…I keep returning to one simple conclusion. If 9/11 had never occurred, and George W. Bush was doing exactly the same thing he’s doing now–actions motivated supposedly because of Saddam’s breaking of UN resolutions–then we would be seeing calls for impeachment from everywhere. He would be viewed as a war-mongering madman by everyone, including the Brits. Hëll, it wouldn’t have been allowed to get this far.
But the destruction of the Twin Towers, an event which–as far as we can tell, had nothing to do with Iraq–has given license to unprecedented aggression. Why? Because, in my opinion, the administration does not want to risk looking impotent in the face of terrorism.
I’m thinking that this will go down as the most spectacular incident of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in all of recorded history.
PAD
• 
I want to see him impeached, now. This is an absurd little smoke screen Bush threw up after we could not find Bid Laden. Notice that name doesn’t show up in the news anymore…
Have you been watching the news lately? The new leads provided of bin Laden’s whereabouts have been all over.
Well, the Dixie Chicks certainly have learned a lesson about what they ought to say in public. Now they have a bad rap and I imagine quite a drop in fans.”
Ah. So expressing an opinion in public is something that people should have to “learn a lesson” about. Does that apply to all opinions, or just the ones you disagree with?
Just askin’.
TWL
The question is so seemingly sarcastic and/or cofrontational that it really doesn’t warrant an answer.
Where did I say I disagreed to an opinion? Oh, but like you we don’t have to be responsible for our words…I guess you missed my point all together.
\\Just for giggles: Let’s go with your earlier comment about Clinton pushing regime change. Let’s say Gore was elected (which, in fairness, he was) and 9/11 hadn’t happened.
How much support do you think Gore would have from congress and this country if, under those exact circumstances, he was pursing the same course of action Bush is now?
Because if you think the answer is anything other than “None,” then I think you’re kidding yourself.\\
He’d get at least as much as Clinton got for removing Milosevic.
Iraq has never attacked the US.
He tried to kill a President of the United States, and he constantly tries to shoot our planes down.
As his invasion of Kuwait proved, he attacks his neighbors–Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel– thus being their problem, not America’s.
Cedras in Haiti and Milocevic were only threats to their neighbors. Hussein regularly makes speeches where he says he wants to be remembered as the man who brought down America. And if he nukes Israel (as he’s threatened to do) don’t you think we’d respond (this course would actually kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.)
Lots of countries are ruled by nutballs with scary weaponry. North Korea has an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the western United States AND the nuke to put inside it. Iraq doesn’t.
Pakistan, another nuclear power run by a dangerous anti-American dictator, just unveiled its new HATF-4 ballistic missile.
Mussaref isn’t anti-American. Just ask Khalid Mohammed.
If Bush’s goal were disarmament, shouldn’t THOSE countries–both of which have threatened to use nukes–be higher-priority targets Iraq?
But what are you saying? That you want to invade a nuclear armed country, causing millions of deaths? The whole reason for stopping Iraq now is to prevent it from becoming as great a threat. Actually, it would be bigger, since Hussein told one of his scientists (interviewed on “60 Minutes”) that he wants to use the bomb to rewrite the Middle East.
Iraq isn’t part of the war on terrorism. The only link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is the fact that they hate each other. No matter how often Bush says “9/11” and “Iraq” in the same breath, Saddam had nothing to do with the terror attacks.
Iraq and al-Qaida are cooperating in Northern Iraq. They were having meetings in 1998. Anyone who repeats the canard that Hussein is a secularist should just look at the “Allah Akbar” he added to Iraq’s flag a few years ago.
Is Bush’s sole reason for war now is so he can “free” the Iraqis from Saddam’s rule? Is the U.S. in the liberation business? Will Bush spread democracy to Myamnar, Congo, Turkmenistan, Cambodia, Nigeria, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan or Laos, just to name a few places where people can’t vote, speak freely or eat much?
You’re just parroting Ted Rall (without attribution). Here’s Bill Herbert’s response:
http://cointelprotool.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_cointelprotool_archive.html#90763615
Right now America is being a bully. And nobody likes bullies.
We should be like Chirac and threaten European countries that don’t toe the line?
Throwing this article, which I think is on the mark, into this debate:
Left Behind to Starve
Just curious what other people have to say about it.
