Published on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 by CommonDreams.org War and Peace NOTE: Marianne Williamson (http://www.marianne.com) is an internationally acclaimed author. She has published nine books, four of which have been #1 New York Times bestsellers, including her most recent, EVERYDAY GRACE. Her titles include HEALING THE SOUL OF AMERICA and A RETURN TO LOVE. She also edited IMAGINE: What American Could Be in the 21st Century, a compilation of essays by some of America's most visionary thinkers. Marianne is a part of a citizen lobbying campaign to create a U.S. Dept. of Peace - http://www.DoPCampaign.org
by Marianne Williamson
I remember before the war started in Iraq, watching Dennis Kucinich debate the Bush administration's Richard Perle on television. Kucinich said that if we went to war there would be hand-to-hand combat in Baghdad, to which Perle patronizingly responded that Kucinich clearly didn't know what he was talking about.
Today, there is hand-to-hand combat in Iraq.
Those who think comparisons to Viet Nam are facile, might want to think again. Those who think we are demonstrating for the entire world to see the unbeatable power of the United States, might want to think again. Those who think what we are doing in Iraq is somehow defeating terrorism, might want to think again.
It is hard to bear the thought of the fear our soldiers must be feeling now. They are surrounded by people they were told would see them as liberators, so many of whom now see them as an occupying army. Perhaps if we had had a real plan for what to do after strutting our macho-gone-mad display of "Shock and Awe," we would indeed have won the hearts of the Iraqi people. But clearly, we had no real plan for doing so. We seem to be very efficient at waging war, yet almost inept at waging peace.
As it is, we hear quotes such as this one from a forty-year-old college graduate in Iraq, who himself was imprisoned for two years by Saddam Hussein yet now resents the American occupation. When asked by New York Times reporters whether he wasn't grateful to the United States for overthrowing Saddam, he responded angrily, "It was God who finished Saddam, not the Americans. The Americans broke all their promises to us, and they have brought their infidel beliefs to Iraq. We hate them, and they are worse than Saddam."
What the United States government doesn't seem to understand is that you can't just go around destroying people you don't like, and expect all your problems to be over. Behind every Viet Cong there was another one behind the next tree. Behind Saddam there now appears Moktade al-Sadr, and once we've dealt with him, the consciousness he represents will morph into another leader just as troublesome.
Until we recognize the importance of our relationship to the hearts and minds of the people of the world, we will continue to inspire enmity despite whatever good intentions we actually bring to the table. You cannot impose your will on other people -- even if your will is for their higher good -- and not expect them to resent you.
A nation is a collection of individuals, and individuals are deeply influenced by their feelings. Imposing your will on others is a basically disrespectful stance, and showing disrespect --- particularly to an Arab male, whose culture so focuses on honor and respect --- is psychologically and emotionally inept.
Terrorism is an emotion turned into a political force. Until we recognize that, and deal with emotion and psychology as the political factors they actually represent, we will continue to strut our military power without consciousness or concern with how it feels to other people when we do so. This will lead to disaster. It already has.
Governments tend to approach life from a left-brain, rationalistic perspective - which is fine, except that most people don't. In l997, I met an Egyptian diplomat in Agra, India, where I was leading a spiritual pilgrimage. He told me the following, which I quoted in my book "Healing the Soul of America".
"I do not mean this as a criticism of the United States," he said. "I know the Americans are good men and women. But please try to make them understand; many people in my part of the world feel they have been forced to try to keep up with you, in a race we do not really care to run. Your technology is amazing, but America seems spiritually polluted to many of us. Your ways are not our ways, and while we were tempted for a while to think that your ways should be our ways, we do not think that anymore.
This is the problem, Ms. Williamson, and there will be terrible consequences in the world if Americans do not come to understand this. Islamic terrorists have had such success - if you would call their campaigns a success - because they have been able to persuade millions of peasants that America is bad. It was not too difficult to do, Ms. Williamson. All they have to do is describe the television programs you export to this part of the world, and people are horrified.
Your government does not understand. They do not see how the people feel. We need the American people to understand. Perhaps you will bring more Americans to our part of the world. If they come to understand us, then they will respect us. We would feel that respect, and then I don't think the terrorists would have such success. This is not a job the CIA can do. It is only a job which people can do."
What a tragedy, that our government does not reflect the emotional sensitivity and sophistication of the average American. Until it does, we are all in danger.
Oh, great! Diplomatic, military and foreign policy wisdom from the touchy-feely Calafornia guru-ess - to - the - stars. And posted by Common Dreams, yet! I wonder how Znet and the Yellow News got scooped.
Re:virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq
« Reply #2 on: 2004-05-03 20:31:18 »
[Joe Dees] Oh, great! Diplomatic, military and foreign policy wisdom from the touchy-feely Calafornia guru-ess - to - the - stars. And posted by Common Dreams, yet! I wonder how Znet and the Yellow News got scooped.
