Wading in the Velvet Sea

Your mom.

(Sorry, just wanted to get a comment in while I could.)

My sister, who's political outlook rivals Attila the Hun sent me this article by Lee Harris. I must admit, it is thought provoking and I wanted to share a quote or two. ..."the nature of the crisis we are facing. The liberal world system has collapsed internally: there is no longer a set of rules that govern all the players.And here I do not mean ethical rules, for that cannot be expected, but what Kant called maxims of prudence, those regulatory principles that enforce a realistic code of conduct on all the participants in a well-ordered system....this collapse of the well-ordered liberal system has come about exclusively from the side of the Islamic world....the cause of this disruption is the lack of a sense of the realistic of certain elements in the Islamic world." He goes on to say that Saddam and his merry men don't think or act in realistic terms because they have never had to build or grow anything...that all they have has been given to them...much like a spoiled rich kid who wants what he wants when he wants it and everyone else be damned!
It would be very lengthy to try and paraphrase this essay (and there is a WHOLE LOT MORE TO IT, but those who are interested can go to www.techcentralstation.com and look for the article titles "Our World-Historical Gamble".

I will say, as to his conclusions about the US constabulary role.....absolute power corrupts absolutely - and America is certainly not immune!

Ryan, I will try to address your piece. I hope I don't do a disservice to it.

When parents reprimand their child, the parents do not hate the child, they hate the act the child committed and they try to correct it so the act is not committed again. Likewise, people who are against the war do not hate their country, or even their administration for that matter but what they do hate is the act that the country is committing, or the act the admin is committing in the name of their country.

We expect this distinction to be made of the simplist parents yet those who are more experienced, educated or who are perceived should know better, fail to make this distinction when it comes to discourse on this war in particular.

Truth like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Truth is also dependent on time and place and people. What is truthful at one time and place may not be the case - may not be truthful - at another time and place. Truth therefore is transient.

Let us look at those whose superficiality forces them to look at only what they see or better yet, what's presented to them, rather than look at beyond and beneath the surface. Saddam is bad - murderer, thug, rapist, and perhaps every other ugly adjective in the dictionary. But, he did not become that evil person in 2001 or 2002. He has always been evil if he is in fact evil.

It is how our gov'ts and our media present a person to us. In a matter of days, they can make a person the most evil on earth or the most angelic on earth. Did you know that Saddam is an honorary citizen of Detroit? Why? Because in 1979, he donated millions of dollars to build churches in Detroit for the Iraqi American Christian community. This resulted in the city of Detroit giving him the golden key to the city.

In the 70s and the 80s, Saddam, despite his short comings and evilness was a good friend and ally of the US. Because at that time, Khomeni was evil. And Saddam, being the good person he was, had to fight the evil one. And he needed all the (American) help he can get to triumph over the evil Khomeni. When Saddam bombed the American ship in the Gulf during Reagan time, and killed many on that ship, it was dubbed an accident. When he gassed his own people in the north, America looked the other way. As long as he served the interest of America, they really didn't care what he did. So Saddam and people like him may be evil but don't you think that the people who help them be what they're naturally good at, evil, are more evil in that sense?

It appears that in the USA today, everything is absolute. Good vs evil. With us vs against us. Absolute war vs absolute peace. Patriot vs traitor. Anybody who is anybody, that criticizes the US policies and the people behind it, is simply labelled as unpatriotic. Since when does patriotism mean support my country and my gov't rightfully or wrongfully? The German people in 1939 had to support Hitler when he invaded Poland, even though in their hearts they knew it was wrong. But afterall, it was for the good of Germany. How can Germany be wrong? How can they be unpatriotic?

Today we live in sad times, when intellectuals and jounalists cannot exercise the most fundamental right granted to them not only by human rights convention but also by their own constitution. Freedom of speech. Oh sure you can talk, you can express yourself. And you can tell us how you feel and what you think. But there will be consequences to pay. You will be black listed. We will launch a campaign against you to discredit you. You will lose your job. And why not send the IRS after you to see if you hid a penny or 2. And if everything fails, I can always call you unpatriotic and that should be enough to shut your mouth.

Peter Arnett is unemployed today because he thought that his freedom of speech was protected. How stupid can he be? Every informed and uninformed person in the US and elsewhere should have seen it coming when the US launched a war against a country that was already living in the 15th century. Killed their people. Arrested scores of them. Brought them to the US and housed them in the resort island of Guantanamo Bay with total and absolute disregard to their civil rights, human rights and any other rights.

In fact, Guantanamo bay cages look more like a zoo that houses animals than it does people. We are at a time of war, they say. So much of the constitution should not apply. The gov't, afterall, is the ultimate authority in the land, not the constitution. And if the constitution is in the way, we can always legislate laws to over ride it. Detaining people without charges. Not allowing them to talk to lawyers. Holding secret hearings where evidence may or may not be presented. These are all part of the new era.

Wow. The US gov't is finally doing what middle eastern gov'ts have been doing for decades. And what Saddam has done since 1968. Imagine that. The US is liberating Iraq from a dictator who because he thinks he's in a time of war, is entitled to do these things and now the US is doing exactly what he has done.

It is sad to see that humanity as a whole are still morally inferior. In fact, animals must look at us and think, if that is what it means to have an evolved cortex, I don't want one. Morally, we are as evolved as an amoeba is evolved above lower life forms.

This is really not a very complex matter. People like to think this is complex but its not. What it boils down to is one simple statement. Invasion by one country to another is wrong wrong wrong. It was wrong when Napoleon did it. It was wrong when Hitler did it. It was wrong when Saddam did it. And it is as wrong today, when Bush is doing it. If you ask Napoleon, Hitler, Saddam about their invasion they will all give you very good reasons. I guess Bush has very good teachers.

