to get away from that control because they didn't believe in it, and now we've become a hypocrite nation. Isn't there a clause somewhere in the Constitution that states that if we the American people feel that the government has failed, that we can start over from the beginning and make a new government? Has anyone tried to exorcise this amendment?

[MJ-12]

vzx

[Adrian]

Greetings everyone,

I was astonished to see the following quote by a member of the UK government in the media:

UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "can be absolutely confident" the UK is willing to use nuclear weapons "in the right conditions", and would use them "in extreme self-defence".

What sort of craziness is this? Are we to believe that we are going to war against Iraq due to their possible nuclear weapons program, and yet the UK government at least is prepared to use nuclear weapons against them?

I am against nuclear weapons, (not fanatically so, but rather as a point of principle), but who has the right to say that the USA, UK, France, Russia, China, N.Korea, India and numerous other countries can develop and manufacture nuclear weapons, but Iraq cannot?

The implication is that Iraq is more likely to use them, but I would suggest that even Saddam isn't that crazy - after all - what could he gain - there is no way he is ever going to be allowed to encroach outside of his own country as we have already seen with Kuwait.

No, this is about at least two things: Oil - is has already been stated that only those participating in an invasion of Iraq can share in the oil reserves. Glory - Bush wants to be seen as the person who finishes off the job in Iraq that his predecessors failed to do. And of course it is no coincidence at all that Colin Powell was the forces chiif in the last Gulf war that failed to go all the way in Iraq. In otherwords it is all about settling old scores at any cost.

The real problem in Iraq is that of human rights, and accordingly the emphasis should be on the humanitarian agenda, not sabre rattling and jingoism - this is supposed to be the twenty first century after all - not the middle ages.

With best regards,

Adrian.


 

[Mobius]

Hi all

Thanks for the links Enderwiggan, most excellent.To me, the U.S, Iraq,whoever is made up of 90% people just trying to get on with life as happy & peacefully as possible & then there's the other 10%, made up of the wealthy elite who tell politicians what they should do & try to convince those less fortunate that their interests are the interests of the majority on this little blue ball called earth.It seems that all morals can be thrown out the window once enough money is added to the equation.

Adrian,I saw that report as well & had to wince hearing my own primeminister agree with it & then blast Nelson Mandela for being misinformed after he criticized the U.S over something that is obvious to the world, sheeeesh.

I saw another interview with Tony Blair, where he said something like "After we finish with Saddam, we should quickly move to resolve the nuclear issue with North Korea".

Then, I saw a report in the paper saying one of Saddams henchmen has jumped ship & told of numerous storage areas for biological weapons as well as missiles (whether that is true & they exist at all is another matter), all of which were supplied by North Korea.

It, seems a little odd that Korea is being cast aside as the next one on the hitlist, when it's known by the U.S & others that they are a supplier, unlike Iraq, who are trying to buy these weapons. Doesn't it make more sense to cut off the supplier, as they do with drug dealers etc. instead of the drug abuser?

I can't understand why Iraq evens gets a mention when it comes to ICBM's. In the sixties, the Cuban missile incident showed a closer reality for the use of ICBM's, but if ICBM's are so good at travelling intercontinentally, why did they need them so close to the U.S? I'm not sure if I've ever heard of ANYONE actually testing an ICBM over the distance required to assume mutually assured destruction.These things are 5 storeys tall & were obvious in photo's from the sixties. With satelite technology these days, they STILL can't show the way for UN inspectors.

They can't even get cruise missiles to hit with any sort of consistent accuracy, let alone risk sending a warhead on an ICBM over hundreds of other countries............. "whoops, sorry pakistan or china, that was an accident, we'll get the next one on target".

The only "safe" (can't believe I'm saying that)way of using a nuclear device, is from inside of the borders of the country to be attacked. It really is saber rattling.

Virtually every puppet leader set up by the CIA has turned on the U.S & not always for their own greed.So who's to say that if Saddam DOES go into exile or is killed, that the new puppet wont turn on the U.S as well, once they are dug in enough?

I wonder what would happen if someone shot Saddam & then set all the oil fields on fire? Would we stop to wonder about the biological/chemical/nuclear weapons then? And who might deploy them? Nahhhhhh, just save the oil!