Although I would not go on a pilgrimage to Agra, India, myself -- hell, I haven't even attended a Magick ritual in my whole life -- still I might feel compelled to say something meaningful about the author's argument if I thought she was wrong. Her argument seems to be this:
<begin quote> A nation is a collection of individuals, and individuals are deeply influenced by their feelings. Imposing your will on others is a basically disrespectful stance, and showing disrespect --- particularly to an Arab male, whose culture so focuses on honor and respect -- is psychologically and emotionally inept." <end quote>
As for the rest, I don't know about Yellow News but I do visit Znet (http://www.zmag.org) pretty often, fully aware of what I will find there: A wide collection of articles, from both mainstream and independent sources, clearly committed to the worldview(s) of the left. Among the unavoidable space-filler, there is always good material with critical thought and news which did not make it to the newsstands and TV. They also seem to have a special relationship with Noam Chomski. Highly recommended, even for putting your own arguments to a test.
RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq
« Reply #3 on: 2004-05-05 02:23:59 »
A personal attack on the author and subtle (haha) disdain for the poster. Oh, and a sarcastic jab implying the source wasn't popular enough. Yet nothing about the content? Hmmmmmm
Oh, great! Diplomatic, military and foreign policy wisdom from the touchy-feely Calafornia guru-ess - to - the - stars. And posted by Common Dreams, yet! I wonder how Znet and the Yellow News got scooped.
RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq
« Reply #4 on: 2004-05-05 16:57:34 »
It's generally much more easy and comfortable to attack a source that says "I told you so", rather than admit that you were completely or almost completely wrong. Habitual Bush apologists seem to have no lack of irrational denial to call upon in these situations. I wouldn't expect even a bare modicum of intellectual honesty from them from here on out now that almost all of their rationalizations have gone up in delusional smoke. It's a pretty common human response, however, so I wouldn't automatically write them all off as anything less than common without knowing more. Disillusion is an ugly process that often has no concern for honesty or reality unless and until it has run its course.
-Jake
> [Original Message] > From: Kalkor <kalkor@kalkor.com> > To: <virus@lucifer.com> > Date: 05/04/2004 11:23:59 PM > Subject: RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq > > A personal attack on the author and subtle (haha) disdain for the poster. > Oh, and a sarcastic jab implying the source wasn't popular enough. Yet > nothing about the content? Hmmmmmm > > Kalkor > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf > Of Joe Dees > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 3:42 PM > To: virus@lucifer.com > Subject: Re:virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq > > > > Oh, great! Diplomatic, military and foreign policy wisdom from the > touchy-feely Calafornia guru-ess - to - the - stars. And posted by Common > Dreams, yet! I wonder how Znet and the Yellow News got scooped. > > ---- > This message was posted by Joe Dees to the Virus 2004 board on Church of > Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=302 > 44> > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens --- every1hz@earthlink.net --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq
« Reply #5 on: 2004-05-05 16:32:00 »
Jake Sapiens Sent: 05 May 2004 10:58 PM
It's generally much more easy and comfortable to attack a source that says "I told you so", rather than admit that you were completely or almost completely wrong. Habitual Bush apologists seem to have no lack of irrational denial to call upon in these situations. I wouldn't expect even a bare modicum of intellectual honesty from them from here on out now that almost all of their rationalizations have gone up in delusional smoke. It's a pretty common human response, however, so I wouldn't automatically write them all off as anything less than common without knowing more. Disillusion is an ugly process that often has no concern for honesty or reality unless and until it has run its course.
[Blunderov] The whole Iraq scenario is a hideous fiasco and now the whole world appears to be seething with bombs in public places. (Hope the Rhino is safe.)
At least Jubagulord made it out OK.
'Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war'. Havoc it certainly is and so it looks to remain.
RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq
« Reply #6 on: 2004-05-05 19:33:13 »
If by Bush apologist you mean people like me, then you are right about one thing: my opinions have not changed one whit.
The reasons for going to war are as sound as ever, even with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight. Even what I considered one of the lower order good reasons (of many) - the WMD *threat* - was real and increasingly we see evidence of what happened to Saddam's arsenal (it went to Syria) and there are studiously under-reported discoveries of his nuclear and weapons program almost every day.
Iranian and Syrian backed insurrections are causing a few problems, but the military response has be nothing short of brilliant. The situation in troubled but utterly winnable. If people back home have courage, determination and good will.
I this forum, politically, we get a self-reinforcing cycle of anti-Bush and anti-War opining that whilst emboldening rabid anti-Semites bigots like Jei and spurring my esteemed fellows Jake and Kalkor to harsh claims, is mostly unbalanced and based on bunk.
