There is much talk and outrage over Marines shooting up a vehicle filled with women and children that was apparently fleeing Baghdad.
Not to diminish the tragedy of it, but not only was it inevitable, it’ll happen again. Look at the situation. Iraqi soldiers hiding behind civilians. Iraqis signing up as suicide attackers. Car bombs being driven into soldiers. All that must have been going through the soldiers’ minds.
A major point of contention seems to be whether warning shots were fired in time. I’m thinking it wouldn’t have made a difference. Iraqis are being told that one of the requirements of being a marine is that you have to kill and eat a baby. I think they were planning to try and run the check point, not to ram it, but to get past what they perceived as a horrifying enemy invading their home. If they’d approached slowly, gotten out of the car, arms raised, they’d have lived. But they didn’t know that. They probably thought if they’d done that, the Americans would have taken their children and turned them into K-rations.
PAD
• 
Something interesting I found on e! news online:
There’s also been a letter mass-mailed to studios and networks taking Sheen, Penn, George Clooney, Susan Sarandon, Dustin Hoffman, Woody Harrelson, Nelson Mandela, Matt Damon, Pat Buchanan, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter and the Pope to task for their antiwar views. The letter calls the group and their allies “traitors.”
It’s this part: Pat Buchanan, Jesse Jackson which just spins the whole thing into bizzarro world.
Stan: Trust me, Cartman, we do *not* want to be involved in this one.
Kyle: Totally, dude.
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.”
— Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), 26th President of the United States (1901-1909)
Richard Franklin wrote:
As for people interested in labeling people as “communists”, “terrorists” or “traitors”, you really must take the time to look these definitions up.
I never labeled anyone involved in the anti-war movement a “terrorist” or a “traitor.” Since treason is explicity defined in the US Constitution in such a manner as to exclude political speech—however much they government and the bulk of the US population may disagree with it—from being considered “treason.” Beyond issues of legal defintions, I would never call the protesters “traitors.” It’s an abuse of the word, and an affornt to the principles this country was founded on.
As for “communist,” I’m not calling the groups in question (a few core groups involved in organizing some of the anti-war demonstrations), any thing they don’t call themselves. ANSWER, for example, is run by members of the Workers World Party, and often co-locates regional offices with them. The Workers World Party are unapologetically “Big-C” Communists, and supports/has supported communist dictators such as Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-Il, and Slobodan Milosevic. (For more information on this topic see the the LA WEEKLY article “Behind the Placards” at http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/news-corn.php )
As such, it is quite reasonable to point out the origins and ideology of a core group among the protest organizers. Just like Trent Lott discovered, associating yourself with that kind of evil will come back to haunt you in a free society. People won’t put up with it.
Nor should they. The anti-war movement needs to disavow these people—and quick. The longer they equivocate and delay, the worse they will look.
Carl Henderson
“I never labeled anyone involved in the anti-war movement a “terrorist” or a “traitor.” Since treason is explicity defined in the US Constitution in such a manner as to exclude political speech—however much they government and the bulk of the US population may disagree with it—from being considered “treason.” Beyond issues of legal defintions, I would never call the protesters “traitors.” It’s an abuse of the word, and an affornt to the principles this country was founded on.”
Absolutely. And you are right that people should make sure if they join a group of protesters that they verify that group’s goals match their own. If your intent is to be part of a peaceful protest, be careful not to join a group that will involve itself in violence or destruction of property or in the threats of same.
A few things…
From Robert
*And yes, the major groups financing the protests are backed by communists groups who support the governments of North Korea and Cuba. That’s not really subject to dispute.*
I haven’t heard that, but I did hear that Clear Channel Communications(which incidentally is looking to loosen restrictions on how many stations it can own)is financing and organizing pro-war rallies. One other major radio owner in LA. had one dj tell people that “anti-war protestors need a bullet in their head”.