P.S. Oh gosh, I just did a preview and I'm such a wind bag! I'm thinking along the lines of dam the torpedoes and might email this letter to msnbc in support of Peter Arnett. Oh wait, they might try to fire me from being a Canadian.

To Jane- Excellent argument. It is indeed sad when someone like Arnett questions the policies of war and is fired, but get someone like Bill O'Reilly or Limbaugh to
encourage the denial of civil liberties to suspected terrorists and turning the Middle East into a parking lot and there is no similar outcry (Or if there is, we are labeled as unpatriotic and ignorant).

I truly do not believe that Arnett should be given this "Hanoi Jane" label. Yes, he made a misstep, as I believe that journalists have a duty to not present personal opinions but to present facts concrete enough to allow us to decide that something is wrong. But I do believe in the fundamental right of the press to question everything. After all, if it weren't for Woodward and Bernstein taking the risk 30 years ago, who knows how (more) corrupt the US government would be today.

I don't really feal that Arnett's firing is an infringement of his freedom of speech. Whether you agree with him or not, he can still say what he wants... NBC just won't pay him to do so. Arnett was hired on a provisional, temporary basis to dispense with analysis. If NBC is displeased with his analysis, there's no reason for them to continue with him on the payroll. The logical conclusion of this episode is he latches on with some other news organization, or writes a book which instantly makes the best seller list. Free Speech is a right, but Employment is a privilege, as any guy sleeping on the heating grates outside Penn Station will tell you.

Here's where the discussion gets juicy ...Hedi! are you kidding with that bigotted bit? Am I misreading your intent? I hope so. Western civilization is falling apart because of corporate corruption which has taken over the governments of the world to an alarming degree - period. Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11 anymore than Christianity does. 9-11 had to do with a few things Bill Clinton reiterated very clearly and concisely on David Letterman which is pretty common knowledge: 1)the Israeli/palestinian problem 2)US bases in Saudi Arabia 3)US hand in keeping the dictators thriving in the middle east.

Did you know that the very Islamic Saudi and Bin Ladden families heavily support $$$ Ivy league universities in the USA and elsewhere? Did you know that the Saud family of Saudi Arabia as well as the Bin Laddens go way WAY back with the Bushes? When Senior Bush was the head of the CIA, they used to funnel money through the Bin Ladden bank to fund their covert activities - HELLO!

What has gone wrong is the pure and utter selfish need to be rich and powerful. That goes equally for anyone, anywhere, at any time in history from the USA, to Israel, to Iraq. Religion has been blamed for all the ills of the world. Right now, its popular to use Islam as the scapegoat.

Having said that, Saddam's politics in no way, shape or form have anything whatsoever to do with Islam. Saddam believes in the separation of church and state. Sound familiar? One billion people in the world are Muslim. I can name some but not all the countries that are Islamic but they house many of those one billion.

Please, please do not fall into the trap of blaming Islam. That's like saying Bush is bad because he is a born again Christian or Ariel Sharon is bad because he is Jewish. See where I'm going with this? Bab is bad is bad. There is no religion that believes in God on this earth that promotes war or hatred. Islam is no exception. It promotes education and respect above all else. Do not make the mistake of mixing tribal custom with religion.

Let us not forget that for 800 yrs, while Europe was living in the Dark Ages, the Islamic civilization preserved, added, transformed and handed over the knowledge it brought and discovered when Europe finally woke up in the 1500s.

P.S. I come from a long line of Roman Catholics. Yay Pope! Okay, I go now.

Commander Foley, Good point. By the way, I call my mom "The Warden."

For Jane, could you please define 'invading another country'?

Because I feel the US was definitely invaded with terrorist acts such as the '93 WTC bombing, 9/11, attack on the USS Cole, and others I am sure I am missing.

Marie, I meant to address you in my Commander Foley comment but when I went back to reread all your posts instead of hitting preview, I hit post before I could add my comment to you.

I think we're pretty much on the same wave length. I am trying desperately to keep my comments short but its so hard because firstly the subject is so rich, and secondly, I'm really fired up.

P.S. salon.com is a great site. Check out "Table Talk" Really hard-core opinions there.

Stacy, there is no real evidence that Iraq, the country we have invaded, had anything to do with 9/11. I had no problem with the Bush administration sending troops to Afghanistan to wipe out the Taliban, which really was behind 9/11 and many other terrorist acts, as well. And I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the feminist community was on the case of the Taliban for their treatment of humans in general and women in particular for years before they gave the Bushies an excuse to play with their war toys. Only after 9/11 did the Republicans acknowledge that the Taliban's human rights violations were one of the reasons they should be stopped.

Another good article, Ryan...

Along with "Liberal" and "Conservative", there is another sadly under-examined pair of words: "Morals" and "Ethics". I have found no more concise a definition of these words than the one Theodore Sturgeon proposed in his book More than Human:

Morals: Society's code for individual survival.

(That takes care of our righteous cannibal and the correctness of a naked man in a nudist group.)

Ethics: An individual's code for society's survival.

(And that's your ethical reformer: he frees his slaves, he won't eat humans, he 'turns the rascals out.')

Similarly, the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" have become obfuscations as much as meaningful labels. They originate in the fundamental dichotomy which the framers of our Constitution almost succeeded in synthesizing: the difference between a republic and a democracy.