For quality analysis of what I going on in Iraq, why not try dispassionate and balanced commentary? Try:
His recent essay on the Iraqi torture scandal is magnificent. He concludes:
"If a small number of soldiers has transgressed, then let us punish them severely, as well as the officers who either ordered or ignored such reprehensible behaviour. But let us also accept that the reaction to this incident is indicative of larger moral asymmetries that are the burdens of the West when it goes to war, a culture that so often equates the understandable absence of perfection, either moral, political, or military, with abject failure -- a fact not lost on our enemies.
We have seen terrible things since September 11 -- monotonous public executions, taped decapitations, videos of brutalized hostages, diplomats gunned down, aid workers riddled with bullets, children's bodies blown apart by improvised explosive devices, nuts, bolts and rat poison added to suicide bombs -- most under either the sponsorship of some autocratic Middle Eastern governments or of terrorist cabals that could not exist without at least the tacit support of thousands in the Arab street.
So as we in America address the moral inadequacies of a handful of our soldiers, let those in the Middle East take heart from our own necessary and stern democratic inquiries and audits, and thus at last now apply the same standards of accountability to tens of thousands, far more culpable, of their own."
Just for the record, Kalkor and Jake what do you recommend as the solution to the Iraq situation? US pullout? Reinstatement of Saddam? Handing over to Al Sadr?
I suggest you heed the UN representative to Iraq :
"A key question is whether a credible political process is even viable under such circumstances [Limbic notes this he refers to recent insurrection and strife]. It is important to note, in this context, that the limited task we are presently engaged in - the formation of an administration to assume responsibility as of 30 June - is part of a much broader political process, and that this political process has to be seen against the background of the realities that made it necessary: namely, war and occupation and, before that, a very harsh and brutal regime, and severe, even crippling sanctions, not to mention two earlier devastating and costly wars.
The political process aims at restoring Iraqi sovereignty and independence, preserving the country's unity and territorial integrity, and making the Iraqi people truly the masters of their own destiny, with the political system of their choice and control over their own natural resources.
So: Is it possible for the process to proceed under such circumstances? Will it be viable? Will it be credible? I put it to you and the Council, Mr. President, that *there is in fact no alternative but to find a way of making the process viable and credible*. Between security on the one hand, and the end of occupation, the restoration of sovereignty and independence and the advent of a legitimate Iraqi government and political regime on the other, there is a dialectical link which is obvious. Security is essential for the process to be completed. A viable political process is no panacea. It is a powerful contributing factor to security; hence, the importance for a credible Iraqi Government to be in place and lead the way in the completion of the next phase of the political process. In the end, the solution to Iraq's problems will have to come from the Iraqis themselves. The sooner a credible Iraqi government is in place to lead the way, the better, especially because the absence of such a sovereign government is part of the problem in the first place."
Let's stop gloating at every setback and roaring "I told you so" so very prematurely about circumstances long anticipated and in the scheme of things minor setbacks agitated by countries who are trying to divert attention from the WMD programs.
Iraq has to work. If it fails it will not be anyone's fault by the tribal mafia/Mujahedin/Islamist alliance, the hostile western and Arab press and those of you who continue to take out your anger at being impotent to stop the war by supporting the ruining of the peace.
It's generally much more easy and comfortable to attack a source that says "I told you so", rather than admit that you were completely or almost completely wrong. Habitual Bush apologists seem to have no lack of irrational denial to call upon in these situations. I wouldn't expect even a bare modicum of intellectual honesty from them from here on out now that almost all of their rationalizations have gone up in delusional smoke. It's a pretty common human response, however, so I wouldn't automatically write them all off as anything less than common without knowing more. Disillusion is an ugly process that often has no concern for honesty or reality unless and until it has run its course.
[Blunderov] The whole Iraq scenario is a hideous fiasco and now the whole world appears to be seething with bombs in public places. (Hope the Rhino is safe.)
At least Jubagulord made it out OK.
'Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war'. Havoc it certainly is and so it looks to remain.
I pooh-pooh'ed Ms. Williamson's Kum-Bay-Yah'ish plea because she has no qualifications beyond being an author of vaguely mystical self-affirmation books, and presents nothing more substantial than an anecdote as evidence.
As to the situation in Iraq, what we have is less than 2000 Baathist dead-enders and foreign (mostly Syrian) jihadis in Fallujah, and less than 2000 hotheaded and margin-inhabiting Shi'ite hotheads led by a 30-year-old who isn't even a mullah (Sadr), who has been repudiated by the Shi'ite clerical establishment, and whose so-called Mahdi army is being systematically assassinated by the Thulfiqar Army, a native-born death squad, in Najaf and Karbala. They are trying, and failing, to hold hostage the will of 20+ Iraqis, the majority of who, according to a BBC poll, both desire a constitutional democracy in Iraq and desire the US military to remain until the fledgling government is able to provide safety to its citizens and security for its borders.
