So I presume you would support the US attacking Iran, North Korea, Cuba, China, and much of Africa and the Middle East as well? Why NOT?
<I>So I presume you would support the US attacking Iran, North Korea, Cuba, China, and much of Africa and the Middle East as well?</I> Why NOT? Well, probably 50,000+ dead or injured American military personnel for starters just from war with North Korea. Maybe another couple of hundred thousand South Koreans killed at the very least. China could nuke half the planet if they felt like it. You might create several thousand more potential terrorists and hundreds of millions more in terrorist funding as the entire world begins to hate us. Probably the world would be far less safe for Americans, both here and abroad. Hundreds of billions of dollars in damage, millions of people killed. Disruption of the world economy and a massive drop in our standard of living. Outside of that, I guess there's no reason not to support attacking the world.
It'd be nice if the US would go back to the isolationist policies that they had before WW2. From my travels around the world, I've noticed that the rest of the world doesn't like us one bit and I think the rest of the world would dance like dervishes to have our lying, oil starved country, not being the world's global police officer. It sucks to be the big kid on the block, because when you're on top anything you do makes you seem like a bully. So, we should just pack our bags, come on home, and let the rest of the world worry about Iraq, crazy dictators, and weapons of mass destruction. I mean, its not our problem right?? The US couldn't possibly be threatened by a a small country like Iraq. And I have to admit, for the President to want to go to war just to make people forget about the horrible economy that they're living in right now, thats just pure genius, Im pretty sure the people who don't have jobs right now are totally distracted by this.
It sucks to be the big kid on the block, because when you're on top anything you do makes you seem like a bully That's not true. When the big kid runs foreign policies that are compatible with other countries, they are not looked at as a bully. The blueprint was Gulf War I, where the world did NOT hate us for invading Iraq because we did it in a massively multilateral fashion. When the big kid uses other countries for their own benefit, then yes, they are going to be resented. Unfortunately, we have a long history of doing that because our foreign policy has always focused on the short-term (except the Marshall Plan, which happened to be one of the most successful foreign policies in our history).
couple of humourous banners from the australian rallies Guy dressed as a Dentist holding a banner "Fight Plaque not Iraq" another banner "Australian's Love Waugh not War" (need to be australian or know cricket to get this one, Steve Waugh is the aussie cricket captain) another "Drop Acid not Bombs" "Going to War for Peace is like F#*king for Virginity" and then "Make Love not War, call me 0401 234 567"
Editorial: The March To Save Saddam By David Horowitz FrontPageMagazine.com | February 14, 2003 Millions of people poured into the streets of cities from Melbourne to New York on Saturday February 15 to protect Saddam Hussein from an imminent American attempt to disarm and dethrone him and disable his arsenal of chemical, biological and proto-nuclear weapons. They professed concern about Iraqi children (bearing mock bodies to symbolize their alarm) but marched in solidarity with Palestinians and Arabs who kill their own children by strapping bombs to them and telling them to blow up other children -- Jew children -- so that they will go to heaven and their families will receive a $25,000 reward. In politics intentions count for nothing; actions are what matter. If the marchers are successful, Saddam will survive to be stronger than ever. All over the Middle East and the Muslim world fanatical haters of Americans, Christians and Jews will take heart from Saddam's successful defiance, will draw the conclusion that the West is weak, and will be inspired to commit new atrocities against its most defenceless citizens. All the marches were organized by supporters of Communist and other totalitarianisms, and by the fifth column agents of Islamo-fascism. All the demonstrations promoted Iraqi war propaganda -- myths about starving children and about alleged mercernary interests behind American policy; all of them had one purpose -- to disarm the American force already in the Middle East and allow Saddam to fight another day. It is true that some of the marchers were well-intentioned or at least not so blind yet that they could look past the evil that is the regime in Iraq. What of it? What could be more irrelevant than splitting critical hairs when your country is under attack and your actions serve the aggressors? During the Cold War there were many intelligent souls on the left who joined the "peace" demonstrations in the West organized by Communists and their supporters, but described themselves as "anti-anti-Communists." They meant by this that they knew that Communism was bad, but were against the cold warriors who were locked in mortal combat with the Soviet empire. The Gorbachev regime in their eyes was bad, but Ronald Reagan was a "warmonger" and therefore worse. The anti-anti-Communists may have been good at stimulating critical discussion. A democracy can always benefit from dissenters because no faction has a monopoly on truth. But in practice the decent opponents of Cold War encouraged the Communists to hold onto their slave empire and resist the presures of the free world. In the end it was Ronald Reagan and the Cold Warriors he led who stymied the Communists' ambitions, brought down the Soviet empire and liberated more than a billion people. In the scales of that historic struggle, when it came to mobilizing the military resources that backed the enemy down, the anti-anti-Communists ultimately put their weight on the other side of the scale. During the Vietnam War -- the clearest parallel to the present events -- the anti-war movement was organized by Communists who wanted the other side to win. The non-Communists who joined their marches, whatever their intentions, served the same practical end. America was divided at home and these divisons evnetually forced its armies to retreat from the field of battle. As a result, the Communists won and proceeded to slaughter two-and-a-half million peasants in Indo-China between 1975 and 1978. This is the scenario that the people (mostly the same people) who are leading Saturday's protests hope to accomplish: the defeat of the West and the triumph of Islamo-fascism and its friends. Today's "peace" movement -- the innocent-intentioned along with the malevolent rest -- is a fifth column army in our midst working for the other side. Already their leaders have warned that if the United States remains determined to oppose this totalitarian evil and stay its intended course, they will act within our borders to "disrupt the flow of normal life" and sabotage the war. This is ultimately the most ominous threat Americans face. Abroad we can conquer any foe. The real danger lies at home.