Again from Robert(I swear I am not picking on you man):
*Actually, last I heard Halliburton wasn’t going to get any Iraq contracts, and even if they did it would not benefit Cheney since he no longer owns any stock in the company.*
Cheney may not own any stock but he still gets paid. Over $100,000 a year. Its called “deferred compensation”.
Also Haliburton didn’t directly win a contract. Brown & Root did. Bit B&R is a subsidiary of…come one…guess….that’s right! Haliburton!
From Roger Tang(I’ll bet Robert is taking a deep breath):
*I wish people would stop thinking that the Administration has been planning this for a long time means anything in particular. That’s someone’s JOB to do contingency plans, and those plans need to be constantly updated. Otherwise you’d be extremely ill prepared for what actions you do want to take…[on the other hand, it seems like for most people, “preparedness” is a four letter word….]
Now, the appearance that Bush seems to have made up his mind a long time ago is a SEPARATE matter… *
Actually it stems from a document known as “The Wolfowitz Plan”. It was written by now Asst. Sec. of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz and it basically said that America needed to lead the world to democracy, flexing its muscle in a more aggressive way and starting with Iraq.
For more info on “The Wolfowitz Plan” (which is now “The Bush Doctrine”) go to http://www.pbs.org and look up FRONTLINE.
I have links for my other points and I will be more than happy to share them with anyone who emails and asks…or if you want I can post them here.
Col
“The dead Iraqis would’ve loved democracy.”-The Onion
Oh, I wanted to add…someone asked how one can be anti-war and support the troops…
It’s simple. I am anti-war because I am anti-killing(with the exceptions of a very,very few people). That means that I support not killing our troops as well as those of Iraq. I support our troops the best way I know how: I want them to come home outside of bodybags.
Col
What I’d like to know is: where were all the protestors when Saddam was killing thousands of his own people. Does it only count when it’s America in the war? Otherwise it’s nobody’s business what a blood-maddened dictator does to his innocent victims? Did all of you protest the poison gassing of the Kurds? Maybe I just missed it.
PAD may not be on board with the war, but his point is absolutely right. The Iraqi generals have stated publically that they will use more suicide bombers and civilians against us. Quite simply, this is the most irresponsible statement I’ve ever seen. That leaves us little choice but to assume all people are hostile. Even the Palestinian leaders publically condemn suicide bombers in Israel (though they give money to groups that condone it). I’ve never heard of a “government” that would sacrifice its civilians for the sake of its military. That’s the opposite of what’s supposed to happen.
But then, Iraq isn’t exactly known for having leaders that are concerned about their people.
I agree about the inevitability. There has never been a war that didn’t include things like this. Weighing this against the things that happened under Saddam’s rule, I can only hope that these kinds of tragedies will be eventually be stopped by what we (the U.S.) are doing now. I just wonder what kinds of similar things are happening in Iraq and the rest of the world, which we never hear about.
I find a vague air of unreality over the Iraqi war. I watch the news, read the paper, listen to the radio, and so little of it makes sense.
I heard on the radio tonight a DJ say something roughly along the lines of, “God bless the troops in Iraq for defending our freedoms,” and my only thought was, exactly what freedoms are those troops defending? The freedom of the government to curtail opposition to its policies? The freedom of the government to hide its actions and motives from the population it governs? The freedom of the government to strip away the civil rights of its citizens, rights that are the bedrock foundation of our nation and a shining example to the rest of the world?
From Scavenger:
You know, I envy the right wing people. I really do.
I envy their remarkable ability to hear Bush mangle speeches that are written and put before him and find inspiration.
However, if someone can lie right to your face while waving a finger at you, you’ll believe and respect them? Public speaking is nice to have in a public official, but is it really necessary?
I envy that they can be told “Sadaam Hussein is buddies with Osma Bin Laden” and despite all logical thought and the absence of any shred of proof, believe.