Here is an excellent New York Times article on the subject:
Shiite Leaders Urge Cleric to End Fighting in 2 Iraqi Cities By JOHN F. BURNS
AGHDAD, Iraq, May 4 — Representatives of Iraq's most influential Shiite leaders met here on Tuesday and demanded that Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric, withdraw militia units from the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, stop turning the mosques there into weapons arsenals and return power to Iraqi police and civil defense units that operate under American control.
The Shiite leaders also called, in speeches and in interviews after the meeting, for a rapid return to the American-led negotiations on Iraq's political future. The negotiations have been sidelined for weeks by the upsurge in violence associated with Mr. Sadr's uprising across central and southern Iraq and the simultaneous fighting in Falluja, the Sunni Muslim city west of Baghdad.
On Tuesday, the Shiite leaders, including a representative of a Shiite clerical group that has close ties to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, effectively did what the Americans have urged them to do since Mr. Sadr, a 31-year-old firebrand, began his attacks in April: they tied Iraq's future, and that of Shiites in particular, to a renunciation of violence and a return to negotiations.
Their statement repeated warnings to American troops not to enter Najaf and Karbala in pursuit of Mr. Sadr. Although American commanders have hinted at an offensive soon against against Mr. Sadr's force, the Mahdi Army, they have repeatedly said they do not intend to attack Najaf or Karbala. They have not made such a promise about Kufa, a small city six miles northeast of Najaf, where Mr. Sadr appears to have established his headquarters.
Although Shiite leaders have made similar demands of Mr. Sadrbefore, it has never been in such strength. About 150 leaders attended the gathering, representing many of Shiism's most influential political, religious and professional groups. One group, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, has close ties to Ayatollah Sistani, who is regarded as Iraq's top Shiite cleric and the country's most influential political voice.
It has been several weeks since Mr. Sadr suggested he might heed Shiite leadership.
The Shiite leaders convened in Baghdad on short notice, reflecting their urgency to calm a month's violence sown by Mr. Sadr across much of southern Iraq. Equally disturbing to many Shiites, American occupation officials, faced with the dual challenges from Mr. Sadr and Sunni Muslim insurgents in Falluja, have handed some authority in Falluja to elements of Saddam Hussein's former army, despised by Shiites as an instrument of his repression.
Several Shiite leaders acknowledged that they had delayed issuing their statement until there were clear signs that public opinion among Shiites had moved strongly against Mr. Sadr. Reports in the past two weeks have spoken of a shadowy death squad calling itself the Thulfiqar Army shooting dead at least seven of Mr. Sadr's militiamen in Najaf, and several thousand people attended an anti-Sadr protest meeting outside the Imam Ali shrine in the city on Friday, according to several of the meeting's participants.
Mr. Mahdi, from the Sciri group, which is close to Ayatollah Sistani, was blunt about Mr. Sadr's decline in popularity. "He's 100 percent isolated across most of the southern provinces; he's even isolated in Najaf," he said. "The people there regard him as having taken them hostage." He said Mr. Sadr had also been criticized by his most powerful religious backer, Grand Ayatollah Kazem Hossein Haeri, based in the Iranian city of Qum, who had urged Mr. Sadr to pull his militiamen out of Najaf and Karbala and to stop storing weapons in mosques.
Several speakers implied that the Sunni minority intended to derail the American-led political process, and thus the prospect of a Shiite majority government. On few occasions, if any, since the American invasion last year, have mainstream Shiite leaders spoken so bluntly in public of the political rivalry with the Sunnis, who were referred to repeatedly by speakers as "they" or "the other side," and barely at all by name.
Before joining with other Shiite leaders for the Tuesday meeting here, Shiites on the governing council, including Mr. Mahdi, had a tempestuous meeting with the two top American officials in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, the civilian chief of the occupation authority, and Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the commander of American forces.
At one point, the council members said, they told the Americans they were risking civil war between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite communities by endorsing the Falluja deal with elements of Mr. Hussein's old army.
In near 100-degree heat in the late afternoon, few of the Shiite speakers stirred much enthusiasm. But the strongest murmurings of the meeting came when Taqlif al-Faroun, a tribal leader from Najaf, said Shiites should give the American forces a green light to go after Mr. Sadr in the holy cities. "Najaf is not Mecca," he said. "The Americans don't want to go into the shrines. They want to get rid of criminals and thieves. So what if they enter the city?" Across the roof, dozens of men responded approvingly. "Yes, yes!", they said.
I also heartily recommend reading over the analysis to be found at The Belmont Club, beginning with the first of last month up until the present day.
> I pooh-pooh'ed Ms. Williamson's Kum-Bay-Yah'ish plea because she has no qualifications beyond being an author of vaguely mystical self-affirmation books, and presents nothing more substantial than an anecdote as evidence.