Read the following paragraph of UN Resolution 687 (Which Bush & Blair are trying to draw on as justification for war… sorry “military conflict”) very carefully:
5. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with Iraq and Kuwait, to submit within three days to the Security Council for its approval a plan for the immediate deployment of a United Nations observer unit to monitor the Khor Abdullah and a demilitarized zone, which is hereby established, extending ten kilometres into Iraq and five kilometres into Kuwait from the boundary referred to in the “Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters” of 4 October 1963; to deter violations of the boundary through its presence in and surveillance of the demilitarized zone; to observe any hostile or potentially hostile action mounted from the territory of one State to the other; and for the Secretary-General to report regularly to the Security Council on the operations of the unit, and immediately if there are serious violations of the zone or potential threats to peace;
As such, the UN Security Council should take action under chapter VII of the UN Charter against the US, Britain and any other countries which breach the demilitarised zone.
> In regards to the “shock and awe” bombing campaign, the U.S. military will be bending over backwards to minimize civilian casualties…
No they won’t. You forget the first rule of modern politics: “It doesn’t matter what you’ve done wrong, so long as you have not been seen to have done wrong”
All the journalists in place are under military control, the US has bought up all the commercial satellite time of any satellites which overfly Iraq with pictures.
We’ll only be told of the “successful” operations if they can help it, with maybe one or two “errors” for plausibility.
There was irreprable damage to the office of the president done before Carter. From several presidents. Carter is just the one bright spots in the last thirty years.
You’ve got to be kidding. from Hitchens:
Carter announced himself as “a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises.” More accurate would have been “who provoked several severe international crises.” It was the Carter administration that green-lighted, and later armed and aided, Saddam Hussein’s distinctly unilateral invasion of Iran in 1979, an invasion that cost about a million and a half casualties, many of them civilian. I don’t recall Carter being “provoked” by that at all. Incidentally, he describes the present American posture as “substantially unilateral,” a piece of casuistry that wouldn’t disgrace Cardinal Etchegaray himself.
> If there’s any justice in the world, Halabja will one day be as infamous as Guernica. then again, if there were any justice, we would have seen marchers in the streets protesting the removal of Pol Pot, Mobutu Sese Seko, Idi Amin and any of the other mass murdering despots overthrown by outside forces.
But I guess it’s only wrong when Americans do it. It’s a J. Jonah Jameson world out there.
To pick three:
Venezuela, 2002.
Chile, 1973.
Guatemala, 1954.
Proud moments, huh?
> I must say I find this discussions fascinating.
> For instance could somebody explain me the concept of “killing people to liberate them”?
> Is it like, liberating them from life or their homes or something? 😛
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/images/9morality.ram
(RealPlayer required)
And yes, its a satire.
Tim Lynch wrote:
>Ah. So expressing an opinion in
>public is something that people
>should have to “learn a lesson”
>about. Does that apply to all
>opinions, or just the ones you
>disagree with?
The members of the Dixie Chicks are free to express their opinions, but sometimes there are appropriate places to do so. Personally I don’t think a concert it the right one (people pay to hear their music, not their political views). Sure there’s people who’ll agree with their viewpoint, but what about the ones who don’t? Don’t they have the right to voice their displeasure? Probably not since it doesn’t agree with what you think, huh? There are two sides to every coin you know…
This is ridiculous. Every time i think I’m done, I find something else to reply to, or remember something I reallty should have included in a previous post, but forgot about.
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/iraq_hard_place.html
Transcript here.
RealPlayer Videos:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
And generally, I recommend looking around http://www.channel4.com/bremnerbirdfortune
Also:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4627274,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916235,00.html
And I plan to make that my last post for a while
Well, I think that Gore would not have pushed for this war, and I really wonder how much of Dubya’s actions are informed by having a father who left things unfinished in Iraq and who was then a target of Iraqi malfesance.
The important thing isn’t that it was Bush’s father, it was that it was a President of the United States. Like the captain in 48 Hours said, “The official line is that we go after copkillers harder than anyone because they’ll kill anyone. We both know it’s more than that.” Works for me.
There are legitimate reasons to consider bringing down Saddam, but I think there are greatly outweighed by how the US has approached this. With unending arrogance, we have alienated allies, bullied smaller nations, and acted like we know with perfect certainty what to do.
What should we have done to avoid this alienation? Have the UN pass a unamimous resolution? Done. Have Colin Powell lay out evidence that Timothy Noah of Slate (who was against the war) call “indisputable”? Done. It was France who stabbed Powell in the back, not the other way around. No matter what, it wouldn’t like much different that what it is now.