Peace & positivity please you politicians. Or just send your kids to the front line & we'll all be behind you.

Mobius

[MJ-12]

vdzx

[Anonymous]

It is sad to see that most of the people in power today are fools with little or no honor at all. Why can't they set aside their pride for once? I will keep my back turned to this country until they do something about these people. God knows I can't just waltz in there and change things, as much as I'd like to. Clinton did great things for our economy. Bush on the other hand, well, quite the opposite. Why is it that republicans seem able to think only of themselves? Our nation: 10% rich, the rest at the mercy of the rich. This country was founded for a reason and now people are ignoring that reason. This is not the USA that I was taught about. This country is a big ball of suck. Because of loopholes in the constitution we have lost many of our freedoms. The government "rules" this country, but the corporations are the ones who run it. Everywhere you look, there's an ad. Every couple of moments, what you hear is an ad. Just about everything you buy comes from something that was made by legalized human slavery in other countries thanks to the WTO. The food you eat is not natural, even animal products, fruits and vegetables have been genetically altered in some way. And now they have cloned a human, maybe even two, called forth a soul to the earth to live a life (probably one that will be full of pain, suffering, and ridicule) just because they wanted to see if they could do it. I really wish someone would take the rug out from under us and make us fall on our arses in a most humiliating and humbling way. And I hope they do it honorably because we would be even more humiliated. Someone needs to teach our government a lesson and show them that they cannot go around being so arrogant. And someone needs to put the word out to some of the rich folks that they are not superior. They are still mortal.

[Lysear]

Adrian I agree with you to an extent. However, when you talk about the idea that what gives britain, U.S. and other such countries the right to develop nuclear weapons but not iraq/korea I have to differ. I believe that the fact we have weapons is more of a sad consequence of the cold war, but the fact is we have the technology. When it comes to the iraqie example there are 2 major reasons why they should not have them;

1/ Whatever way you look at it, Saddam is a dictator who is brutal and murderous and has in the past developed biological weapons which he genuinely intended to use and put his feelers out for nuclear weapons. would you want him to have such weapons?

2/ As I mentioned above, we have nuclear and other dangerous weapons, thats just a fact we have to deal with. We know the capability of them so why shouldn't we do our best to make sure that other states dont obtain them as well.

[ralphm]

At one time there was emphasis on nuclear non proliferation treaties, but it seems like we are entering an era of rule by the biggest bully. Bush has ignored most of the international treaties on the enviorment and is putting no energy into peaceful solution of nukes and bioweapons-but would Iraq and N. korea comply?
Unfortunately if the US attacks Iraq and Saddam uses bioweapons does that  then make the attack justified?

[Adrian]

Greetings,

quote:Originally posted by Lysear

Adrian I agree with you to an extent. However, when you talk about the idea that what gives britain, U.S. and other such countries the right to develop nuclear weapons but not iraq/korea I have to differ. I believe that the fact we have weapons is more of a sad consequence of the cold war, but the fact is we have the technology. When it comes to the iraqie example there are 2 major reasons why they should not have them;

1/ Whatever way you look at it, Saddam is a dictator who is brutal and murderous and has in the past developed biological weapons which he genuinely intended to use and put his feelers out for nuclear weapons. would you want him to have such weapons?

Well call me cynical, but there are many countries in the world who have produced or are producing nuclear weapons, including, as we know N. Korea - who can hardly be regarded as stable in view of their recent actions. Why aren't the "allies" sending fleets to all of these countries to disarm them so that they can hold the balance of power/terror?

Maybe it has something to do with the 200 billion barrels of oil under Iraq [] The USA has already suggested that only those countries who participate in the military action can share in the oil reserves. How does USA invading Iraq for its oil and strategic position differ from Iraq invading Kuwait for its oil and strategic position?

I don't condone the regime of Saddam Hussein, but this weapons thing seems to be just an excuse to take control there. If it is a human rights matter why don't they say so? I while they are about it, maybe the USA, Britain and others would like to contribute a fraction of their defense budgets to underpriveledged countries to help famine, and other cultural problems? What indeed gives the USA and its allies the right to go gung ho anywhere they please in the world? It is notable that even many in the United Nations oppose these actions, including the secretary general who said:

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan on Saturday urged the U.S. to seek international consensus before taking military action to disarm Saddam Hussein. The issue of Iraq's disarmament, he said, is "not for any one state but for the international community as a whole."