It was never said that Hussein and Bin Laden were buddies. It has been said that the government of Iraq (which is Hussein) allowed Bin Laden’s followers to hide and possibly train in Iraq.
I envy that they can accept that we invaded a soveriegn country because they defied UN sanctions, all the while we’re defying UN sanctions by doing it.
The US isn’t defying UN sanctions. Please, point out the reference where the UN has made a sanction against the US for this war. The security council DID approve this action. Several times. Only when it dawned on them that the US was going to follow thru, some members of the security council changed their minds. This action was sanctioned back at the end of the first gulf war.
I envy that they can believe that we’re in Iraq to take away the weapons of mass distruction…I mean to prevent terrorism…I mean to free the Iraqi people….I mean to give a lot of money to Haliburtion and other major Republican party contributors…Oh wait…I wasn’t supposed to say that part allowed.
You can say whatever part you want. However, who says there’s only one reason for this action? How many reasons do you need? As for Haliburton, can you reccomend another company that can help rebuild the Iraqi oil production?
I envy that they can wave the flag and speak about freedoms while at the same time labeling anyone who doesn’t agree with them communists and traitors.
In the US, there is freedom of speech. You have the freedom to go out and protest, and others have the right to protest you. None of the protesters have been silenced. Well, except Martin Sheen, but he put that duct tape over his own mouth.
I envy their ability to ignore that a nation once seen as the dream of western civilization is becoming more isolated and hated day by day, that our actions give this country’s enemey’s more fuel and justification for their hatred, that our national infrastructure and finances are collapsing around us, unnoticed by all but those who stop sing “G-d Bless America” long enough to look around and see where we’ve actually come to.
And those same countries are the ones that will come crying to the US when they have a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack. Oh wait, they won’t have to come crying because the US will be sending aid probably before the phone can ring. They love to hate the US, except when they want something from the US.
I envy their ability to sleep unworried about the future, wrapped in their flags.
And finally, I’d rather see people sleep wrapped in their flags than out on the streets burning them.
You know, maybe it’s just me, but I haven’t seen an American flag burned in the streets of the U.S. since all this began. But I see a lot of people claiming they don’t want to see flag-burning, as if to imply it’s going on right now.
The situation described here reminds me of how the Ministry of Truth tends to deal with Israel whenever civilian Arabs are killed by army gunfire: they make a big, hypocritical fuss over it, ignoring circumstances, in order to fuel the flames of hatred against the country.
As for the case of those who don’t want to go to war, well, it’s strange, but if we were to refer to comics readers, it makes me wonder why anyone who’s anti-war would ever want to read Superman, Avengers, and other such books which are very pro-patriotic. I could even ask a similar question about people who’re followers of anti-semitic and/or Israel/Zionist-bashing newspapers, or who specialize in such distasteful behavior: why would they ever want to read Spider-Man when that comic’s been attacking the media for such actions all the time in the past 4 decades via J. Jonah Jameson and the Daily Bugle, with Spidey and other such characters serving as the templates for all those targets that the media in real life attacks? Those people who read such books in spite of everything make me laugh.
Why would anyone just want to read things that agreed with their point of view? If all you read is stuff that parrots your own beliefs, how can you possibly grow intellectually. Only by subjecting your beliefs to the challenges posed by others can you possibly examine them and learn how to defend them or even, decide that maybe you were wrong and need to re-examine your beliefs.
If your beliefs are so week that you’re afraid exposure to other ideas will destroy them, then maybe you should just give up this whole “thinking” concept and join a cult.
Excellent point, Den. I try to make a point of seeking out publications and blogs that I don’t tend to agree with (time permitting) just to try to keep myself honest.
Yes, exposure to new ideas is one of the things that makes the life of an intelligent creature worth living. Also, I make it a point to research things thoroughly before I launch into full condemnation of them. This is only responsible, but I’ve noticed many otherwise brilliant people who don’t. Many don’t even care when something opposing their prejudices is exposed, either ignoring it or claiming it is a lie. I was surprised to see this was just as common outside of the university as inside it, as if there is a required density of intellectual irresponsibility in every group.