Who Pays For These Demonstrations? By Stephen Schwartz FrontPageMagazine.com | January 24, 2003 Both before and after the latest round of so-called peace demonstrations, many respected liberals, leftists, and pacifists have expressed their concern over the events’ control by a tiny Stalinist cult, the "Workers World Party" or WWP. WWP created International A.N.S.W.E.R., the umbrella group for the protests, and WWP leaders, posing as peace activists, have gained extraordinary media access in recent weeks. In addition, the group manipulates former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark as a pliable puppet, in an effort to gain respectability. The despicable record of WWP in promoting Stalinist and fascist dictators is old news. WWP, the patron of International A.N.S.W.E.R., is on record supporting: * The pitiless massacre of Chinese protestors by the armed forces in Tiananmen in 1989. WWP states, "troops were issued arms… after some students took some soldiers hostage. On June 4, [1989], the demonstration changed from a peaceful protest to violent attacks on the soldiers… events were a battle – not a massacre." Everybody in the world knows this is a disgusting lie. * The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, among whose defenders WWP are doubtless the most fawning. Their newspaper, also titled Workers World, wrote gleefully, in 2001, "more and more countries had begun individually breaking the ban on flights and other sanctions against Iraq." Right: countries with an equally bad or worse record, like Yugoslavia, which supply Iraq with illegal chemical, biological, and other weapons. *The evil regime of crazed North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il. WWP hack Deidre Griswold, who has been shoveling this manure for some 35 years, recently wrote, from the Communist hell itself, "People here in the socialist north of Korea are well aware of U.S. President George W. Bush's remarks branding their country as part of an ‘Axis of Evil.’ It has in no way dampened their ardor for their independent socialist system… Koreans today are celebrating… the continuity of leadership represented by unity around Kim Jong Il, who is pledged to follow the course of national independence and socialist construction charted by Kim Il Sung… the North Korean socialist system, which has kept it from falling under the sway of the transnational banks and corporations that dictate to most of the world." No mention here of the numerous individuals and families that have risked their lives and those of their relatives to escape the reality of North Korean socialism, or of North Korean international weapons sales, kidnapping of foreign nationals, terrorist attacks, or other details. *In one of its most disgusting, and continuous, displays of admiration for genocidal fascists, WWP, the leaders of International A.N.S.W.E.R. are prominent defenders of indicted Serbian war criminal Slobodan Milosevic. When the trial of Milosevic began last year at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, Netherlands. The International Action Center (IAC), predecessor of International A.N.S.W.E.R, "sent a delegation to take part in activities showing solidarity with the defendant and opposing the ‘trial’ as a NATO frame up." They declared, "Washington and its NATO allies hopes (sic) to pin the guilt for the 10 years of civil war in the Balkans on the Yugoslav leader." Who in the world, aside from fevered extremists, believes this swill? WWP has also published expensive volumes defending Milosevic. Never mind that these Stalinist rodents see no inconsistency in acclaiming Saddam, who claims the title "sword of Islam," and Milosevic, whose terror took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Balkan Muslims. The peace parasites of WWP are thrilled to kiss the shoes of bloodthirsty tyrants like Saddam, Kim, and Milosevic, and then have the nerve to repeat moronic chants, in the streets of our cities, charging President Bush with genocide! Numerous liberals, leftists, and pacifists have correctly questioned the morality of joining such vermin in their parades. Nevertheless, the main question has yet to be posed: Who pays for the Workers World Party, its weekly tabloid, its website, books, speaking tours, and other extensive activities? Whose money keeps their "Korea Peace Commission," and "Independent Commission of Inquiry to Investigate US/NATO War Crimes Against the People of Yugoslavia" going? WWP is a minuscule Stalinist group. It does not command thousands of members or control major labor unions. Yet for many years groups of its leading members have constantly flown back and forth to Pyongyang and Baghdad, with side visits to Cuba and other isolated Stalinist territories, staying in hotels and traveling around in "solidarity." Who subsidizes "peace" activities that, regardless of the apparent sincerity of many marchers, aim to defend monsters like Saddam and Kim? Who foots the bill for WWP and its acolytes to assist Milosevic in the dock? Any normal citizen should wonder whether this "peace" movement is not, in fact, directly funded and controlled by Saddam and Kim. Unfortunately, most Americans have forgotten that, before 1941, Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese militarists bankrolled similar "peace movements" in the U.S., and that the Soviet Communist Party paid for such propaganda for years and years. We know who stands behind International A.N.S.W.E.R.: the mindless totalitarians of the WWP. Who stands behind them? Americans have a right to know, and if these phony peaceniks really desire respectability, they should be willing to publicly account for their financing, especially for air travel and hotel hospitality enjoyed while they serve as camouflage tourists in states committed to terrorism. There can be no place in the United States for "peace" activism bought and paid for by the evildoers. Hmmm...