We have ignored the new waves of hatred in the world this attitude has generated, drawn up war plans that don’t seem to take the worst-case scenarios into account, and made it seem like this will be easy.
You’re privy to the Pentagon’s war plans? They are preparing for prolonged urban combat. They just don’t give credence to ludicrous doomsday scenarios.
All the while, Al Qaeda salivates at how good they look to disgruntled Arab youth and how much accalim they will get for “retaliatory” strikes at the US. (Yes, the war is just an excuse for Al Qaeda to act, and they would act eventually anyway if not caught, but why are we giving our true mortal enemy an excuse?)
Is that the same disgruntled youth who were going to flock the al-Qaida when we invaded Afghanistan? What will they do if Americans are greeted with cheering crowds, as before? Saddam Hussein has been written off by the Arab world. Al-Qaida is pretty much finished anyway. If they had the ability to launch a strike, they’d have done so already. Al-Qaida thrives on American weakness. Bailing in Somalia is what gave them the idea to go after us.
So what do I see? A war that will possibly make things worse in the vacuum left in Iraq.
The Iraqis don’t agree.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/03/15/MN262934.DTL
Again, that was what people said about Afghanistan.
The increased likelihood of terrorist attacks in NY and Washington (and maybe in the rest of the US).
See above. If they do something that exposes them, as opposed to a well planed operation, that’s all the better.
A greater chance that Saddam will give anthrax or VX to terrorists before fleeing into the night. Missiles raining down on Tel Aviv.
But he’s not supposed to have that stuff. If you’re hoping that he’ll be happy just having them, that’s called appeasement. Clinton didn’t think much of it.
http://andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030310
A bad economy getting worse. North Korea and Iran continuing their weapons programs unchecked while we bomb Iraq.
I get the impression that people who say this don’t want to do anything about North Korea (and would protest if we did), they just want to ignore Iraq until it gets nuclear weapons and probably beyond.
More efforts to remove civil liberties in the guise of “homeland security.”
Can you name any civil liberties that have been removed?
I am afraid. This war could unleash some very bad consequences, the likes of which Europe knows too well but that the US doesn’t.
Russia is mercilessly crushing the Chechens. France foments a war in Algeria that has killed 100,000 so far. Who wants advice from them?
Yes, it’s likely that the war itself will be done in a short time, but what could be left in its wake scares me greatly. But I cannot shake the sense that Dubya and his people cannot see those consequences. They only see American might unleashed once again.
You were wrong about the first Gulf War, when Hussein was a lot more popular. You were wrong about Afghanistan. These guys were right.
2) The U.S. military doesn’t have to worry about bad press, as all authorized media will be in press pools where they will only be given as much information as the pentagon wants them to have.
That’s not true, they’re going to be imbedded with actual units.
Independant journalists who go out on their own risk being killed by the U.S. military.
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/031003_pentagaon_threatens_to_kill_inde.htm
Also false. That’s a warning against using satelite uplinks in a war zone where radar is being targetted. it’s not a threat.
2) The U.S. military doesn’t have to worry about bad press, as all authorized media will be in press pools where they will only be given as much information as the pentagon wants them to have.
That’s not true, they’re going to be imbedded with actual units.
(Love people that can’t spell – eedded)
<sarcasm>Yes, and that is SO different. Obviously they will be fully independent, none of their material will be censored, and they will be taken to every single incident</sarcasm>
> Independant journalists who go out on their own risk being killed by the U.S. military.
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/031003_pentagaon_threatens_to_kill_inde.htm
> Also false. That’s a warning against using satelite uplinks in a war zone where radar is being targetted. it’s not a threat.
<sarcasm>And of course, if an independent journalist needs to upload their report, they won’t get fired upon</sarcasm>
\\I’m not anti-war. I’m anti-stupidity.
Blair, I just feel sorry for. You know what the Brits call him? “Bush’s Bìŧçh.”
PAD\\
Could have fooled me. As for Blair, even the anti-war Guardian says he should get credit for honesty. And so do a lot of people:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,916466,00.html
The UN is far from unanimous in its support for the war, especially in the security council. In the early days, even had France and Russia abstained rather than threatened veto (or had they not had veto power), the US would still not have gained the 9 votes needed to pass the initiative. Blaming France is an exercise in futility.
Clinton doesn’t have any problems with it. France was also lobbying those countries, even threatening their EU membership. They cited France’s veto as reason for not sticking their necks out.
