| JuryFury.com
Online School of Politics |
||
| THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our JuryFury.com chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. Writers Needed Be a Columnist Be an Editor Become an Owner Writing Training Program Internship Program for Students Our Staff Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Advertise with Us Our Address: Attn: Sophia Barkat QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com |
The Anti-War Activists
- by captmingus@ev1.net by captmingus@ev1.net I see the anti-war crowd as being more the anti-Bush crowd than some true pacifist movement. If one is against the current administration foreign policy than that's fine, however most Americans see far more hypocrisy in the current anti-war movement than with current foreign policy. It's pretty obvious to me that the size and passions of the current anti-war movement just wasn't there until the European reaction to the UN stalemate. I also didn't notice much protesting by American peace activist during Clinton's unilateral decision to intervene in Serbia, which was quite similar to this scenario. Come on. No one with half a brain really thinks this is over oil do they, if so I guess we've been sucking Kuwait dry for the last 12 years. And I guess 9/11 doesn't mean a thing. I'm no genius but I can see 2 or 3 obvious latent strategic benefits to "stabilizing" this current theatre that the networks don't want to even think about. I know you wonderful peace-loving folks are just looking out for everyone, but you think like westerners. This is a completely different world than where you came from. And before you listen to the French rhetoric you should look into one of the greatest books on the press and war titled The First Casualty by Phillip Knightly, check out how French Policy helped the Algeria in the 1950's. by Sophia Barkat In response to captmingus@ev1.net To me it seemed the opposite was happening. People who are supposed to be anti-Bush... namely the Democrats in Congress... are for him, by and large. So, I'm for the view that Anti-Bushness isn't necessarily Anti-War. I agree that Europe didn't disagree out of altruism, but because they weren't adequately included in the Bush Plan regarding Iraq. I do think Saddam was a politically unstable character and without him his people would be better off. However, it doesn't help that he will be gone if an American government will run people in Baghdad. Not saying Americans are bad at governing but nobody likes to be colonized. Serbia was practicing ethnic cleansing. So was Saddam as far as Kurds were concerned. However, Saddam had been doing this for a couple of decades with the permission and later with the aid of US weapons. So has Turkey. I don't like Saddam. I don't however have any admiration for Bush and his cowboys either. As for oil, yes! That's what I think the war is about. Oil reserves are falling but more countries such as China and India are becoming big economies. Can you imagine what would happen to the price of oil if China consumed at the rate of the US? This is but one war of many to come. by Duncan Reilly (duncanreilly@optusnet.com.au) In response to captmingus@ev1.net And check out how US policy helped the Iranians and Kurds in the 1980's. By the way, where are you from? by Trevor (tebatt@chello.nl) In response to captmingus@ev1.net: "I see the anti-war crowd as being more the anti-bush crowd than some true pacifist movement." If one considers how much support Bush seems to have within the political structure of America -then I guess it would be fair to call it "anti-Americanism" (equating Bush with America) which unites people around the world. captmingus@ev1.net wrote: "If one is against the current administrations foreign policy than that's fine, however most Americans see far more hypocrisy in the current anti-war movement than with current foreign policy." Where exactly lies this "hypocrisy"? Outsiders see the American government providing many discredited, untrue and misleading arguments to justify an illegal invasion of a sovereign country. Many outsiders also see an American government, which refuses to cooperate in developing the international law, required to deal with Saddam (and his ilk). Weapons of mass destruction state terrorism and political assignation also seem perfectly acceptable to most Americans when in the hands of America and its allies. What do you think would happen in America -if the Bush doctrine specified that only Bush supporters could carry a gun (or perhaps even more interesting would be to imagine the consternation if the opposite was decreed -that only those who opposed Bush were allowed to carry arms!)? The whole point of law is that it applies equally to everybody. America seems to demand a law, which only applies to America. captmingus@ev1.net wrote: "It's pretty obvious to me that the size and passions of the current anti-war movement just wasn't there until the European reaction to the UN stalemate." I believe one could reverse that statement and it would still be true (it was the American and British refusals to accept the majority position which upset people). In fact, there was no UN-stalemate. There was an Anglo-American rejection of the UN position -which was clear and simple. The famous 1441 resolution was used by the Security Council to block the automatic path to war - not to open it, as the hawks keep claiming. I would agree that many objectors (including the French government) are not opposed to the use of force if necessary -they were just not convinced that it was required at this moment. So, although there are some people who oppose all use of violence, (possibly the majority) oppose the (unsanctioned) use of violence now. If the UN had sanctioned the