--
Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Pursue the small utopias... nature, music, friendship, love" --Kupferberg--
RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq
« Reply #9 on: 2004-05-06 04:32:19 »
I don't know from what planet you got the idea that we found any evidence of WMD in Iraq, or that any such WMD were shipped off to Syria. I HAVE heard Rush Limabaugh hopefully speculating that something like that happened. Like him, your opinions on this seem much more immutable than the speculations you offer in support of them. Damn all the evidence, somehow there were WMD's. Of course you may be unconcerned either way, but this was the reason the Bush administration most strongly advocated for invading Iraq against the better judgment of most of our allies.
>snip<
> Just for the record, Kalkor and Jake what do you recommend as the solution > to the Iraq situation? US pullout? Reinstatement of Saddam? Handing over to > Al Sadr?
With current US leadership I don't see any good solution in sight. The way this administration has squandered its credibility with most of our closest allies, the only way I see that they can end this would be a unilateral and catastrophic US pullout. This of course would be terrible for the Iraqis, but probably no worse than they have endured for decades anyway. If we get new US leadership, we will probably be in a better position to attempt a happier ending with the aid of allies who won't currently bother risking their own credibility with this current US administration. The real question is do we want to proceed alone or with help? Like a one trick pony, the Bush administration has so consistently and so pre-emptively chosen unilateralism to the point that they have burned all bridges to real diplomacy, not that they show any interest in actually trying that now anyway. The more alone we are in Iraq regardless of our military strength, the more disappointing the experiment in democracy will become. I think the best we can reasonably hope for in a Bush future would be an Islamic Iraqi state like Iran.
>snip<
> Let's stop gloating at every setback and roaring "I told you so" so very > prematurely about circumstances long anticipated and in the scheme of things > minor setbacks agitated by countries who are trying to divert attention from > the WMD programs. > > Iraq has to work. If it fails it will not be anyone's fault by the tribal > mafia/Mujahedin/Islamist alliance, the hostile western and Arab press and > those of you who continue to take out your anger at being impotent to stop > the war by supporting the ruining of the peace. > > Regards > > Limbic
I see. Once again anybody who opposes the current admnistration is an angry, impotent, unpatriotic person hoping that peace will fail and the economy will collapse. Yep, that's what godless liberal babykillers like me pray for every night. What an amazing job of uncovering my secret political motivations!
Yet again the Bush apologists who cannot handle the message, would simply prefer to destroy the conversation rather than deal with facts that have become fairly obvious to the rest of the world. It saddens me to see you participating so eagerly in this intellectual dishonesty.
-Jake
> [Original Message] > From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net> > To: <virus@lucifer.com> > Date: 05/05/2004 4:33:13 PM > Subject: RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq > > If by Bush apologist you mean people like me, then you are right about one > thing: my opinions have not changed one whit. > > The reasons for going to war are as sound as ever, even with the benefit of > 20:20 hindsight. Even what I considered one of the lower order good reasons > (of many) - the WMD *threat* - was real and increasingly we see evidence of > what happened to Saddam's arsenal (it went to Syria) and there are > studiously under-reported discoveries of his nuclear and weapons program > almost every day. > > Iranian and Syrian backed insurrections are causing a few problems, but the > military response has be nothing short of brilliant. The situation in > troubled but utterly winnable. If people back home have courage, > determination and good will. > > I this forum, politically, we get a self-reinforcing cycle of anti-Bush and > anti-War opining that whilst emboldening rabid anti-Semites bigots like Jei > and spurring my esteemed fellows Jake and Kalkor to harsh claims, is mostly > unbalanced and based on bunk. > > For quality analysis of what I going on in Iraq, why not try dispassionate > and balanced commentary? Try: > > http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/ > > I also recommend the absolutely brilliant Victor Davis Hanson. Here are two > latest essays: > > What the President Might Say > http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200404300833.asp > > Myth or Reality? > Will Iraq work? That's up to us. > http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200404230833.asp > > His recent essay on the Iraqi torture scandal is magnificent. He concludes: > > "If a small number of soldiers has transgressed, then let us punish them > severely, as well as the officers who either ordered or ignored such > reprehensible behaviour. But let us also accept that the reaction to this > incident is indicative of larger moral asymmetries that are the burdens of > the West when it goes to war, a culture that so often equates the > understandable absence of perfection, either moral, political, or military, > with abject failure -- a fact not lost on our enemies. > > We have seen terrible things since September 11 -- monotonous public > executions, taped decapitations, videos of brutalized hostages, diplomats > gunned down, aid workers riddled with bullets, children's bodies blown apart > by improvised explosive devices, nuts, bolts and rat poison added to suicide > bombs -- most under either the sponsorship of some autocratic Middle Eastern > governments or of terrorist cabals that could not exist without at least the > tacit support of thousands in the Arab street. > > So as we in America address the moral