Perhaps the US needs a complete restructuring if it can set foreign policy for the world. The thing is, perhaps once upon a time, a diplomatic solution was possible. That is, a solution that was internal to the middle east. Most governments over there dislike Saddam as much as we do. However, once you start having a foreign power (who isn’t liked much to begin with) come in and start killing civilians (whether that was the purpose or not is irrelevant – the bodies are there), such diplomatic solutions become far more difficult. I fear that the very threat of war has made war inevitable.
Security Council permission has been given only three times for a war. France didn’t ned it when it invaded the Ivory Coast and imposed a new government. The only reason inspectors were there in the first place was the use of force. Before that, diplomacy was moving towrds letting Hussein off the hook.
2) The U.S. military doesn’t have to worry about bad press, as all authorized media will be in press pools where they will only be given as much information as the pentagon wants them to have.
That’s not true, they’re going to be imbedded with actual units.
(Love people that can’t spell – eedded)
Look who’s talking.
Yes, and that is SO different. Obviously they will be fully independent, none of their material will be censored, and they will be taken to every single incident
They aren’t being taken to every incident because someone will be with a unit already there. As for censorship, none’s being talked about. Are their memories going to be erased by mind-control lasers?
> Independant journalists who go out on their own risk being killed by the U.S. military.
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/031003_pentagaon_threatens_to_kill_inde.htm
> Also false. That’s a warning against using satelite uplinks in a war zone where radar is being targetted. it’s not a threat.
And of course, if an independent journalist needs to upload their report, they won’t get fired upon
The missiles can’t tell the difference. It’s like going out in a lightning storm. No one accuses God of threatening journalists.
\\And I think you are right. Ithink that some countries will be very embarassed when some of their dealings with Iraq come out.
Yes. Including the United States.
“when Iraq released its weapons program dossier on 7 December 2002, it was purloined by the US Administration, edited of 8,000 pages, and it was this edited copy that was finally given to the UN for examination.” Before the UN could read the report, the US edited out “the names of various Western companies and government agencies who have supplied Iraq with assistance with their weapons program.”
A German newspaper which investigated these cuts found “US corporations listed in the missing pages of the report include Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and TI Coating. Further, the missing information shows that US governmental agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the U.S. government nuclear weapons laboratories Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia, all illegally helped Iraq to build its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs by providing supplies and/or training.”\\
More nonsense. The Security Council got an unedited copy. Editing sensitive information is routinely done for the non-permanent members. We provided some material, but France and Russia provided a lot more.
If you’re going to quote German newspapers, how about the way Schroeders government covered up evidence that Iraq had small pox right before the election.
1)Also false. That’s a warning against using satelite uplinks in a war zone where radar is being targetted. it’s not a threat. Since we keep hearing how exact & precise (the term ‘pinpoint accuracy’ gets used quite often)the targeting weaponry is, The military should be able to tell the difference between military & civilian positions.
2) Can you name any civil liberties that have been removed? How about:
*Right to an attorney
*Right to a trial
*Right to know the charges against you
*Right to dispute evidence – which you cannot do when it is presented to the judges as “secret evidence”
*Right to be presented with a warrant when the government wants to search your home, car, computer, etc.
These are just some of the abuses of power given to the government under The Patriot Act. The Patriot Act II (as it has been nicknamed) goes even further, including things such as stripping people of their U.S. citizenship & deporting them, again without a fair trial, but merely on the say-so of the government. After all, a terrorist is “whoever the executive branch says”. For more details about the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 see http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206&Type=s
5)Our troops will be the target of deadly guerilla warfare long after the conventional war is over
Like in Afghanistan? Never happened.
6)Islamic radicals will use our occupation as a recruiting campaign for terrorist groups
People aren’t going to die for Hussein. He’s seen as a loser, not the popular hero like during the first Gulf War. Even fellow arab states are calling for him to go into exile.
7)The Middle Eastern public is likely to be enraged at the sight of Westerners governing a Muslim country like in colonial days
Everyone kkeps saying the Arab street will rise up (after the firsr Gulf War, Afghanistan, etc.) and it never does.
8)This will increase anti-American sentiment around the world
No one’s going to mourn Hussein.
9)It is likely to lead to a civil war and massive bloodshed between the Sunnis, Shi’ites, and Kurds, who hate each other
That’s a lie. They’ve been living in peace for thousands of years. What they hate is Hussein and his thugs.