positioning of the army in Kuwait, then perhaps the situation would be different. But the question of Iraqi disarmament has been "sleeping" for many years (with many other more important problems needing to be solved) until America wakes up and decides it wants to have a war. The only justification for which (at this moment) is that America cannot keep its troops waiting any longer. This is absurd! It is like having a bunch of thugs driving up to a jewelers shop, seeing that the police are talking to the owner but go through with a raid on the shop -simply because they couldn't (or wouldn't) park outside the shop and wait until the police had finished. What probably upsets (and unites) the majority of people around the world is the way America seems happy to throw all respect for other people and for international law out the window, apparently preferring vigilantism to law and order. Suddenly the "White House" has become the center of an international Ku Klux Klan chapter -which ignores the police and simply goes around lynching anybody that gets in their way (while spouting lots of Christian moral rhetoric -just like the original Klan). If you know anything about American history -then you may know that this was (another) rather unpleasant period in American history. For the land of the "Brave and the Free" - America seems to have an awful history of intolerance and ethnic cleansing! http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22Ku+Klux+Klan%22&_sb_\lang=nl+en http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=America+%2B+racism&_sb_\lang=nl+en http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=America+%2B+%22ethnic+c\leansing%22&_ sb_lang=nl+en To be honest, much progress has also been made. Little Rock is no longer a name that signifies international shame. http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22Little+Rock%22+%2B+racism&_ sb_lang=nl+en http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22George+Wallace%22+%2\ B+racism&_sb_lang=nl+en And of course, America is not the only country with a shameful history. What is disquieting for many, is the way it seems intent on developing a shameful present and a dangerous future. captmingus@ev1.net wrote: "I also didn't notice much protesting by American peace activist during Clinton's unilateral decision to intervene in Serbia, which was quite similar to this scenario." Perhaps, it is not. Personally, I was opposed to Kosovo and Afghanistan. I believe that international law should have been improved in order to deal with the problem -and that vigilantism should not be allowed. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Current events seem to show I was correct. Much of the support for the attack on Iraq would probably disappear if people managed to disentangle the (unjust) interweaving of the "disarmament" and "human rights" issues, (which of course is exactly why they have been mixed up together). Clinton did not upset the whole world by using the kind of mind boggling bullying rhetoric that Bush uses. Perhaps one could indeed place the whole blame for the current problems on the simple fact that Bush has never realized that we live in a world with global media systems -and that when one talks to one's domestic audience the whole world listens too. Surely, anybody with half a brain could understand that if one publicly announces that the rest of the world are a bunch of sub-morons who only exist to support American interests or else deserve to get pissed upon then the rest of the world may show a slight tendency to feel insulted and get upset by such remarks. However, it seems that such a deep understanding of world affairs is too difficult for Bush's supporters. "Come on. No one with half a brain really thinks this is over oil do they, if so I guess we've been sucking Kuwait dry for the last 12 years. And I guess 9/11 doesn't mean a thing." Well, I'm afraid it does seem to demonstrate that many Americans have much more testosterone than they have brains. Considering what successive American governments have done to the rest of the world in the last 50 odd years -it also demonstrates that many Americans can dish it out -but they can't take it when it bounces back home! "I'm no genius but I can see 2 or 3 obvious latent strategic benefits to "stabilizing" this current theatre that the networks don't want to even think about. Well, it is a strange coincidence that Bush seems to be closely linked to ENRON and Cheyenne also worked for the energy industry. http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=Bush+%2B+Enron&_sb_lang\=nl+en http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=Cheney+%2B+%22energy+industry%22&_sb_ lang=nl+en http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22Energy+policy%22+%2B\ +Whitehouse&_sb_lang=nl+en http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=Whitehouse+%2B+Kyoto&_sb_lang=nl+en http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22Energy+policy%22+%2B\+Kyoto&_sb_lang=en However, I believe that destroying opposition to Israel is the real prize. Once the Middle East has been destabilized and socially engineered to suit American/Israeli interests even more -then the oil in the region will just be an added bonus. Probably, the rest of the world will be cowed into silence and the New World order can begin! captmingus@ev1.net wrote: "I know you wonderful peace loving folks are just looking out for everyone, but you think like westerners." I'm curious by exactly you mean by "westerners" in this context. Do you mean "cowboys" -or do you mean "European"? Funny really, how old fashioned "east/west" thinking is when living on a globe -and when so many waves of human migration have taken place. For example, what on earth is an "American"? I'm