inadequacies of a handful of our > soldiers, let those in the Middle East take heart from our own necessary and > stern democratic inquiries and audits, and thus at last now apply the same > standards of accountability to tens of thousands, far more culpable, of > their own." > > http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/3955 > > > > Just for the record, Kalkor and Jake what do you recommend as the solution > to the Iraq situation? US pullout? Reinstatement of Saddam? Handing over to > Al Sadr? > > I suggest you heed the UN representative to Iraq : > > "A key question is whether a credible political process is even viable under > such circumstances [Limbic notes this he refers to recent insurrection and > strife]. It is important to note, in this context, that the limited task we > are presently engaged in - the formation of an administration to assume > responsibility as of 30 June - is part of a much broader political process, > and that this political process has to be seen against the background of the > realities that made it necessary: namely, war and occupation and, before > that, a very harsh and brutal regime, and severe, even crippling sanctions, > not to mention two earlier devastating and costly wars. > > The political process aims at restoring Iraqi sovereignty and independence, > preserving the country's unity and territorial integrity, and making the > Iraqi people truly the masters of their own destiny, with the political > system of their choice and control over their own natural resources. > > So: Is it possible for the process to proceed under such circumstances? Will > it be viable? Will it be credible? I put it to you and the Council, Mr. > President, that *there is in fact no alternative but to find a way of making > the process viable and credible*. Between security on the one hand, and the > end of occupation, the restoration of sovereignty and independence and the > advent of a legitimate Iraqi government and political regime on the other, > there is a dialectical link which is obvious. Security is essential for the > process to be completed. A viable political process is no panacea. It is a > powerful contributing factor to security; hence, the importance for a > credible Iraqi Government to be in place and lead the way in the completion > of the next phase of the political process. In the end, the solution to > Iraq's problems will have to come from the Iraqis themselves. The sooner a > credible Iraqi government is in place to lead the way, the better, > especially because the absence of such a sovereign government is part of the > problem in the first place." > > http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq1.asp?NewsID=730&sID=19 > > Let's stop gloating at every setback and roaring "I told you so" so very > prematurely about circumstances long anticipated and in the scheme of things > minor setbacks agitated by countries who are trying to divert attention from > the WMD programs. > > Iraq has to work. If it fails it will not be anyone's fault by the tribal > mafia/Mujahedin/Islamist alliance, the hostile western and Arab press and > those of you who continue to take out your anger at being impotent to stop > the war by supporting the ruining of the peace. > > Regards > > Limbic > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of > Blunderov > Sent: 05 May 2004 21:32 > To: virus@lucifer.com > Subject: RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq > > Jake Sapiens > Sent: 05 May 2004 10:58 PM > > It's generally much more easy and comfortable to attack a source that says > "I told you so", rather than admit that you were completely or almost > completely wrong. Habitual Bush apologists seem to have no lack of > irrational denial to call upon in these situations. I wouldn't expect even > a bare modicum of intellectual honesty from them from here on out now that > almost all of their rationalizations have gone up in delusional smoke. > It's a pretty common human response, however, so I wouldn't automatically > write them all off as anything less than common without knowing more. > Disillusion is an ugly process that often has no concern for honesty or > reality unless and until it has run its course. > > [Blunderov] The whole Iraq scenario is a hideous fiasco and now the whole > world appears to be seething with bombs in public places. (Hope the Rhino is > safe.) > > At least Jubagulord made it out OK. > > 'Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war'. Havoc it certainly is and so it > looks to remain. > > Gloomily > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens --- every1hz@earthlink.net --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
Would you like to discuss the other reasons we went to war? I also note that no one is answering my simple question - would they prefer it that Saddam Hussein was still in power today. Also, given many people apparent hostility to the US occupation, what are your suggested alternatives and do you think continued insurrection is the best way of ending the occupation to the best outcome?
Or is this all just about "damn you went to war even though I objected and now I hope you fail" - that is, spite.
Kind regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of Jake Sapiens Sent: 06 May 2004 09:32 To: virus Subject: RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq
I don't know from what planet you got the idea that we found any evidence of WMD in Iraq, or that any such WMD were shipped off to Syria. I HAVE heard Rush Limabaugh hopefully speculating that something like that happened. Like him, your opinions on this seem much more immutable than the speculations you offer in support of them. Damn all the evidence, somehow there were WMD's. Of course you may be unconcerned either way, but this was the reason the Bush administration most strongly advocated for invading Iraq against the better judgment of most of our allies.
>snip<
> Just for the record, Kalkor and Jake what do you recommend as the > solution to the Iraq situation? US pullout? Reinstatement of Saddam? > Handing over to > Al Sadr?