10)Iran’s intelligence agency is already operating within Iraq, and is trying to get the Shi’ites to form a satellite state aligned with Iran
The Shi’ites are still Arabs and don’t want to join Iran. They were even willing to fight “Persian invaders” during the Iran-Iraq war.
11)The Kurds will try to form an independent state, and that will incite a military response by neighboring Turkey
No they won’t. They want to be federalism. They aren’t stupid.
12) When all this happens, we will not be able to get out without appearing to have been driven off, costing us credibility among our friends and enemies alike, thus making us a more likely target and giving us less leverage in achieving our national security objectives.
Again, like in Afghanistan? They’ve got a good start at democracy in the north.
> Again, like in Afghanistan? They’ve got a good start at democracy in the north.
Yes, which is why their goverment is near-bankrupt, and the last time they were forced to go cap in hand, bush gave them $50 million — on condition $35m was used to build a 5-star hotel.
And the “m” key on the computer I was using at the time worked only intermittently.
1)Also false. That’s a warning against using satelite uplinks in a war zone where radar is being targetted. it’s not a threat. Since we keep hearing how exact & precise (the term ‘pinpoint accuracy’ gets used quite often)the targeting weaponry is, The military should be able to tell the difference between military & civilian positions.
It’s tracking radio waves. Those are the same coming from an uplink or radar.
2) Can you name any civil liberties that have been removed? How about:
*Right to an attorney
*Right to a trial
*Right to know the charges against you
*Right to dispute evidence – which you cannot do when it is presented to the judges as “secret evidence”
That’s immigration law. There’s no right for non-citizens to come to this country. This has been decided by the Supreme Court long before the Bush administration.
*Right to be presented with a warrant when the government wants to search your home, car, computer, etc.
There’s no such right. Read the Constitution. Or just watch the episode of the Sopranos where the FBI plants secret wiretaps.
These are just some of the abuses of power given to the government under The Patriot Act. The Patriot Act II (as it has been nicknamed) goes even further, including things such as stripping people of their U.S. citizenship & deporting them, again without a fair trial, but merely on the say-so of the government. After all, a terrorist is “whoever the executive branch says”. For more details about the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 see http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206&Type=s
That hasn’t even been passed into law, and the ACLU is going into hyperbole over a leaked draft. mens rea and a trial is required to lose citizenship, and it can already be lost for acts like enlisting in the army of a foreign power.
As for being tired of hearing the ‘Axis of Evil’ speech cited, before the speech North Korea wasn’t going after our spy planes or launching missles across the Sea Of Japan. If Korea hadn’t been named, they wouldn’t be hostile to us today. But they are, because Bush included them for no apparent reason.
They were indeed launching miisiles across the Sea of Japan. They’ve been hostile to us all along. Just look at their rhetoric. Even during Clinton, they were saying things a lot worse than “Axis of Evil”. They’re going after our surveillance (not spy) planes because we called them on their violation of the Agreed Framework.
\\Again, like in Afghanistan? They’ve got a good start at democracy in the north.
Yes, which is why their goverment is near-bankrupt, and the last time they were forced to go cap in hand, bush gave them $50 million — on condition $35m was used to build a 5-star hotel.\\
I was talking about Northern Iraq, in the Kurdish enclave. As for Afghanistan, surprise! It’s not utopia after 25 years of war. The hotel was $40 million, and it came from investors.
Here’s another article on the subject from that right-wing rag, the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,838892,00.html?=rss
And this:
http://www.hoosierreview.com/2003_02_09_archive.html#89109222
And the “m” key on the computer I was using at the time worked only intermittently.
Well, the Dixie Chicks certainly have learned a lesson about what they ought to say in public. Now they have a bad rap and I imagine quite a drop in fans.”
Ah. So expressing an opinion in public is something that people should have to “learn a lesson” about. Does that apply to all opinions, or just the ones you disagree with?
Just askin’.
TWL
Free speech doesn’t mean without consequenses. Just ask Trent Lott.
Just some more food for thought.
Ant-French Frustrations
Very interesting.
Hello all,
I actually came to this site to check out rumors about a new ninja turtle comic, and lo and behold the war has affected even this arena. Which is as it should be.
Peter, I am so glad you started this debate, and I am glad you are not only a talented and respected artist but a thoughtful one as well.
For my comments, this is beyond what happened 9-11, and its beyond Bush because if Gore was in office he would be doing the same thing. 9-11 was used as excuse to unleash this unending war, for the US to be able to have the right to control whatever it wants. Its not even about oil, because it also will affect the entire region, such as Isreal/Palesestine, which the US would like to be resolved soon.