I have to say I agree with this position - 200 billion barrels of oil or not.

With best regards,

Adrian.

[assia]

I'm not sure this war is about oil. It's more likely about the US placing a NATO ring around the former Soviet Union's neck.  Oil's just a good distraction to keep people arguing.

NATO has a mandate--it can become nvolved in disputes in neighboring countries--we must be "neighboring" Russian states and countries in order to "get involved," extend our control, use those areas resources (much more valuable than oil in Iraq or gas in Afghanistan), and keep Russia from ever returning to the former balance of power it had with the US.

Take a look at your map and where the US has been involved lately and where we have a NATO presence: Afghanistan (we trained, armed and cooperated with the Taliban), the former Yugoslavia (we trained, armed and operated with the KLO terrorists), Georgia . . . where is Irag?  Very strategically placed in a spot that plugs a hole in that "collar" surrounding the former USSR.

I'm not that scared about a madman with (unproven) one or two nuclear weapons.  But if America is doing what I personally think it is, then we should remember that Russia has traditionally avoided war, but when the Russian people's backs are aganst a wall, they fight like bears.  And they have REAL nuclear power at their disposal . . .

[Anonymous]

That is a very good point. It will be interesting to see who stoops so low as to use nuclear weapons first. Russia also has an understanding of the apocolyptic power of nuclear weapons, and I don't think they'd use them until a good majority of their soldiers were dead and they had no other means of defense. There are many reasons why I do not join the army- Once you do, you're the government's biatch and they can do whatever they want with you, send you to die in a stupid and meaningless war. Though the government still has a grudge with Russia, even though we supposedly "get along" okay, I once again do not see how their actions are justified. Iraq is its own sovereign state and I think the CIA should stop throwing in puppet leaders, as they often turn against us in one way or another (you think it could have anything to do with them finding out that they are puppets?). The ultraviolence of our culture has seeped into the government, which seems to have to go to war every time it doesn't get its way.

[Tisha]

OK boys and girls, shush for a moment! (claps hands, blows whistle) Come with me on a little trip where we shall catch our breaths and gain a little perspective.(we all hold hands and fly to Someplace in the real-time-zone, maybe the moon, where we can look down on big blue marble Earth)

Frequent Astral travelers, like Monroe, Casteneda, etc., came to a disturbing realization long ago that we live in a Predator Universe. Stars and galaxies devour and put out more energy than we can even conceive.  On Earth, what we call the Food Chain is the same energy transfer . . . devouring energy and putting it out . . . life feeding on death.  Humans, as part of the Food Chain, are predators.  We use.  We take energy and transform it into other things.  It's our job.

You can try to get out of the Cycle . . . become a vegetarian, a peacenik, a(pinko []) communist, an envionmentalist, a buddhist, join a co-op, buy a bike, whatever you think it takes to sideline yourself from this deadly dance.  But you just can't.  Even the act of breathing kills . . . little mites you don't even see.  And after all, you have to eat, you have to keep warm. You must transform energy. (I thought I was taking my cats out of the Food Chain by keeping them indoors and feeding them kibble.  But what's in the kibble?  Chicken bits, fish bits, bits I don't even want to know about.  There is no escape.)

In human history, War is the norm, Peace is the exception.  In fact, our very concept of "Peace" might be a little warped.  Is "Peace" nothing more than the rare, brief moment in earth-time where we are blissfully unaware of the Predator Universe?   Or does "Peace" happen when we are in the rare, priveleged situation where we get to do all the devouring, and everyone and everything else here on earth (animal flesh, plants, natural resources like oil, the toil of other people who aren't like "us") is the Devoured?  

I'm starting to wonder.  I wrote a little essay on the Predator Universe and lost it in an unintended keystroke, so I must not have been meant to post that rant that day.  But bear with me here, I might not be the most eloquent in putting this out, but think about War, the U.S., Iraq, the rest of the world and its history in its overall context of a Predator Universe.   The Iraq/US/World/oil/power struggle is just another dance at the Predator Prom. You say it's not RIGHT. But in the predator universe, what is "right?"  I personally want Saddam Hussein and his two brothers to be transformed into tiny bloody bits, to become food for worms and bacteria.  But at what cost?  I've not yet decided.