Stacy, good loaded question:

Attacks, invasions, occupations are three different things. Reagan attacked Libya. Clinton attacked Sudan. Hitler invaded Poland. Reagan invaded Granada and Panama. Saddam invaded Kuwait. And Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Occupation (and its resistance)is what you see today in Palestine and hopefully will not see in Iraq in the near future. So, the attack on the USS Cole and Bin Ladden's 1st and 2nd attacks on WTC, the US Embassy and other similar attacks are all just that.

America has attacked many countries many times for different reasons. And America sometimes gets attacked. What a surprise!

You want to know why America was attacked. The more appropriate question is why America is attacked as opposed to other countries. Afterall, when was the last time you heard that Sweden or Norway or Denmark was attacked? Why attack America? Could it be that the reason is from within? Could it be that America is so hated by others that they are willing to die to kill a few of them? Don't buy into the propaganda that says they hate your way of life. And they want to destroy it. In fact, its on the contrary. They love your way of life and they wish to have it too. That is why they stand for months at your embassies to get a visa so they can come here.

What they hate is not your way of life but rather your arrogance, bulliness, contempt for others, and your determination to step on anyone and everyone to advance your interests. What they hate is your foreign policies. And your meddling interference with other peoples. To list everything that the US gov't does in the world that make people hate them would require sometime. Gov'ts in the middle east are brutal and dictatorships. And they are maintained and supported by the US against the wishes of their people because those gov'ts serve the US interests.

One big reason the US is hated today is the Israeli/Palestinian problem. The total and absolute bias of the US and their unconditional support of Israel's brutal occupation of Palestine doesn't sit well.

In 1991 America went to liberate Kuwait. Great. They did a fine job. Forget the 150,000 they killed. The job is done so leave. Today is 2003, America still has bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait. That doesn't sound like liberation. It is not a question of whether the gov'ts of these countries want the American bases. It is whether the people of those countries want the American presence. And the vast majority do not. They did not fight during the first half of the last century to rid themselves of the British Empire, only to have the US "Empire" take over. And let's not have any misunderstanding, the US is there for one reason and one reason only - to protect their interests - oil is the name of the game.

Can you imagine the US setting up a base and protecting a country like Rwanda or Chad? Afterall, these 2 countries have nothing of value with the exception of bananas.

Then you have the US imposed sanctions against Iraq that have contributed to the death of 1.7 million people. The depleted uranium from US bombs that has made every animal, fruit and vegetable contaminated. The birth defects and the high cancer rates. These are all reasons to hate the US that much more.

You see, you have to understand this from their point of view not yours. You have to see this with their eyes not yours. And what they see is very very ugly.

The attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen, the world trade centre attacks, the American embassy bombings, etc. are reactions or responses to the attacks that they feel the US has committed against them. If Bush had one once of morality, on Sept 12th 2001, he should have told the nation why they were attacked. What is the entire background for the attack? What caused people to attack them? When you know why and you fix it, you make the world safer for them and for you. Bush, on the other hand, told a bunch of lies and took his nation to war to kill more and generate more hatred so that more people can't wait for the day to dish it back to America just like you gave it to them.

9-11 is not as easy and visible as its been presented. The reasons are deep routed in history including oil and the US base in Saudi Arabia. Remember, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. And 9-11 is a reaction.

Getting back to the present, the question is not whether Saddam should be removed or not. In fact, there are very few Iraqi people who would say that he should stay. The question is at what cost. When Shylock asked for a pound of Antonio's flesh in the Merchant of Venice, the judge granted Shylock his request but told him he is entitled to a pound of flesh but not one drop of blood. And, if Shylock takes the pound of flesh with one drop of blood, he will be beheaded. So Bush, and I think many Iraqis would agree with me, can take Saddam and throw in his family and leadership around him, but there is one condition, not one single innocent life is lost. Not one drop of innocent blood. Shylock was very smart, he took the money and refused to take the pound of flesh. George W. Bush is not that smart.

Thoughts keep on whirling around in my head. A confused jumble filled with "He has a point, but then so does she"" and always the word "but" enters almost every half-thought. Every time I finally decide what I believe, I start another debate with myself over whether I am right or not. I have always thought that the US needed to keep its nose out of everyone else's business and just take care of its own and its allies. However, no matter what anybody thought of the US, if they wanted to show their displeasure they should have done it with the people who are responsible or have something to do with it. If they were mad with the American govt. they should attack it, and not the normal Americans who have nothing to do with it. To follow up on your argument,Jane, that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction and 9/11 was their reaction, well their reaction was in itself an action. This is America's reaction. In the end, I know you think its America's fault, but if you take the time to look at it from their eyes, you should also take the time to look at it from the average Americans eyes...I am not saying I agree with anybody, I think everyone has a point. I wish I were 7 again and things were black and white again.

P.S. If this doesn't make sense, please forgive me, I haven't slept in 38 hours....

Jane,
I don't have a biggoted bone in my body - so you clearly misunderstood the intent of my last post. By inserting the quote from the essay, I hoped to accomplish two things. One: to point out the idea of the internal collapse of world order and two: to get you guys to go and read this article to promote this discussion - as I believe it to be thought-provoking on a number of points.

Please believe me, I wholeheartedly believe in the division of church and state and do not hold any religious group responsible for our current situation. We (America) have definitely stepped on too many toes to promote our own interests in the Middle East. A friend said to me yesterday that he was more concerned about North Korea. So am I, but America is not publicly going after THOSE nukes because North Korea doesn't really have anything that we want. It won't be until they fly a big bomb into Japan or Hong Kong or even mainland China that we "get involved" because those countries ARE valuable to us - at least in terms of trade.

I am daily becoming more depressed and cynical over America's (and by that I mean Bush) foreign policy. But I am also wary of isolationism. The global village has made that an impossible goal. And that is one of the points of this essay - EVERYTHING has changed and we need to find new ways to deal with each other.

