I was there. It was a good rally. 300 people showed up, and Sissy Farenthold spoke well. It felt good to feel like I did something when you feel so powerless about it all. More and more people are coming out against this war since the Bush Administration hasn't really provided much of a rationale. It's time for people to act.
Originally posted by glynch Cohen quote: This is when I believe you were playing the anti-semitic card again. In this very thread to try to intimindate or win a point with Achebe. Deny the implication that he's stereotyping my opinion. Why is it that he brings up references to Israel? So even if what I say is accurate, you claim that I am trying to play some anti-semitic card? And FWIW, I draw a distinction between stereotyping/bigotry and anti-semitism. Assigning an opinion to me because of my name in disgusting, but it doesn't mean he has an automatic dislike for people with my name. It does mean he may be more likely to have a problem, and I will certainly ask the question, regardless of whether you think 'I'm playing a card'. Achebe's insinuations have been much less obvious than yours, but their's enough there to raise suspicions. I was asking him because I have my suspicions about Achebe's motivation, but I'm not certain. I'm very certain about yours. They're well proven. I'm over 40, and have never had someone assign opinions to me because of my name, until you glynch, and now maybe Achebe. Congratulations, but also sincerely, thanks. It's a unique experience that grows my empathy for others. Cohen, again as you know we agree on many things. You dont support Sharon and you want a two state solution with pre 1967 borders or damn close to it, which would involve dismantling the settlements with their billions and growing dollars of infratructure. Correct. The reason why I say "passive support" is that you have never presented one possible way that the US or the world could try to get Israel to reach these goals. As far as I know you nix Un peacekeepers, reduction in economic and military aid, sanctions or any thing that would get a hardhead like Sharon to change his plans. Maintaining the staus quo means more settlements and more problems or perhaps even big time ethnic cleansing by Israel. Again. At least this time, you prefaced with 'as far as I know'. I've said before that I am very much in favor of pressuring Israel with reductions in aid, just not to $0 like some here argue for. You keep thinking that I'm one of those who thinks Israel can do no wrong. I'm not. They have serious imperfections just like any other country, and electing Sharon is a bad bellwether. I would welcome a discussion with you on meaningful concrete steps to get Sharon, and at this time he is the middle of the road in Israel, to behave. Until that time we should probably try not to discuss the issue. . I have stated more actions I think we should take against Israel, than you have recommended to stop suicide bombing of civilians. If you want to discuss it, address everyone's concerns or it is not a solution.
Our discussion can be summarized: I think there is a credible threat from Saddam and you don't. That's fine. But disingenuous? Sorry Achebe, but I'm not the only one. I've read information like what treeman and Buck provided. I've read about the Iraqi weapons program in detail...which was shocking. I am unclear why you think I am being disengenuous (although I can certainly relate to the sensation). You don't think I am honest when I say I think a threat from Saddam is real? What is your basis for that claim? Is it what you imply in the last paragraph, the Israel/ME thing? I don't feel compelled to get into my background and upraising (I shouldn't have to, should I?), but don't make assumptions about how I feel about the ME situation. glnych does it repeatedly, and he's often very wrong. You claim that my opinion is silly, yet you call a country with the world's second largest oil reserves 'piddly'. A country that spent $8 billion on a nuclear device (I have nentioned it before, but you seem to ignore it), is piddly? Who's being silly? You may disagree with the magnitude or probability of the threat from Saddam, but don't try to make a claim that I am being disingenuous unless you care to back it up.
Again I said, "above all." I find it inconceivable to believe an entire war would be instigated to satisfy Bush's purported oil appetence. Would the United States benefit from a surplus of Iraqi oil? Sure. But if the President were more concerned with satisfying his appetite for oil rather than sincerely preserving national security, Iraq barely rounds out the top ten oil producing countries. Top Ten Oil Producing Countries 1-Saudi Arabia 2-US 3-Russia 4-Iran 5-Mexico 6-Venezuela 7-China 8-Norway 9-UK 10-Iraq Credit - BP Amoco Statistical Review of World Energy (2000) Firstly, we would be hearing continuous propaganda about how many Saudi Arabian men were on the planes that destroyed thousands of lives. (Which of course is fact.) Because why go for the 10th producer of oil if you could have the largest? And given the amount of hijackers on the planes were mostly Saudi a war in Saudi Arabia would had been a much easier sell to the people of the United States. While the armed forces started building up on the Saudi Arabian borders we would be listening to incessant tripe of how Russia is conspiring against the United Sates by handing out suitcase bombs to terrorists. Then you would have Iran, Mexico, Venezuela, and Norway being branded as terrorist states and the "Quartet of Iniquity". But what I don’t understand is if this entire War on Terrorism is but a façade to satisfy Bush’s oil interests then why not go for Iran first? Surely they would had been an easier sell to the United States people? And Bush’s oil interests would benefit more so from the abundance of oil Iran produces as oppose to Iraq’s. The entire oil exploit everyone likes to visit is based on conjecture, cynicism and political bias. Lets not rationalize who Saddam Hussein is. He’s no different from a convicted serial killer on death row. Lets not discriminate between who’s more fanatical. Saddam is unacceptable no matter how you look at it. I don’t think Iraq is in a more favorable circumstance with Saddam in power than out. I’m sure there is a concern in relation to a surviving Iraqi government. But we visited that in Afghanistan and we got a satisfactory leader there. An Iraq without Saddam would be a big step in the right direction, of course, in my sincere opinion. But you still haven't answered the question. You do believe Saddam's regime isn't the more threatening so who is(if anyone)?