OK, I've creeped myself out big time.  What to do now?  How are we going to live in this dog-eat-dog universe?  Do we want to be the dog, or the, um, er . . . the dog?  I guess the answer is that we can choose how we play out the Predator drama in our human interactions, if we keep our eyes open and stay aware.  We can devour the earth's resources fast, or we can devour them slow, but we can't stop devouring them.  And someday, we shall become the Devoured.  Our turn will come.

I don't know what to say next.  Perhaps I should log off and eat something, turn up the heat in my home, and gas up my car.  I don't know.  Maybe I'll just go shopping.  That's what I do when I'm stressed out.

Cheers,

[Rob]

Tom Bearden has some interesting point on this whole topic, from the point of a military stretegist facing a whole new type of enemy:
http://cheniere.org/correspondence/010103.htm
Although he does seem to jump to conclusions in places, he presents a whole new viewpoint. A scary one at that....
...madness...

[Anonymous]

That which lies outside of us we cannot control. Not wanting [to control] what is outside of us is the goal to happiness and balance. Controlling what is inside of ourselves, we can make ourselves happy, and we don't have as much to worry about. There is no escape from the predatorial nature, but we can use it to our advantage. Do not be fooled by any veil. We as humans were given free will. We are the movers, the builders. We can create or destroy out of our free will. We can choose freedom or captivity. We can simply use what is around us. Vegetarians eat plants because plants do not have a central nervous system that would otherwise allow them to feel pain the way animals do when they are slaughtered. It is true that our teeth are designed for eating everything- animal, plant, fungus, etc. But we can control where we get our energy. Let's look at the food chain again. In the energy cycle it makes more sense to eat plants because they get energy from the sun, the primary source of energy on earth. Animals get energy from plants, so some of the plant's energy gets used up by the animal. By the time we get the energy (from eating animals), we have lost a lot of energy from the plants because the animal which we have consumed has used a lot of that energy. Plants provide more energy for us than animals. A diet centered around meat has been proven far less healthy than a diet centered around grains, fruits and vegetables, nuts, etc. Now, if we take this concept and apply it to humanity's relations, we can see that the people who have chosen not to take part in war are happier than those who have taken part in it (*cough* Canada *cough*). The oil that we use will one day run out. That is an undisputable fact. So what do we do about it? We need to research alternative methods of getting and using energy. We need alternate forms of fuel. We have to make sure those companies are not bought out by the oil companies, who did this to many research facilities in the 60's and 70's to make sure that they would stay in business, foiling JFK's plans. It really bothers me that this is allowed to happen. We are human beings, for crying out loud, not a bunch of ravenous animals. We have intelligence and we can communicate in high levels. We should be able to find a way around all of this red tape. We should break through it even. The war clock is at 5 minutes of Midnight. We are so close to war it's not even funny. We must act now by protesting and speaking out. We all have a voice in this country whether the government wants us to or not. Liberate yourselves. The time to act is upon us. If you are against it, act now, and if you're for it, act now. But in either case, act fast.

Just something to keep in mind:

"Violence ends by defeting itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Anonymous]

In light of all that has happened since Sept. 11th, I bring you this quote:

"Tradition is the root of all racism- Many people are still bound by tradition; when the elder generation says 'no' to something, then these other people will strongly disapprove of it as well. If the elders say that something is wrong, then they will also believe that it is wrong. They seldom use their minds to find out the truth and seldom express sincerely their real feeling. The simple truth is that these opinions on such things as racism are traditions, which are nothing more than a formula laid down by these elder peoples' experience. As we progress and time changes, it is necessary to reform this formula."
-Bruce Lee

there have been many acts of violence against those of Middle-Eastern/Arab descent, and it must stop. This war has nothing to do with racism, but I can imagine that in this country there is racism because of what is all over the news. The US has always had tensions with the Middle East since the end of WWII, and there are many things contributing to it, including the Cold War and the need for oil, as well as all the paranoia about Iraq's hidden weapons. If we know they have these weapons, then why don't we try to defend ourselves from them instead of just going to war with them? We definitely have the technology.