I could type for days and not fully cover the horror this war will bring to people of the world. Including Americans, US REP COBALT and other US officials have hinted that concentration camps for Iraqies in this country might be a reality when the war starts. That’s beside the whole patroit act II situation.
Let me conclude by inviting you to check out some of my stories at fanfiction.net, particularly This is Not a 9-11 Story, and also http://www.notinourname.net, a profound antiwar website. In fact they have published an add in the New York Times which inlcuded hundreds of signatories from prominent poets, artists, actors, singers, ect. I would love to see Peter David on there.
Red Turtle
PS: Oh,I might as well say here that I look forward to your doing a new ninja turtle comic, I’m actually not enjoying the current Peter Laird one. I’m glad you listen to your children.
I haven`t read everything because lack of time, but nevertheless maybe I can add some food for thought I haven`t seen so far.
Also because PAD knows Star Trek I want to mention this: This whole debate about attacking or not attacking Iraq reminded me of the TNG episode “The Wounded”. I am certainly not agreeing to everything Picard did here but concerning the Cardassians there was never a doubt in my mind and I also never heard from other fellow fans that they disageed: Of course the Cardassians had weapons of mass destruction. But instead of renewing the war Picard gave them a warning from the Federation: They will be vigilant and leave it at that in the interest of peace. It was a powerful message then, it is most definitely now. I only wish more people would listen to it.
You do know that in DS9, the Cardassians joined the Dominion and nearly helped destroy the Federation?
Let me conclude by inviting you to check out some of my stories at fanfiction.net, particularly This is Not a 9-11 Story, and also http://www.notinourname.net, a profound antiwar website. In fact they have published an add in the New York Times which inlcuded hundreds of signatories from prominent poets, artists, actors, singers, ect. I would love to see Peter David on there.
Since Not in Our Name gets its funding from radical Islamic groups that want to destroy Israel, I don’t think he would.
This morning, Jacob wrote:
Well, the Dixie Chicks certainly have learned a lesson about what they ought to say in public. Now they have a bad rap and I imagine quite a drop in fans.
I responded:
Ah. So expressing an opinion in public is something that people should have to “learn a lesson” about. Does that apply to all opinions, or just the ones you disagree with?
Just askin’.
Jacob’s response:
The question is so seemingly sarcastic and/or cofrontational that it really doesn’t warrant an answer.
Where did I say I disagreed to an opinion?
Actually, looking back … you didn’t. My apologies. I didn’t sleep especially well last night, and as a result when I saw something that reminded me way too much of Ari Fleischer’s “watch what you say” to Bill Maher (which is very much a governmental response to an opinion rather than a “let the public judge” note), I reacted badly to it.
Again, my apologies for misreading the situation.
Oh, but like you we don’t have to be responsible for our words…
Now this I’ll disagree with. I’ve enough words out there in the public eye (albeit not usually on topics this heated) that I’m very used to being held responsible for them. If I feel one of my statements was out of line or inappropriate, I apologize (as I just did above). If not, I stand by them. I try not to put words in others’ mouths (though I don’t always succeed, clearly), and would appreciate the same courtesy.
TWL
Can you name any civil liberties that have been removed?
Well, beyond the ones previously mentioned, how about the fact that you can no longer go to a library and trust that your choice of reading is private?
Granted, that was never a liberty codified into law (which appears to be the criterion used by some here), but having Ashcroft look at what I’m checking out sure as hëll doesn’t fit MY definition of a free society.
You do know that in DS9, the Cardassians joined the Dominion and nearly helped destroy the Federation?
1) Okay then, I’ll be sure to be wary when Saddam has a chance to ally himself with some newly undiscovered superpower that has a major technological edge over us. 🙂
2) More seriously … yep, they did. After the Klingons attacked them without cause and the Fed stood by and did nothing.
Besides, the Klingons had no shortage of attacks on the Fed in its day. They’re allies now. I kinda thought that was a fairly significant point at the time, too.
Quoting Trek precedents is going to be about as decisive here as quoting Scripture. Potentially more interesting, though. 😉
TWL
I’m becoming more and more anti-war as the likelihood of “Angel” being pre-empted tomorrow grows.
Can someone fix the formatting on this page? These comments are really hard to read.