Sometimes I think we forget several things when we go on and on about the state of the world.

1. The Israeli situation was caused by the British, not the Americans. However we did back Israel during their beginnings as well as we back them now. I think the whole thing started during the 6 day/7 day war, where several countries attacked Israel, who of course fought back, then was unwilling to give back the land that it captured in several places. I am not so morally bankrupt that I wish this to keep happening, but I wonder what people would suggest that we should do. This is a rhetorical question for the most part as I do not believe that anyone has a valid answer. Neither side is happy, neither side will be happy no matter what it would seem.

2. On the point of North Korea. I also wonder if anyone remembers their history? How many million Chinese "Volunteers" came in there the last time we were there. I think that the reason you haven't heard more about this comes in three parts.

A. The Chinese
B. The North Koreans want money since they have threatened to do this before and gotten what they wished for.
C. We have other fish to fry at the moment. Which strengthens the B Argument.

Indeed, for every action there is a reaction. And it is just a question of what you define the action to be. Bin Ladden's action was a reaction to a previous US action which prompted the US to react and this action will have a further reaction, later. And the cycle goes on.

It has to stop somewhere. And Bush had a divine opportunity to stop this war and hatred against the US on 9-12. All he had to do was sit down and talk AND listen. And then make some productive changes in foreign policy. Bush had this opportunity to rebuild a peaceful world, in the palm of his hands. The world would have bowed down to the US and kissed her feet if Bush had taken the higher road - the road of Ghandi, JFK & RFK, Martin Luther King and Mandela. But Bush is no Mandela. Instead, Bush chose to bomb the Hell out of Afganistan and now Iraq. Next year, he's got Syria and Iran on the list. If Bush isn't stopped, we will see worse than Max's apocalyptic scenerio.

The world has been crying for peace since 9-11. And since when is the US promoting peace, fairness, and constructive change instead of war an isolationist tactic? I don't get that.

It is difficult to make the argument that if you have a grievance with the US gov't you should attack the US gov't. What does that mean? Attack the White House? Are there not innocents in the What House? What about the general White House staff? How about Congress? Is congress the US gov't? And wouldn't the attack on Congress kill innocents as well? It is very difficult to isolate innocents from non innocents. Again, this is the argument against war as a solution on all sides.

On a further note, who elected the gov't? The people. So by choosing this gov't and to some extent agreeing with its stance, have they not become as guilty as the gov't? Bush said that Iraqis are to blame for Saddam's actions - Iraqi people are to blame for a decade of sanctions against Iraq. While they didn't vote Saddam to power, they didn't "liberate" themselves from him. Bush says its their fault this is happening to them. And this muddled logic is in the eyes of those the US has burned in the past. This muddled logic is in the eyes of Bin Ladden.

Do you know how many innocent people have died in the last 13 days? The US has a name for them -collateral damage. That usually means buildings and people who have nothing to do with the target. The world trade centre and the people in it are collateral damage to Bin Ladden. It is very easy to dehumanize and depersonalize death and destruction. The US is very good at that. Collateral damage, technical warfare, are ways to shift people's attention from the misery and the horror of war. The US has made war pleasant and desirable for Americans. Afterall, who doesn't want to see a person sitting in a fighter jet playing a video game? And screaming, wow! direct hit. With little or no regard to the people beneath that direct hit. War is ugly and horrifying. And the mere horror and ugliness of war, the destruction and agony of war, the devastation of war should all be experienced and felt so that it acts as a deterent for war as a solution.

Let's be clear. The US will not go after a strong country. North Korea, despite its size, is a strong country. They have nuclear weapons. Oh sure, the US can wipe them out in one or two bombs but California will be wiped out too by North Korean nuclear bombs. There is no doubt, that the policies of balance of power and deterent have prevented a third world war. To be strong is to ask and you shall receive. It is fear that makes a country like the US not bomb North Korea but bomb Afganistan and Iraq. Do you really think if Afganistan or Irag had any nuclear weapons the US would dare to fire a bullet? Or sure they will talk, make a lot of noice, criticize but at the end of the day they will sit and talk because the risk is just too high.

Finally, any article or book that places people, religion, culture, customs, on a vertical scale where one is above the other is simply a book that invites bigotry, hatred and division. The bits of article that were quoted sounded like they came out of some bigot's diary. Why even entertain that kind of ignorance?

Thanks Jane, for the compliment, as well as everyone else here for these great dicussions. I find it challenging to have a decent political/philisophical debate with many people in person because all so often voices get raised and dialogue digresses into low-blow comments and an "Us vs. Them" mentality. At least in this forum, if people have something to say, they back it up and are (for the most part) articulate about it.

I wanted to throw in another topic for discussion here. I've been trying to get as complete a justification for the war with Iraq as possible. Many arguments include: freeing the Iraqi people from an opressive and corrupt regime, preventing the country from developing/stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, removing a regime that has been a proven aggressor in the region (Invasion of Kuwait, war with Iran, etc.), and aiding terrorists. If there are any other arguments that the government is trying to put forth that I have overlooked, please let me know.

What I find (and many others here have pointed out) is that there are several other nations out there who are just as, if not more agressive than Iraq, and could easily be attacked for the same reasons as Iraq ia currently should the U.S. government feels it has to do so. Take China for example:

- The opression and corruption of the Chinese government is well known and documented, from the Cultural Revolution to Tiananmen Square Massacre to the current human rights violations (Holding political prisoners and "dissidents" who spoke out against the regime, as well as foreign missionaries, most without trial).

-China has a nuclear arsenal. Enough said.