1988 (pre Gulf War I) would be a more interesting year to examine, since Iraq currently restricted in exporting oil (that whole oil for food thingy).
Well too bad the US government will never own a drop of that oil. The US oil industry is privatized. That whole capitalism thing.
The large multinational oil companies may benefit. Is it coincidence that these same companies have close ties to the White House and Bush?
What kind of ties? They donate to the campaign? So do lots of people. And Bush also wants to get re-elected. Paying attention to one lobbying group and ignoring your base isn't the best way to win re-election. In any case, the US government will never own the oil fields, they don't even have the machinery to do anything with oil.
I wish more of the regular folks (i.e. not affiliated with whatever nutjob group du jour is the organizer) attending these protests felt the same as you. I've never understood why so many progressive people in a purported "peace" movement knowingly affiliate themselves with, and give implicit support to, groups such as the IAC, ANSWER, the WWP, etc.... The excuse of "well, they know how to organize a protest" is pretty lame, actually. You know, the American Nazi Party (yeah, sadly they still exist) is against war in Iraq, yet somehow I doubt that many progressives would attend a rally sponsored and organized by them. But somehow the IAC is acceptable? I just don't get it. Also, like you, I've also never been able to reconcile the tremendous amount of hate I've seen and heard at these events with the whole purported ethos of a "peace movement".
Well, following the whole "blood for oil" logic, isn't it also possible (likely?) that the reason the U.S. has gotten little or no support from the EU (France and Germany in particular) for an Iraqi campaign is the close business ties that those countries share with Iraq?
Cohen, I've written that there are only a few reasons to fight a war with Iraq. Advantages include: a) Iraq is a threat to us. b) Iraq is a placeholder in a tense region. A democracy in that place would facilitate, or maybe... destabilize, a chance at peace longterm... an interesting experiment, nonetheless. c) Iraq has oil *yummy*. d) Iraq violates human rights. We are not going to war for 'd'. There are reasons to be dubious about the blatancy of 'c'; though we haven't seen the plans for Iraq reconstruction . That, unless the coffee hasn't kicked in (it doesn't until ~4) leaves 'a' and 'b'. I haven't seen anyone convincingly argue that Iraq is a threat to us. They weren't culpable in the event that set us down this path. They were completely dismantled by us in a matter of weeks 11 years ago. Honestly, what is there to blow up? The populated areas? We routinely decimate signs of force in huge buffer zones of the country. Our best intelligence estimates assure us that Sadaam would never attack us unless facing one last horrah(sp). Everyone I know concedes that its a sketchy task to even attack 'intent', even with the shadowiness of terrorism. That's the one point I've been asking you to concede this entire time. Do we go to war with Germany in '33? It would've been nice, if not fraught with a billion dangers (including German terrorists w/ a much stronger academic apparatus). Rice argued last year that the preemptive plans of today would have led us to strike out against the Soviets in the '60s and "that would've been a good thing". WTF? These weirdos are in positions of power??? The other point, my 'ME' point... was simply that, imo... that's the only salient reason to fight a war with Iraq. I'm not sure that all Americans would support it... or if it'd garner any support in the UN (b/c then it really would be perceived as a war between Islam/Judaism... when it's partly a war between colonialist-Zionism vs human rights and for us, long term stability via a democratic vehicle with which to sell our goods (putatively; unfortunately there aren't infinite material goods to appease the masses)). For that you insinuate that I'm anti-semitic. Who exactly is silly?
how about, Iraq is a danger to a region of the world the US has a HUGE interest in? add that to the list. energy is more than just money...
I think the Europeans still remember the devatations of WW II, which leads them to have a "higher" bar when it comes to starting wars. Their closer promixity to Iraq should also not be discounted. Terrorists inspired by the Gulf War II will find Europe an easier target than the US.
The economic relationship has naturally lessened over the past 10 years, but it's definitely still there. Oilfield equipment one of the few items that can be sold to Iraq, needs replacement and maintenance, and European countries supply the bulk of that material, along with medical equipment and supplies. I was mainly pointing out (poorly at best) another inconsistency/problem with the whole "war for oil" mantra of some anti-war types. If the Iraqi regime is truly not a threat and this was really all about U.S. oil corporations benefiting from increased oil production in Iraq, wouldn't the easiest route be simply to remove the sanctions?
no they don't...s. koreans don't remember the korean war...the french don't remember WWII...americans don't remember WWII and few even seem to remember much of the cold war...i see nothing to indicate that plays into their thinking on these or any other foreign policy matters...the difference is we've seen the real effects of mass terrorism firsthand, and they haven't...we're motivated by that fear, and they're not. but culturally speaking, france has always been quirky when it's come to foreign policy. there is a general disdain for americans and american policy, and that's been the case for years..that didn't start with George W. Bush. english leadership seem very concered about terrorism there, and their reaction is to eliminate the threat before it targets innocents...french reaction is typical french reaction.
Gotcha Yes, I've made that point before as well. Remove sanctions, let all the corporations in and make tons of money for the oil industry.
I agree with your second point, and would add that European countries have seen a huge wave of Arab/Islamic immigration recently. Their governments are, possibly rightfully so, extremely worried about civil unrest and/or terrorism if they are seen as supporting the U.S.
Here is where I have to disagree. One time some college buddies and I put on some tattered khaki slacks, halloween masks and went around to grocery stores at 2 AM dancing for the various shoppers while our friends would video tape and throw quarters at our heads. I don't think the khaki pants comforted the frightened grocery patrons at all.
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer disagrees with your opinion. European ingorant of first hand terrorism???