Yolande
As a huge Trek fan, I think pointing to Trek to make arguments about this war is just plain silly.
The point of Picard’s actions with regard to Captain Maxwell in The Wounded(TNG) were not whether the Cardassians had illegal weapons or whether the Federation should engage in a pre-emptive strike.
The point was that it wasn’t up to one starship captain to make that decision himself, which only an idiot would disagree with. To my knowledge, no one has seriously argued that General Tommy Franks should make the decision himself without strict orders from Bush or Rumsfeld.
Also because PAD knows Star Trek I want to mention this: This whole debate about attacking or not attacking Iraq reminded me of the TNG episode “The Wounded”. I am certainly not agreeing to everything Picard did here but concerning the Cardassians there was never a doubt in my mind and I also never heard from other fellow fans that they disageed: Of course the Cardassians had weapons of mass destruction. But instead of renewing the war Picard gave them a warning from the Federation: They will be vigilant and leave it at that in the interest of peace. It was a powerful message then, it is most definitely now. I only wish more people would listen to it.
I’d like to point out that the Federation could’ve afforded a cold war more than hot one at that point. At that point brinkmanship could have worked. In that sci-fi realm of the 24th Century brinkmanship was as an acceptable and worthwhile tactic against the Cardassian Union as it was against the Soviet Union for the entire Cold War. Also a hot war between the USSR and the United States would have been highly devastating for both sides. A cold war with the threat of mutual annihilation saved lives. Similar threats worked against the Federation’s enemies for a time.
On the other hand, the current situation with Iraq does not parallel anything on Star Trek: the Next Generation. In the current situation brinkmanship and threats of annihilation have worked about as well as threats of vigilance. In other words while we declare vigilance and future vigilance and make threats Saddam builds bombs and hides them.
Now if we promised an extension of vigilance and commit to an actual consequence we may get war. However, a hot war against a lesser-armed nation that is hostile towards us may prove more profitable in the long run than an oft-repeated threat of vigilance until the enemy is well-armed and prepared to whomp us in the future.
It also doesn’t help the concept of brinkmanship that certain leaders are certainly willing to condemn their people to death in order to hurt their respective enemies.
heh.
Hm, my remark about “The Wounded” started an interesting discussion :-).
Well, of course the real world is not Star Trek and of course even the situation in that episode is not completely the same as the one we face now with Iraq and the coming war. Nevertheless, there are some parallels I found interesting and worth thinking about.
My point was among others, the USA would not have chosen to attack Iraq if they would not have been sure that they could win relatively easily. I think there is no doubt about it that Saddam`s military is no real match in the coming conflict. This is certainly also the main reason why Bush is not intending to attack Korea, not to mention interfere militarily in the unfortunately neverending conflict in the Middle East involving Israel and the Palestines. All of them have weapons of mass destruction or at least the potential to create them. And not following UN resolutions? If that would be a major factor, the USA would have invaded the Middle East long ago!
Which is of course a parallel to the Star Trek situation, that the Federation was shying away from a new conflict with the Cardassians because it would cost too much in material and of course casualties.
But I honestly believe that Picard was really holding back because he believed that peace is more important here than getting rid of these weapons at the cost of war.
It is this two-facedness of the USA that also annoys me so much in the coming conflict in Iraq.
“Blair, I just feel sorry for. You know what the Brits call him? “Bush’s Bìŧçh.” “
Actually I’ve never heard him caleld that. Perhaps because Bìŧçh doesn’t have the catemite connetations it does in the US.
We do call him “Bush’s Poodle”.
But Bush and Blair are viewed as war-mongering madman over here in Germany …
I wonder why so many people bring this probable war and the 09/11 together in one sentence. These are two different topics. This war will be because of politics which have developed long before 09/11. Can no one remember that Bush Sr. has his story with Hussein? And isn’t it obvious that Bush Jr. is only in power because he had powerful support during election? (Or should I say his president post was bought for him?)
I am really shocked that Bush and Blair do not seem to be interested what all the other UN-Nations say and what millions of people all over the world think and showed in their demonstrations. It is so sad.
Why couldn’t they just have set an assasin at his trail like in the books or films, huh? Maybe it wouldn’t have been koscher but it maybe would have solved the actual problem.
Thank you, PAD. As usual, your perspective is on the money. I totally agree.
This sets a dangerous new precedent for international disputes. If Israel was to invade Palestine to implement ‘regime change’ and oust what it considers a ‘dictator’, what grounds would the US or Britain have to protest?