With current US leadership I don't see any good solution in sight. The way this administration has squandered its credibility with most of our closest allies, the only way I see that they can end this would be a unilateral and catastrophic US pullout. This of course would be terrible for the Iraqis, but probably no worse than they have endured for decades anyway. If we get new US leadership, we will probably be in a better position to attempt a happier ending with the aid of allies who won't currently bother risking their own credibility with this current US administration. The real question is do we want to proceed alone or with help? Like a one trick pony, the Bush administration has so consistently and so pre-emptively chosen unilateralism to the point that they have burned all bridges to real diplomacy, not that they show any interest in actually trying that now anyway. The more alone we are in Iraq regardless of our military strength, the more disappointing the experiment in democracy will become. I think the best we can reasonably hope for in a Bush future would be an Islamic Iraqi state like Iran.
>snip<
> Let's stop gloating at every setback and roaring "I told you so" so > very prematurely about circumstances long anticipated and in the > scheme of things > minor setbacks agitated by countries who are trying to divert > attention from > the WMD programs. > > Iraq has to work. If it fails it will not be anyone's fault by the > tribal mafia/Mujahedin/Islamist alliance, the hostile western and Arab > press and those of you who continue to take out your anger at being > impotent to stop the war by supporting the ruining of the peace. > > Regards > > Limbic
I see. Once again anybody who opposes the current admnistration is an angry, impotent, unpatriotic person hoping that peace will fail and the economy will collapse. Yep, that's what godless liberal babykillers like me pray for every night. What an amazing job of uncovering my secret political motivations!
Yet again the Bush apologists who cannot handle the message, would simply prefer to destroy the conversation rather than deal with facts that have become fairly obvious to the rest of the world. It saddens me to see you participating so eagerly in this intellectual dishonesty.
-Jake
> [Original Message] > From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net> > To: <virus@lucifer.com> > Date: 05/05/2004 4:33:13 PM > Subject: RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq > > If by Bush apologist you mean people like me, then you are right about > one > thing: my opinions have not changed one whit. > > The reasons for going to war are as sound as ever, even with the > benefit of > 20:20 hindsight. Even what I considered one of the lower order good reasons > (of many) - the WMD *threat* - was real and increasingly we see > evidence of > what happened to Saddam's arsenal (it went to Syria) and there are > studiously under-reported discoveries of his nuclear and weapons > program almost every day. > > Iranian and Syrian backed insurrections are causing a few problems, > but the > military response has be nothing short of brilliant. The situation in > troubled but utterly winnable. If people back home have courage, > determination and good will. > > I this forum, politically, we get a self-reinforcing cycle of > anti-Bush and > anti-War opining that whilst emboldening rabid anti-Semites bigots > like Jei > and spurring my esteemed fellows Jake and Kalkor to harsh claims, is mostly > unbalanced and based on bunk. > > For quality analysis of what I going on in Iraq, why not try > dispassionate and balanced commentary? Try: > > http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/ > > I also recommend the absolutely brilliant Victor Davis Hanson. Here > are two > latest essays: > > What the President Might Say > http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200404300833.asp > > Myth or Reality? > Will Iraq work? That's up to us. > http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200404230833.asp > > His recent essay on the Iraqi torture scandal is magnificent. He concludes: > > "If a small number of soldiers has transgressed, then let us punish > them severely, as well as the officers who either ordered or ignored > such reprehensible behaviour. But let us also accept that the reaction > to this incident is indicative of larger moral asymmetries that are > the burdens of the West when it goes to war, a culture that so often > equates the understandable absence of perfection, either moral, > political, or military, > with abject failure -- a fact not lost on our enemies. > > We have seen terrible things since September 11 -- monotonous public > executions, taped decapitations, videos of brutalized hostages, > diplomats gunned down, aid workers riddled with bullets, children's > bodies blown apart > by improvised explosive devices, nuts, bolts and rat poison added to suicide > bombs -- most under either the sponsorship of some autocratic Middle Eastern > governments or of terrorist cabals that could not exist without at > least the > tacit support of thousands in the Arab street. > > So as we in America address the moral inadequacies of a handful of our > soldiers, let those in the Middle East take heart from our own > necessary and > stern democratic inquiries and audits, and thus at last now apply the > same standards of accountability to tens of thousands, far more > culpable, of their own." > > http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/3955 > > > > Just for the record, Kalkor and Jake what do you recommend as the > solution to the Iraq situation? US pullout? Reinstatement of Saddam? > Handing over to > Al Sadr? > > I suggest you heed the UN representative to Iraq : > > "A key question is whether a credible political process is even viable under > such circumstances [Limbic notes this he refers to recent insurrection > and strife]. It is important to note, in this context, that the > limited task we > are presently engaged in - the formation of an administration to > assume responsibility as of 30 June - is part of a much broader > political process, > and that this political process has to be seen against the background > of the > realities that made it necessary: namely, war and occupation and, > before that, a very harsh and brutal regime, and severe, even > crippling sanctions, > not to mention two earlier devastating and costly wars. > > The political process aims at restoring Iraqi sovereignty and