-China has been an aggressor in the region, from the invasion and annexation of Tibet, through its military aid to North Korea, and the on-going "practice exercises" of firing missiles over Taiwan, which the Mainland still claims as its own. It's also surprising how quickly people forget the diplomatic crisis involving the return of a U.S. spy plane and crew just in the last few years.

-China also has its terrorist organizations, such as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM). Ok, so the Chinese government does not support them- after all, the Uighurs who comprise the majority of that group are actually fighting against China to get their homeland back that had, like Tibet, been annexed.

However, China is also condemned by much of the world for its gross environmental violations, from massive pollution to the Three Gorges Dam- a feat of technology that will result in the displacement of millions, cover centuries-old archeological sites, and quite possibly create a cesspool of a lake because of the massive silt content of the Yangtze River.

This is just one country that could possibly fit the criteria handed forth by the U.S. for its war with Iraq. Of course there must be somethng else? Is it because Saddam is more easily identifiable an enemy? Is it because China is not (yet) so overtly against the U.S.?

I think that with China it would be an unwinnable war, and to that point is to be strongly opposed. Now, what I mean by unwinnable comes from the situations, and the means with which this war would have to be fought. Unlike Iraq, who has a limited capability and who has been severely weakened, China is a strong country with a massive military. I believe that we could hold them away from us, if it did not go to nuclear warfare. We have strong advantage in the air and dominance on the oceans. However, there would be no way to take the fight to them without massive loss of life on both sides. I think that World War 2 might be small in comparison. This is all hypothetical of course. But we know that in such cases as the Korean War, we held our own, but were overrun in the end by sheer numbers.

It's because no one wants to wake the sleeping giant a.k.a.China. But I'd say this giant is playing possum and just waiting for the perfect excuse/opportunity.
And Jane, closed minds are dangerous minds. Just because someone takes a stance that you find distasteful doesn't mean that EVERYTHING they say is completely without merit.
Can anyone speak to the implosion of world order?

Jane-

Maybe the next time there is a terrorist attack, Bush can appoint you to go and tell thousands of family members that we're going to "sit down and talk" with the people that orchestrated the killing of their beloved friends and family.

While I appreciate (and in many cases agree with) Jane's comments, let's be clear on one very important point. The American people didn't elect Bush, pregnant chads elected Bush.

what are pregnant chads?

Sorry Heidi, just a little attempt at humor there. Pregnant chads was one of many names I heard used to refer to the "dimpled ballots" in Florida where the voting cards had not been punched all the way through.

Marie,

If the US were going to take on China. It would be World War 3. There would be no upper limit to the loss of life. Do you think the chinese gov't actually cares if the US kills 10 million of it's people. The US has enough weapons to wipe out the world lets say 27 times while China has enough weapons to wipe out the world 8 times....It really doesn't matter....people will die. I think China will be the next super power once America falls b/c
A) China does not have a net debt while the US is the most indebted country in the world.
B) If you notice China has been buying up the US foreign debt in the last couple of years
It's pretty scary stuff.
The present seems a little apocalyptic...you got SARS, the WAR and space shuttles falling from the sky....thank god, I got some good weed to see me through this.

Oh Heather, if only there was someone of substance or even one who was capable of thinking at the right hand of Bush on 9-11 to prevent further catastophe. I mean solve the problem that led to 9-11 with intelligence, humility and humanity not brutality.

You speak on behalf of the families of 9-11 and how this war is for them. What should the families do, for the 1.7 million dead in Iraq (at the hand of the mighty USA)? What should the world do to the USA for contaminating "Babylon," the cradle of civilization, with depleted uranium during the Gulf war and now again? What should the families of the hundreds of thousands who died during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do? The US nuked Japan. What about all of those people? What about the US atrocities in Vietnam? In fact, the US is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons, is using depleted uranium as we speak and still talks about using "small" nuclear bombs. Revenge is not the answer. You can go on and on because revenge never ends. Ghandi said, an eye for and eye makes both go blind.

See, Bin Ladden has the blood of some 3000 lives on his hand and you want to blow up the world. What if the next Bin Ladden kills 1.7 million Americans? What will you do then? And because of the course Bush has taken, the chance of another such attack has greatly increased. The violence has to stop sometime.

To get a feeling for how families of 9-11 feel, I did a quick 9-11 anti-war web search. I read that 9-11 families have traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq to protest Bush's wars. I read a heart breaking letter to Bush from 9-11 parents protesting his wars. I read a letter from a young widow of 9-11 in protest of the wars.

At least some of the families of 9-11 have evolved to higher order thinking, beyond themselves and are considering only the good of the world. I realize this kind of pure good is not common but we could all learn a valuable lesson by these people. Bless their hearts.

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagosaki saved lives. Hard to believe, but it is the truth. Innocents died, and that is truly bad, but more would have died had an invasion taken place on mainland Japan.

You are also right in saying we are the only country to have used Nuclear Arms in war. What if we hadn't. What if we had fought it out conventionally, and they had been dropped in Korea, or the middle east. When they were dropped in Japan, they were mere raindrops in the tidal wave that it would be now so to speak.

It is easy of us to be critical and to speak out when we are sitting in front of our computers, in a warm safe house. We live an easier life than perhaps anytime in human existance. I find it hypocritical however to condemn the US for wars and crisis, not totally of their making, while living the easy life here. I find it entirely Ironic that you would use the First Amendment, and your rights therein, against those who have died, and will die to defend said rights.

The time for talk is over. The war is going on, and will proceed no matter what you or I, or anyone else says. We need to pray to whatever God, Goddess, or Tree that we have in hopes that the war will end soon, that people will stop dying, and that Iraq will be free and democratic, and will be able to hate us with their own free will.