As for the case of those who don’t want to go to war, well, it’s strange, but if we were to refer to comics readers, it makes me wonder why anyone who’s anti-war would ever want to read Superman, Avengers, and other such books which are very pro-patriotic.
1) There’s a difference between following fiction and fantasy and wanting the same in real life.
2) there’s nothing “patriotic” about being for a war.
At this point in the proceedings, I offer a breather in the form of a beagle break.
http://www.toddkogutt.com/beagledance
We now return you to the ongoing political debate.
Yes , Saddan is a dictator, we’ll never question that, but there are also dictators in other several countries around the globe, so why doens’t US try to put them down. Why only Iraq?
I really don’t understand this argument. Are you saying that you think we should go after all dictators at once? That would be just major league stupid. Too many battles all at once all over the world. Only an idiot would suggest that strategy.
Perhaps, one dictator after another? No, then the US would be in a constant state of war and the country would only grow weaker over time as all our youth, weapons and wealth are quickly depleated.
Go after the worse and hope the others get the general idea? That makes more sense, and perhaps the people in the country will even rise up against their oppressors and make the point moot.
Perhaps we can try to get the dictators to change their ways through diplomatic means first, and only go after them when they have proven their unwillingness to change, and the people in their country are still being killed and oppressed just for trying to do the same things we take for granted in this country.
People in this country are still whining about Bush being “selected” as president. Perhaps we can do it Saddam’s way. In his previous “election”, Saddam won 99.96% of the vote. In the most recent, he won 100%. That would mean that even his opposition voted for him! Gee, what a swell guy!
I’m as opposed to war as the next person, even those who think I’m “too patriotic” because I fly a US flag, yet swear they aren’t anti-American when they’re condemning the government for every decision it’s made since the Revolutionary War. Yes, I’m opposed to war, but not this one. Furthermore, if we had not listened to “WORLD OPINION” twelve years ago, we wouldn’t be fighting this war now. And the people who didn’t want their sons and daughters to fight twelve years ago, are watching their grandchildren fight now.
EClark: Stop with your rhetoric and parse what you’re saying.
“Go after the worse and hope the others get the general idea” It’s a nice idea, but that’s not what’s in practice. I’ve not heard of government rape camps in Iraq. Or genocidal death squads marching thru the streets. Are people killed and oppressed in Iraq? Yes…but it’s hardly the worst. Oh, and Hussein hasn’t threatened the US, unlike, say, the fellow in North Korea has. That’s why the explanation “We’re there to stop to a dictator” is problematic at best. There are others who are either worse or more of a threat.
And the people who didn’t want their sons and daughters to fight twelve years ago, are watching their grandchildren fight now.
Putting aside I’m not sure the math works in that issue….duh. I have a hard time imagining that any parent wants their child (or grandchild) go off to war.
BTW I’m still waiting for someone to explain how they’ve been convinced that this is a rightous action the country is taking. I really want to understand.
Please, give me what facts have been presented by the government to back these actions that have convinced you. If you’re in the right, surly there’s something you can point to that proves it.
Oh, lord, I hate to get myself sucked into these things, as it always seems to turn into the rhetoric of hate. And I’ll probably get all ranty. But here I go, anyway.
(Sorry, I completely forgot to credit the poster!)
Just wanted to point out that anyone who wants to surf about the real newssites can find out that Bush’s own church was against the action in Iraq. Many were.
Please note most cities are getting next to nothing outside of their regular burdget to help them with the heightened guard against terrorism. Please also note the money that was budgeted to give NYPD and FDNY a new, coordinating communications system (one of the reasons New York’s Finest and Bravest died in such numbers) was just shuffled from their regular, tiny budget, rather than anything actually being added, despite the obvious need.