sure that at the heart of the problem lies the simple fact that America does not appear to understand the world that it has created for itself and for others. captmingus@ev1.net wrote: "This is the a completely different world than where you came from." Is it really? Many American's seem convinced that the world has radically changed since 11.09.2001 -however, many outsiders believe that what has changed is that America has simply been forced to join the rest of the world. Apparently, the shock of this has simply been too much for many Americans to bear. However, the rest of us have lived there for some time now. The scale might have been larger than previously experienced (however, America is a country in which everything is big -and it has 50 years of history to catch up on) but the rest of the world has been suffering from terrorist attacks ever since W.W. II (and presumably before). The Israelis used terrorism to get Palestine from the Brits - the Mau-Mau used terrorism to get Kenyan independence -Germany and Italy suffered terrorist attaccks in the 60's and 70's and the Palestinians have been suffering for years too. In Japan, two American bombs -but most Americans seem to conquered this justified killed 100,000 civilians! One suspects that they might find this more difficult if the situation was reversed. In the meantime -America has tried to bomb Vietnam back to the Stone Age and supported evil regimes around the world (from Argentine to Iraq and beyond). How many people have died around the world - either directly at the hands of American supported regimes -or through the actions of American supported companies (Bhopal, for example). It still tries to starve the Cuban government into submission -but apparently has no objection to using the island as a dump for illegally held prisoners. In most cases, America claimed (perhaps with some justification) that most of the evil deeds America had to pull off were desperately needed to in order to protect the "Free" (i.e. American) world from the evils of Communism. However, Communism has disappeared -and so has the excuse for American hegemony. Apparently, the Bush regime cannot accept this -and so, just at the moment when it seems least justified, apparently feels the need to reinstate (and impose) the global dominance of America. Unfortunately, it is so wrapped up in its own rhetoric that it cannot understand that many people around the world enjoy the fruits of the American entertainment industry -but also consider it a rather backward country when it comes to social matters. Many people around the world do not wish to have aggressive capitalism forced upon them, they do not wish to see giant tax increases for the rich and poverty for the rest, they do not believe that might is right and many people find the death penalty extremely primitive (Turkey was forced to end it if it wished to join the European Union). http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=Bhopal+%2B+%22Union+Car\ bide%22&_sb_lang=nl+en http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22Commercial+abuse%22+\ %2B+%22third+world%22&_sb_lang=nl+en http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22American+government%\ 22+%2B+%22abuse+of+human+rights%22&_sb_lang=nl+en captmingus@ev1.net wrote: "And before you listen to the French rhetoric you should look into one of the greatest books on the press and war titled The First Casualty by Phillip Knightly, check out how French Policy helped the Algeria in the 1950's." http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22The+First+Casualty%2\ 2+%2B+%22Phillip+Knightly%22&_sb_lang=nl+en So, are you now claiming that the French and the rest of the world have distorted the truth -and that only the American government tells the truth? Isn't this really the basis for the current problem? If one automatically assumes that everything America does is right -and everything anybody else does which opposes American interests deserves to be crushed -then one has a completely different (and raather childish) view of the world from someone who is less biased in their viewpoint. Since Bush took office, the world has witnessed that as soon as America runs into problems resulting from the policies which it has forced on the rest of the world -then America screams blue murder and promptly changes the rules (rules which America had previously firmly forced on the rest of the world via American dominated institutions such as WTO and World Bank). Militarily, America may be the most powerful nation in the world -however, morally and intellectually it does not seem to present an attractive face to rest of the world. In this sense, you are probably correct in stating that objectors are probably more "anti-Bush" than "anti-war". However, to be more precise: Most people are probably against the war, which Bush seems to have declared against the rest of the world! by Edarmas@yahoo.com In response to Trevor (tebatt@chello.nl) On late night television, a British news reporter said that the European protests were anti-Bush in nature. He went on to say that the Europeans understood that the election was 'stolen' and that our government is not legitimate. He continued by saying that the people of the US would be forgiven for this illegal war but that if Bush were to be reelected, then Americans would share the blame. by Trevor (tebatt@chello.nl) ERA <edarmas@yahoo.com> wrote: "On late night television, a British news reporter said that the European protests were anti-Bush in nature. Yes, I guess that sounds reasonable. I guess a lot of people (around the world) have grown up believing that America was the bastion of freedom and have difficulties in adjusting to its new policies. He went on to say that the Europeans understood that the