By sidestepping the UN it opens the door for others who would like to do the same. If it is good enough for the US then why not everyone else?
And what of UN sanctions and such? Can these be avoided too?
I’m not sure if people realise that this is a lot bigger than Iraq.
Pad, could you do me a favor and post your original message over on the Geoff Johns Message board, you are saying some important things that I think many there should hear. Or if it’s okay with you, could I copy it over there…I suppose a link could work, never mind, is it okay with you if I link it?
Grem-
Maja Rosenberg wrote:
>Can no one remember that Bush Sr.
>has his story with Hussein?
Can you remember that it was Saddam who used weapons of mass destruciton on his own people? Can you remember that it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait (and Iran befoe that)? Can you remember it was Saddam who was supposed to dissarm 12 years ago and cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors and hasn’t?
>I am really shocked that Bush and
>Blair do not seem to be
>interested what all the other UN-
>Nations say and what millions of
>people all over the world think
>and showed in their >demonstrations. It is so sad.
And I think it’s sad you have these delusions that the U.S. (and Britian) is going into this alone. Bush and Blair do care what the other nations think (why else go to the UN in the first place?). If it wasn’t for the self-serving French, we’d more than likley have had a UN resolution to go into Iraq. Why should one country like France stand in ‘our’ way?
Ok war was declaired today and it saddens me to my soul. Two things about today will haunt me firstly the woman I sit next to a twork is from Iraq she grew up most of her life in Australia but she has family in Iraq she was telling me that she spoke with her mother in law yesterday who is currently in Bagdad apparently the people of Bagdad are no longer going to work the children arnt going to school people are sitting in there houses sick with fear waiting to die. This disturbed me on several levels which I cant properly express.
The second thing to trouble me is tonight the Prime Minister of Australia addressed the Nation he sat there with a smug look upon his face and lied through his teeth aparently the reason Australia is throwing herself in the conflict is because of our undying loyalty to America ?????? also we are apparently living in fear of an invasion from North Korea!! Um hello convient nobody has mentioned this burning desire of the North Koreans to rule Australia until today. But we have been assured if we throw ourselves in to Iraq without UN backing but because America would like us to when North Korea invades (Any day now im sure) America will leep to our rescue. Again umm hello!!! No offence to anybody but I dont think we could count on America charging to our rescue because at the end of the day we have nothing you want but what the hay lets bomb a few Iraqis and it might help later.
I hope every death in this stupid war haunts whatever remains of Bush & Blair’s consciences to the end of their days and beyond.
Yes, I wish debillitating psychological harm to others.
I want them to feel pain until they die. This is their own conflict and they should feel the consequences….
wait. you know what? This is a rather sick thing to think when you blow out the candles on your birthday cake.
When you wish upon a star you wish harm on your fellow man.
Judgemental somebody. Sick creep.
“This sets a dangerous new precedent for international disputes. If Israel was to invade Palestine to implement ‘regime change’ and oust what it considers a ‘dictator’, what grounds would the US or Britain have to protest?”
There ain’t no Palestine. There is no such place.
The prescedent is… comforting actually given how unique the circumstances are. This is the anti-Neville Chamberlain situation.
IceSurfer – Say, buddy, before you post again, pull your head out of your ášš and learn proper English.
Icesurfer wrote:
>she has family in Iraq she was
>telling me that she spoke with
>her mother in law yesterday who
>is currently in Bagdad apparently
>the people of Bagdad are no
>longer going to work the children
>arnt going to school people are
>sitting in there houses sick with
>fear waiting to die.
Oh, what a drama queen. It’s too bad that these people must experience this fear, but why don’t you think about “tomorrow” where life will probably be much much better for them when their sadistic regime is toppled? Also, you ever think that some of those Iraqi people may be waiting with hope to be liberated?
>No offence to anybody but I dont
>think we could count on America
>charging to our rescue because at
>the end of the day we have
>nothing you want but what the hay
>lets bomb a few Iraqis and it
>might help later.
You poor misguided fool. If Australia were to be in trouble the United States of America would be the first to their aid. To think otherwise is just ignorant on your part.
IceSurfer – Say, buddy, before you post again, pull your head out of your ášš and learn proper English.
Uugghh huhhh ‘POP’
“Wow” who would have thought the world would be so much brighter with my head out of my áršë?
Now to go find me some proper English I wonder if it will turn out ášš is a donkey and not the thing at the top of my legs?