this quote can also apply to Palestine and Israel and all the suicide bombings over there. That sort of ties in with the Iraqi war because Israel is the only democracy in that area, and we are giving them weapons and they are attacking Palestine and Palestine is fighting back. Just like the upcoming war with Iraq, I see something wrong with both sides of the struggle between Israel and Palestine. Palestinian suicide bombers are killing innocent civilians in Israel, including men, women, teenagers, and children. This is terrorism and it is a cowardly way to fight. On the other hand, we are supplying Israel with weapons, so Israel has quite an advantage over Palestine. Palestine is not recognized as an official state. Palestine does not like Jews, but I think they should have their own state. Soemone needs to speak out against this hatred over there. It is being overlooked. Little blistering areas of hatred are springing up all over the world, in South America, Africa, the Middle East, and many other places. They will develop into real problems if we don't do something about them now. There is only one race- The human race. And we should think and act as one race would think and act. If this is a predatorial Universe, then it would make more sense for us to act together to dominate anyway.

By the way, Tisha, I would also like to add that I do see where you're coming from, and from that perspective it does make sense. But it's just so horrible I can't believe it. If this is nature, it kind of defeats the purpose of some things. I think the world is man-made or at least re-made by man. Now, where's that MADE IN CHINA stamp located so I can prove it?[]

[Tisha]

Remember in WWII, all countries didn't jump into the war at once.  It took a period of time for the elites of different countries to decide that it was in our best interests to go to war.  I don't know if many U.S. citizens realize this, but for years the U.S. let hundreds of thousands of jews get gassed because we thought it was "none of our business." It wasn't until the U.S. thought it in its best interest that Congress/the Pres sent troops overseas - - and by then the war had been going on quite awhile.  Then the U.S. bragged like we saved the day.  Maybe we did, sort of, but PLEASE.  

Everyone read their history!   We rarely fight solely for humanitarian reasons (otherwise our troops would be spending more time in Africa).  We SAY we do (example: civil war/slavery? please!), but there is always a REAL reason in the background. It usually has to do with power/resources.

So, G.W. Bush will play the bad guy and start the war, for oil, to get rid of Saddam, to prevent weapons from going to the hands of fanatics, maybe all three.  But if the war drags on, there is no telling who will jump in.  Maybe Russia, France, Belgium, Germany will have a change of heart once their elites feel personally threatened by the situation.  Who knows what will happen?

And folks, we ARE racists.  We've been "fighting" the Arab nations for centuries.  Think crusades.  Jews vs. "Cannanites."  Our modern foreign policies.  It's disgraceful.  We de-humanize Arabs, characterizing them as stupid fanatical nuts with headscarves, i.e., "towelheads."  We don't even remember that our modern civilizations BEGAN with the Arabs - writing, mathematics, commerce, you-name-it.  What a disgrace to US!

One more thing:  I'm a National Public Radio (NPR) nut and listen often to guest historians who KNOW Middle-east history, and understand this situation in this context better than ALL of us do.  NPR is notoriously liberal; however, most of the well-educated and informed experts who NPR interviews know that we HAVE to do SOMETHING about Saddam, he's a bad dude, that containment has done nothing but hurt the Iraqi people, etc. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but for once the U.S. (i.e., GW Bush and his administration) has decided to learn from history and to do the right thing.  

A hard and unpopular choice. Cross your fingers everyone, we're going to war.  We won't know if it was the right thing until it's over.

[Anonymous]

Tisha: "We are stuck between a rock and a hard place." that we are, Tisha, that we are. And in many ways we helped put ourselves there. Well, if there has to be a war, then I hope that good can come to all sides from it. I hope this benefits the Iraqi citizens and all the Arab nations. I hate war more than anything. Because of it, my friend and former roommate is over there fighting for the US. in the National Guard. So is his girlfriend. But it was their decision to join and I honor them for it. Fighting for our country is not an easy decision to make, especially if you're like me and disagree with a lot of what it does and/or how it works. Still, people like me are kept alive by their sacrafices. Personally I don't think I would ever survive in the army, even with my kung fu training (unless I had been training all my life).

[MJ-12]

xxc

[Anonymous]

Five words: "What a crock," and "Red Scare." The government sure is doing a great job of protecting our freedoms, aren't they? If they take them away from us, we can't lose them, now can we?