AMEN DEREK

Heather -

Visit Peaceful Tomorrows at http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/

Not every family affected by September 11 condones the behaviour of the US in response to terrorism.

Heather -

Visit Peaceful Tomorrows at http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/

Not every family affected by September 11 condones the behaviour of the US in response to terrorism.

my apologies for double posting. i have an click happy finger.

Derek- YOU ROCK
Acceptablerisk: Thanks

Jane- You speak of someone with substance- who might you have in mind? Just curious. What is the problem that led to 9-11 in your opinion? I believe that several things led up to the WTC attacks including the beliefs of a radical Islamic group (in our country they are referred to as cults) hiding behing the concept of Jihaad (sp?), American decisons concerning foreign involvement and policy in the Middle East, and the pursuit of capitalistic interests.

I take issue with this feeling of self-righteousness I continue to encounter in anti-war sentiment. Let me explain: I work in a prestigous academic medical institution where doctors, nurses, and staff are held against an expectation of perfect performance by patients, families, colleagues, and the media. When a mistake occurs, for whatever reason, including being human, he or she is hung out to dry. I think this same ideal of perfection exists for our government. However, what most people don't understand is that the real basis of wanting to devote oneself to either of these professions lies in an inherent need to do something for the fellow man, in some capacity of good. Bottomline being that we are all human; we make big mistakes, little ones that don't matter, ugly ones, and some that lead to a better outcome in the end.

The majority of anti-war protest I have encountered, while based on wonderful concepts and ideals, is deeply rooted in the fantasy of what the world should be. While I believe that you and those folks have enlightened and beautiful thoughts and aspirations for what we should be doing, the reality of the world is that we are not perfect, and that we cannot use idealism as a substitute for practicality or logic, as this imperfect world does not function on those principles. We get closer all the time, and despite how much we may dislike it, we have a game to play and the name of that game is survival.

My comment concerning the families of 9-11 is not an idication that I think the war in Iraq is for those families. ON the contrary, the war seems to be based on assessment of survival for our country, Middle Eastern peoples, and the betterment of the world by ending Saddam's regime of hatred. What better way to promote peace than to remove world enemy number one? In addition, I do believe in prevention, and maybe that's my experience in healthcare, but we prevent violent criminals from commiting more crime all the time, why should going after an oppressive and horrible criminal like Saddam be any different? The proof of this man's actions is irrefutable.

You ask what should we be doing for the Iraqi and Afghani people, "Babylon", refugee families,etc. Excuse me, but our nation, including orgs like the Red Cross, provide more humanitarian aid than any other country in the world. As far as Japan goes, and France and Germany, for that matter, we re-built those countries after WWII, maybe even to our own detriment (as Japan has managed to invade our economy and put Americans out of jobs). We will help re-build Iraq, primarily to save face in the world eye, assume some personal gain, and because it's "the right thing to do." Wouldn't it be nice if every country was so kind as to help re-build the nations they destroy during a war?

I don't want to "blow up the world," so please do me the courtesy of refraining from putting words in in my mouth. However, history has proven that madmen don't listen, and yes I am referring to Hitler. Why does everyone use him as an example? Because he's a good one; he and Saddam are mirror images of each other right down to propaganda tactics and genocide.

Lastly, of course you will find anti-war 9-11 families if the only thing you search for is that perspective. Broaden your search and look at the other 2/3. Bless THEIR hearts.

By the way- do you believe in the concepts of pure good and evil? Food for thought- what qualifies an individual as either or? Is it black and white? ANd based on those standards... what would you consider Saddam? Bush?

Derek, et al.

I hope my comments above did not imply that I think the U.S. should go to war with China. It was meant to refute many of the arguments put forth by the government, media, etc. to justify the current conflict in Iraq.

The reasons given, as I pointed out, could be easily applied to MANY countries around the world, yet nothing is heard about them. I wonder why. If it's truly vengeance (for what, and BE SPECIFIC, not circumstantial, in the connection to the American people) or oil, I wish the government would be honest with that. I'm tired of the spin, and am disgusted that it is being used to justify more American and Iraqi lives lost.

Heather~ You make many good points, but I would like to explore your assertion that the Japanese economy has taken over the United States, costing jobs that should rightfully go to the American people. Ok, but I should also point out that many American companies (General Motors for one) have also decided to create manufacturing plants in Mexico, and others such as Nike and Reebok (forgive me if I'm mistaken that they are not American corporations) use labor in Asia. Why are these American companies taking away jobs from the Average Joe? Money- they want to make money using workers who have no union and are willing to be paid pennies per hour. Welcome to the global economy.

Reason #1 as we do not need any others in the current world climate. They harbor terrorism and terrorists. Two different training camps have been found for two different organizations. They found chemical weapon traces at the northern training camp. The regime has stated that it will pay suicide bombers' families in Palestine. It has stated that it will pay money for American heads. This is all I need to know. Leaving them will jeopardize our safety in the future more than the bad will this action creates.

Marie- Touche! I suppose I was using the Japanese economic "invasion" to help support the point that we help to rebuild, and that we do a pretty good job, since our former enemies are now competitors in the global economy. Thanks for the opp to clarify and I too am disenfranchised by AMerican companies turning to immigrants, third world countries, etc. for labor because it's cheaper. Ah yes, we're always trying to save a buck.

Derek, you make assumptions about me. And probably about others who choose to speak out against war. I am speaking out for peace because war doesn't work.

I am Canadian born and raised. My mum's side of the family are Americans. Dad's are in Canada. Members of my family have participated in the wars in Europe and Vietnam. My family fought for our right to be here - thank you very much.