There are too many problems at home right now for us to go into a lengthy, expensive war and reconstruction. Schools and firehouses are closing. Homes for the mentally disabled and the elderly are kicking their patients out onto the street because of cuts in local, state and federal funds. Yes, Saddam is a psycho who shouldn’t be running a chess tournament, let alone a nation, but we have better uses for that $75 billion right here at home.
I want focus on the “homeland” and our troops home, safe and sound.
Those protesting this war have every right to do so. To state they have no right to protest because you dislike their method or their politics is un-American.
I may hate the KKK for what they represent and everything they are, and I may wish they didn’t exist or that we could somehow force them not to exist, but even they, for all their hate-spewing, have the right to march however often they want.
Because this is America, land of the free. And to fight for that freedom is why people I know and care about are in the armed forces right now.
1) There’s a difference between following fiction and fantasy and wanting the same in real life.
Well, I’ll have to admit that does make sense to some extent, strange as it is.
2) there’s nothing “patriotic” about being for a war.
Whoa now, ho-ho-ho-hoooolllld it! Do you know that that is exactly what a lot of anti-war activists like to say? They’ll claim that being opposed to bringing down a totalitarian regime is being patriotic, but it’s really the exact opposite that’s true: they’re really pacifistic! It’s weird, but that’s the gimmick that’s used if it’s seen as being strategic for their side of the argument.
Scavanger, sorry not to respond earlier but I’ve been out sick.
NOTE: There are two Robs posting here. Mine generally don’t include e-mail, so that’s how you can tell the difference.
Patriotism: My take is that a patriot stands up for the Spirit of America. So patriots exist on both sides of the fence, depending on what they think the Spirit of America is.
Okay, how did President Bush convince me? Well, I’ll admit to being fairly ignorant of what goes on in the world. If it isn’t being spotlighted (and honestly even if it is… I can be very self-centered) I don’t know about it. So first, he put the spotlight on Iraq. I did a little research and saw the defiance of Iraq to the UN. They were to disarm, but they didn’t. They flipped the bird at the UN and showed they had no respect for that body. I read about the atrocities of SH on his own people (I believe there are rape camps, Scavenger, and a lot worse… people chippers for one thing, rape to keep people in line as another). I saw no indiciation on Iraq’s part to listen to the UN. The cease fire from 12 years ago was predicated on disarmament. He didn’t.
Further, I watched as Russia, China and France prove they are unable to see beyond their own economic interests to consider the world picture, further proving the UN to be useless.
I listened to Powell’s arguments to the UN and found it utterly convincing. I also recognize that protecting intelligence assets is a priority. I voted for Bush, happily. I trust him if he says there is more that he can’t tell us (based as much on several friends of mine that are friends of his. I know, friend-of-a-friend, but I believe he is who they say he is. I see no reason not to. Ðámņìņg the man for his former business is wrong. Considering it, sure, but outright condemning his every action because he was in oil is ridiculous. This war has nothing to do with oil.)
Here’s the crux:
I don’t believe there are any other methods to get Iraq to do what they pledged to do. None. Any other method, be it blockade, sanctions, whatever, would end up killing far more Iraqis than this war.
War sucks. It’s a last resort. I believe Bush and Blair see this as the last resort. I think they have the guts to do something about it. They see the world for what it has become and they react accordingly.
“…If they’d approached slowly, gotten out of the car, arms raised, they’d have lived. But they didn’t know that….” I wonder if the Americans thought (or think), at least subconsciously, “These Iraqis live in a police state, they’re used to being stopped and interrogated, they’ll stop for us… police-type people who are trying to, uh, liberate them so they’ll have freedom from… police state tactics… but, hey, after all, only criminals run from the police… if they’re criminals they’ll run and we can shoot ’em…” I’ve heard that there are a lot of gun shops in Baghdad (a city 30 miles wide), so there are a lot of gun owners (odd thing to occur in a police state…).