election was 'stolen' and that our government is not legitimate. Sounds reasonable too. I believe Bush should be impeached for anti-American activities. The damage he has done (politically and economically) must be enormous. He continued by saying that the people of the US would be forgiven for this illegal war but that if Bush were to be re-elected, then Americans would share the blame. The question of "guilt" is an interesting (and probably complex) issue. Personally, I would imagine that the "half-term" elections suggested that the population supported Bush. The political system does not seem to be very critical either (certainly not when compared to the problems Tony Blair is running into). One suspects that the American opposition is silent because it does not know how to distance itself from the government and still remain credible and "patriotic". To a certain extent the British right of center conservative (opposition) party has this problem too (essentially supporting (American) capitalism and having natural jingoistic sentiments). However, the anti-war demonstrations clearly show that not all Americans support their President concerning the war. Interestingly, the countries that have openly opposed the war seem to have (marginally) lower levels of support for the war under their nationals. However, although there may be conflict between politicians -but world opinion seems to be remarkably united. The issue of responsibility becomes particularly interesting when one remembers that in the post WWII Nuremberg trials the allies established that "following orders" was not a legal defense against war crimes. http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22Nazi+trials%22+%2B+N\uremberg&_sb_lang= nl+en At present the American government is calling on Iraqi troops not to follow orders that might lead to burning oil wells or the use of unpleasant weapons (against the overwhelming force of the American army). Iraqis are also encouraged to defect but one wonders how the American army would react to American soldiers who decided that the war was illegal and they refused to fight. Presumably, at this point, one discovers that the principles are not applied universally -but selectively. One might also ask, in a democracy - where the people are ultimately responsible for their government -if there is such a thing as an "innocent" civilian. Surely, those who commission a crime are just as responsible (if not more so) than those who actually commit it. We may be "non-combatants" but apparently we do bear a legal responsibility for that which is done in our name. However, as a British citizen living in the Netherlands, I am in the position of not having a vote for any national government. On the other hand, I do not know any political party that I would trust with my vote! by gausscg@yahoo.com Response to captmingus@ev1.net Man I am glad we can exchange ideas without completely agreeing. I went to some pro-war groups to present my views and they kicked me out. I wish they would come here so I could talk to them. No doubt, a lot of people are out there protesting for different reasons. Some just have an instinctive feeling that they are being lied to by the administration. And you are absolutely right about the Serbia bombing, people thought incorrectly that it was for the good. What can I say, if you are a real Democrat, you will probably think that in general the Democrats want to do good. And most people are either Democrats or Republicans. But the people out there protesting are talking to each other about their beliefs. Sooner or later they will get more curious and they will know more. Anti-War is Anti-Troops? by Sophia Barkat Moveon.org We had this debate a while back --- "since troops are not drafted can we safely say they chose to go to war?" I think that while we all want the troops to come back safely many of them did go voluntarily and some even because they thought Iraqis and Al-Quaeda are related and okay to kill. As such I am not sure I want to declare that I support all the troops. I do wish for their safety but I do not support what they are doing - and no one is putting a gun to their heads. Do you think it should be right for me to sign the Moveon.org request below? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuietPolyJuryFury/message/565 by Trevor Batten Re: Sophia's post - MoveOn.org It looks as if the request is to support the suggestion that anti-war should not be made synonymous with anti-troops in media reports. It does not say that one has to support the troops or the war. by captmingus@ev1.net Re: Sophia's post - MoveOn.org I don't envy that moral dilemma! |
Who should Join Us?
Legislators Tax-payers Retirees Working Class Activists Observers Doctors Patients Lawyers Defendants Engineers Construction Workers Employers Labor Unions Young Old Corporate Insiders Aliens Law Enforcement Prison Reformists Black White Faculty Students Journalists Researchers Writers Artists Astronauts Sea-divers Mechanics Theorists Unemployed Entreprenuers Arabs Israelis Democrats Reform Party Independents United Nations Non-Aligned Movement Liars Truth-tellers Power brokers Powerless Chinese Russian Fighters Lovers Judges Electors Enviromentalists Energy Lobbyists The Religious Atheists Rich Poor Nationalists Internationalists Big Media Fans Ham Radio fans Historians Bookworms Realists Romantics Devils Angels First World Third World Citizen Immigrants Politicians Voters Pro-drugs Anti-Drugs Abstainers Beer Guzzlers Gays Unhappy's Players Spectators Insurers The Sued Listenors Speakers SUV Lobby Electric Car Lobby African Latin American Anti-Nukes Gun Lobby Dying Living Female Male Transgendered Crossdressers Abused Empowered Mothers Fathers Daughters Sons Tree-hugger Paper Companies |