I'd like to explain where I'm coming from in my diatribes for peace not war without going into the whole military history of my family. I will tell you about my parents and husband.

For my father's participation in the fight for democratic rights in Europe, he was put into a dark hole with his feet in water for 22 days. He was sentenced to hard labour for 24mths. He escaped after 11 mths of this. After they arrested my father they slapped my 19 yr old pregnant mother around (and worse but she doesn't talk about it) to get her to name names. If you saw a picture of my mother at that time - prettier than any movie star, sandy blonde curls, the biggest, bluest eyes you ever saw. My father is Italian and till today, he boasts that he was better looking than Marcello Mastroianni. I only see my father cry when he speaks of my mother in the hands of her communist captors. These people fought and paid for freedom. They taught me what courage is.

My husband didn't have it so easy. He was put into one of Saddam's dark holes for 28 days for speaking out against human rights abuses in Iraq. They visited him every night and during those nights, after they tortured, on 3 separate occasions during those 28 days, the medics had to restart his heart. Oh yeah, he saw the light. But don't ask him about it. He has written the details of his experience but will not publish it. And, he won't talk. But he does speak out against human rights abuses here and everywhere - at times at risk to his own life.

And right now, American civil liberties are being gnawed away, bit by bit by Bush et al. This is why we are speaking too. Me, my parents, my husband. We eat meat, drink Dad's home made wine and take vacations around the world. We're just ordinary people.

Are you right to question my use of free speech? My right to my opinions? Hey, its a free country. Thankfully. And I wouldn't say its easy to speak out against the Bush war machine. Everytime somebody speaks out against their wars, we are told flat out to shut up and are discredited and labeled unpatriotic.

You say nuking Japan was a good thing - a good solution. Have you ever been to Japan? I dare you to go to the depleted uranium poluted ancient city of Babylon and sit down and eat produce from the local farms. After this war, I dare you to go to the "liberated" ancient city of Baghdad and breathe the uranium depleted air. And eat their uranium depleted food. I dare you. And you know what, my husband would go with you.

Jane- I am humbled by your familial tale of hardship and heartbreak. I'm also astonished and glad that you and yours were able to rise above such despair. Your thoughts provoked another of my own... if peace is the answer, and peace is equal to discussion, reason, logic and kindness... how do you make a world leader like Saddam, considering what he's done to your family, and who's blatantly stuck his middle finger in the air at all of us, listen to talk of peace?

I resent that Jane. I really try to refrain from finger pointing in any sense. However in answer to some of your statement. I support your father and would say nothing bad of the Canadians who fought in World War 2, or WW1 for that matter in any way shape or form. They were tough both mentally and physically as I learned while studying history. I don't know your husbands story outright, but applaud him for speaking out against tyranny when it is found regardless of consequence.

As to the bombing of Japan. You're right. I believe that it was the only feasible ending to the war as it was the lesser of all evils. Had we had to end it any other way, we would have stormed the beaches of Japan and destroyed the entire country. It is estimated that it would have cost at least 500000 American lives, and untold millions of Japanese. I have never said that the bombing was a good thing. It was what it was, and that was the best alternative.

I have not had any of my freedoms stripped away. Has any other American here? Has the government put you away for speaking your mind? The answer to these questions is no. The public at large may not like it. The people telling Anti-war protesters to shut up are not government officials. They are private citizens and as such have every right to shout down the opposition so to speak. What civil liberties are you talking about. We've got journalists questioning our government right and left every day, and nothing happens to them. Well unless you want to count giving aid to the enemy as did Peter Arnett, and the supposed stupidity of Geraldo to draw a map. A map people, in wartime, how stupid could you get?

Finally, I hate to sound militaristic, but war does work. It worked in Kosovo when we stopped Milosovic, it worked to stop the Germans in Europe. It stopped North Korea from destroying South Korea. In 99.9% of the cases, it might not have been the best alternative, however, in several of those it was the only option available. I personally feel that diplomacy had run its course in Iraq, and had gotten nowhere.
This was the last option available to secure safety for ourselves, and the people of Iraq.

To Derek, et al.
Yes I am aware of the reports of Ansar al-Islam and Al-Qaida having camps in the northern confines of Iraq, which I thought was also within the "No-Fly Zone". I find it interesting that presidents over the past 12 years can send missle strikes against weapons factories in these "No Fly Zones" and yet, with the war on terror for the most part having international support or cooperation, no similar strikes were made in this instance. After all, the U.S. didn't need Saddam's approval for these previous actions before. Yes, there is a lot of talk about doing this in the name of those who died in 9-11, but Iraq's harboring of terrorists is secondary to the main arguments the United States have put forth on action against Iraq to the international community. I don't recall hearing much, if any testimony or pictures on terrorism from Powell when he was at the U.N., only on WMD. Maybe if he did, the U.S. might have more support. But what do I know?

As for Saddam's proclamations to whoever was listening about paying Palestinians, I've heard that too. The U.S. has also done it in the past, or has the Bay of Pigs been completely wiped from memory (feelings about how evil Castro is aside). I just wonder where was the U.S. when Rawandans were on state-run radio encouraging people to slaughter their neighbors should they happen to be Tutsi or Hutu? Ok, no American interest or security risk there....but that conflict has created a domino effect throughout Central Africa and destablized the region completely. And why haven't we been as gung-ho in Columbia? Wouldn't it be better because it would be terrorism AND drugs we'd be battling? Sure it's not as dramatic as Saddam paying for suicide bombers on statewide TV, but there are people there who are causing the deaths of thousands in the United States, either through addiction or violence- and they're being paid for the trouble!