More on the "peace" movement: The "Peace" Movement: a Front for the Anti-American Left? By Jamie Glazov FrontPageMagazine.com | February 7, 2003 As the anti-war rallies increase in intensity, a significant question consistently surfaces: is this peace movement a "peace" movement? What kind of peace movement has a North Korean-adoring Communist sect running it, calls for revolution and pretends that Saddam is the victim? In examining this phenomenon, another pertinent question arises: can there - as Michael Walzer has asked – even be a decent left? Indeed, if the "peace" movement today, like its anti-Vietnam predecessor, hopes for the victory of America’s despotic enemies, how can it be decent? Frontpage Symposium explores these issues with a panel of experts. Joining us today are Sean Wilentz, the author of several books on American history who teaches at Princeton University, Ronald Radosh, Senior Adjunct Fellow at the Hudson Institute; Prof. Emeritus of History at the City University of New York; and the author of many books, including "The Rosenberg File" and "Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left"; Michael Berube, a professor of American literature and culture at Penn State University; and David Horowitz, the editor-in-chief of Frontpage Magazine. full text of symposium here: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?
Sounds like a bunch of tree-hugging crap to me. Seeing signs like "Drop Acid not Bombs" hurts protestors because it makes them all look like a joke.
Articles from FrontPageMagazine.com: a Front for the Radical Right? By Jeff Balke TryPostingSomethingNotBiased.com | February 15, 2003 Have whatever opinion you like but don't attempt to prove your point with opinion and "news" from an obviously biased website. It's like trying to prove that hell exists with the Bible. But, if that is how you want to approach it, I can prove George W. Bush is really a clone of Adolf Hitler. I can also prove that Dick Cheney was abducted by aliens. Oh, and Michael Jackson is no longer black. Actually, that one is true, but you didn't hear it from me.
Why don't you try reading it, Jeff? Half of the symposium participants are self-described leftists and liberals, all of whom are apparently worried that their causes and ideology are being hijacked by whackos? Thanks, Mr. Open Minded.
Some other funny banners and quotes from the London demonstration. "Bush and Blair wanted for murder" "Drop Bush, Not Bombs." "I'm American and I care - please don't think we are all like Bush." "The U.N. reports shows they are not hiding anything." "This war is against Islam and for oil" "America is the number one terrorist nation" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is why it's hard for some people (at least it is for me) to take some of the anti-war protestors seriously. The best reason I've heard so far to NOT go to war is the possibility that it will increase anti-American sentiment that will lead to more terrorists. And this is a legitimate concern that I respect. However, without Saddam the terrorists chances of acquiring weapons (of the mass destruction variety) probably decrease. And two, I'm not convinced that America leaving the Middle East will change anything as far as the terrorists anti-American sentiment. I mean, as long as they believe it's an honor to die for their religion, they're always going to find something to die for, and attacking the "infidels" will always be the best reason to blow themselves up.
You don't find it somewhat curious that the recent demonstrations have been bankrolled and organized by organizations with somewhat dubious motives and some shadowy connections with some less-than-altruistic patrons? I find that interesting. I gather that you're not a big fan of Frontpage Magazine? I can see why, honestly - they are admittedly to the right of center. Their information, however, seldom turns out to be concocted out of thin air, though. Yes, they have a definite political slant, but they're not making the evidence for their point up. Argue the substance if you want to prove (or disprove) a point.
So, I'm assuming then that I could post articles from Mother Jones, AlterNet, The Nation, Democracy Now and Utne Reader that completely dispute everything you say and that would somehow prove my point? Using David Horowitz' stuff to tout the war effort or to slam the peace effort would be like me using Arianna Huffington to do the opposite. Using either of them to prove any point is a waste of time because they have no credibility outside of their own sphere of influence and rhetoric. I don't believe that there is a vast right wing industrial complex running the world and I'm not going to "Help David expose the leftist plot to control America's young minds." If you tried to prove your position using these types of sources in school, you'd get an 'F.' Any news editor worth his salt would toss this "investigative journalism" out the window along with the writer who attempted to pass it off as "news." You're going to have to do better than using biased right wing sources as "proof" for anything.
Interesting site treeman,...good substance. I recommend all to read the several fact-based articles regardless of your slant.
Thanks for arguing the substance, Jeff. You really knocked that crazy idea I had about ANSWER being a puppet organization controlled by the WWP interest right out of the water... Oh, wait, you didn't. Thanks for nothing. I do love it when we talk about the issues.