I want to argue how this conflict is going to help the situation more than it is going to hurt it. Removing Saddam and his cronies is NOT like removing a hangnail; there are plenty people pissed off (and it's not just in the Middle East) about these issues, and the U.S. is going to have just as many if not more problems even after the conflict is over. Even the French, who many in the U.S. are so quick to dismiss as a bunch of backstabbing cowards have had their time dealing with terrorists in Morocco and Algeria, and they continue to provide us with valuable intel despite what patriotic spin the government should have us believe. Maybe they learned something- after all, they quit the Vietnam ordeal 20 years before we did.

I would like to believe that, by articulating the QUESTIONS I have surrounding this conflict and the long-term effectiveness of U.S. action I am a little above the whiny daisy-chain weaving hippie stereotype most people against the war are being personified as. I have family in the military, and they as well as friends are serving out there as we speak. I'm not saying this to give some "I feel your pain" credibility, but for some people it appears to be necessary. As always, I am supportive of the men and women out there- but I'll be damned if I'm not going to keep questioning the people who have put them in harm's way.

Heather, I’d like to address your post asking what can we do instead of going to war.

This is a difficult question to answer because it presumes that we have the moral authority to decide who is good and who is bad and who should be punished or not. What standards are we going to use, our standards or theirs? Do we want them to have our way of life? Or do we respect their way of life? And even if we ignore this dilemma and appoint ourselves the ultimate moral authority, then how do we choose the country to “fix”? Do we only choose countries for which there is loot for our trouble?

Saddam is brutal and very bad for his people. But so are three quarters of the world’s leaders. In fact, in the Middle East alone, almost every country is like that. So what are we going to do. Take Saddam today and Syria tomorrow and Egypt the day after? It just doesn’t work that way. The best thing we can do is to help these people help themselves. The sanctions against Iraq made the people too weak to do anything. And made Saddam too strong to do anything. And if we assume the position of ultimate moral authority, we must be truly moral and equal in our application of morality. We apply it to our enemies and our friends. That means we have to do something about Saddam and we have to do something about Ariel Sharon and Mubarak of Eqypt and the Saudis and the Kuwaiti leaders and on and on. We haven’t even touched on the Far East or South America whose leaders in general are no different. And we will have to forgive those countries who have nuclear weapons because we can't fight them. This is just not doable.

So the only way I see it, is for people to take their natural evolutionary course. Sooner or later, they will do something. Europe did after the Dark Ages. Or have we forgotten European History. Maybe the Middle East in particular today is in a sort of a Dark Ages. And only time and themselves can release them.

This is reminding me of a scene in the movie, "Ghandi":
During India's civil war between Hindus and Muslims, Ghandi went on a hunger strike to protest the killing between them. A Hindu man comes to where Ghandi lay weak with hunger and throws a piece of bread at Ghandi. The Man barks, "Eat! Eat, I do not want your blood on my hand. My hand has enough blood on it." Ghandi asks, "Why does your hand have blood on it?" The man replies, "They killed my family. The Muslims killed my family. So I killed them. I killed many of them. I killed men, women and children because they killed my child. He was 'this high' (hand gestures to his waist) and they killed him so ...EAT! I am going to Hell for what I've done. I don't want to go to Hell with your blood on my hand too." Ghandi replies, "I know a way out. I know a way out of Hell." The man asks, "How?" as if it is not possible. Ghandi says, "Go and find a child 'this high'(makes the same gesture to his waist) whose Muslim parents were killed and raise him as if he was your own. But there is one condition. Just make sure that you raise him as a Muslim. The man falls to his knees and weeps.

Jane- You bring up good points... and I'm a big believer in evolution, survival of the fittest. Should be an interesting first decade of the new millenium.

I feel compelled to clear up some misinformation that I've read in some posts here.

There isn't one shred of evidence that connects Saddam and Iraq to terrorism and Al Quaida. Powel can have as many dots as he wants but connecting them will be a figment of imagination.

The CIA is absolutely convinced and has stated in front of congress and publicly many times that there is no link between Al-Quaida and Saddam. And if there is a link, they can't find it.

The philosophies of Saddam and Bin Ladden are different. What they stand for are different and if anything, they have mutual hatred for each other. And nothing will please Saddam more, than destroying Bin Ladden. And nothing will please Bin Ladden more, than destroying Saddam.

Ansar Al-Islam is a group that may or may not be associated with Al-Quaida. There is no evidence yet, to support this. Ansar Al-Islam is a group that take refuge in northern Iraq in Kurd controlled territory and are allied with the Kurds. That territory is outside Saddam's control. This Kurd territory was set in 1991 by the USA, commonly known as the no-fly zone, and is controlled by the Kurds with the full protection and backing of the USA.

The US has tried very hard from 9-12 onwards to find a link between Saddam and Al-Quaida, no matter how faint and how ridiculous it may be and they still could not find one. Their first big news was that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with a high ranking Al-Quaida member in Prague. The Czech gov't later said unequivocally that that info was absolutely false.

So when all their efforts in establishing this link between Saddam and Al-Quaida failed, they resorted to what Powel called "connecting the dots." There are not many dots to begin with and there is nothing really to connect them.

And let's not forget that the US and Britain, to substantiate their allegations against Saddam, plagiarized a student paper that was written 7 yrs ago by a US born grad student at UCLA of Iraqi descent. The student came on CNN to voice his utter disbelief that his thesis was being passed off as intelligence information gathered by the MI6 field workers!

Then, some nitwit in the CIA forged gov't papers that showed Iraq had purchased Uranium from Niger. And it was discovered. Just like the plagiarism of Tony Blair's nitwit was discovered. This proves to what length the US/British gov'ts are willing to go to prove a case when there is no case.