independence, > preserving the country's unity and territorial integrity, and making > the Iraqi people truly the masters of their own destiny, with the > political system of their choice and control over their own natural resources. > > So: Is it possible for the process to proceed under such circumstances? Will > it be viable? Will it be credible? I put it to you and the Council, Mr. > President, that *there is in fact no alternative but to find a way of making > the process viable and credible*. Between security on the one hand, > and the > end of occupation, the restoration of sovereignty and independence and > the advent of a legitimate Iraqi government and political regime on > the other, there is a dialectical link which is obvious. Security is > essential for the > process to be completed. A viable political process is no panacea. It > is a powerful contributing factor to security; hence, the importance > for a credible Iraqi Government to be in place and lead the way in the completion > of the next phase of the political process. In the end, the solution > to Iraq's problems will have to come from the Iraqis themselves. The > sooner a credible Iraqi government is in place to lead the way, the > better, especially because the absence of such a sovereign government > is part of the > problem in the first place." > > http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq1.asp?NewsID=730&sID=19 > > Let's stop gloating at every setback and roaring "I told you so" so > very prematurely about circumstances long anticipated and in the > scheme of things > minor setbacks agitated by countries who are trying to divert > attention from > the WMD programs. > > Iraq has to work. If it fails it will not be anyone's fault by the > tribal mafia/Mujahedin/Islamist alliance, the hostile western and Arab > press and those of you who continue to take out your anger at being > impotent to stop the war by supporting the ruining of the peace. > > Regards > > Limbic > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On > Behalf Of > Blunderov > Sent: 05 May 2004 21:32 > To: virus@lucifer.com > Subject: RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq > > Jake Sapiens > Sent: 05 May 2004 10:58 PM > > It's generally much more easy and comfortable to attack a source that > says "I told you so", rather than admit that you were completely or > almost completely wrong. Habitual Bush apologists seem to have no > lack of irrational denial to call upon in these situations. I > wouldn't expect even > a bare modicum of intellectual honesty from them from here on out now > that almost all of their rationalizations have gone up in delusional smoke. > It's a pretty common human response, however, so I wouldn't > automatically write them all off as anything less than common without knowing more. > Disillusion is an ugly process that often has no concern for honesty > or reality unless and until it has run its course. > > [Blunderov] The whole Iraq scenario is a hideous fiasco and now the > whole world appears to be seething with bombs in public places. (Hope > the Rhino is > safe.) > > At least Jubagulord made it out OK. > > 'Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war'. Havoc it certainly is and so > it looks to remain. > > Gloomily > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens --- every1hz@earthlink.net --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq
« Reply #11 on: 2004-05-06 11:59:42 »
I have never heard of these source you provide. The first website as best I can tell is rabidly anti-Kerry by the creative highly slanted polls in the margins in which all possible answers are designed to disparage Kerry's military service. In any case the story your linked was no longer available according to the site itself. Never heard of the other one either, and considering that its claims were made back in February, it seems shocking that such astounding revelations never made it to more reputable sources in over three months . . . . well not really all that shocking. For the rest of us dealing with realty, we live in that universe where US weapons inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction or any evidence of their recent existence within Iraq during the lead up to the war.
As for your claims of my spite, that's just more of your fantasy/denial. It has nothing to do with my alleged hope for failure, failure is already on us. If you envision a peaceful hand over of power at the end of next month as promised, you are clearly delusional and haven't been paying attention. Far from wishing defeat, I like you, was clearly convinced that Saddam had WMD's prior to the invasion. In fact for me it was the only reason that kept me from joining anti war activities. Obviously I was wrong, however, and my opinions do change when relevant facts do. I see that you, like the right wing wackos who inhabit our AM radio bandwidths believe that having unwavering opinions, especially on war, is a good thing. In the Church of the Virus we have identified this unreasonable/delusional intransigence as the senselessness of dogmatism.
-Jake
> [Original Message] > From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net> > To: <virus@lucifer.com> > Date: 05/06/2004 2:56:56 AM > Subject: RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq > > Hi Jake, > > Here is a recent article that disputes your claims that "we" did not find > "any evidence of WMD in Iraq" . > > http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams. > Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml > > Also, just briefly, on the matter of WMD to Syria, check out this sample > article: > > http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=780 > > Would you like to discuss the other reasons we went to war? I also note that > no one is answering my simple question - would they prefer it that Saddam > Hussein was still in power today. Also, given many people apparent hostility > to the US occupation, what are your suggested alternatives and do you think > continued insurrection is the best way of ending the occupation to the best > outcome? > > Or is this all just about "damn you went to war even though I objected and > now I hope you fail" - that is, spite. > > Kind regards > > Jonathan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of > Jake Sapiens > Sent: 06 May 2004 09:32 > To: virus > Subject: RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq > > I don't know from what planet you got the idea that we found any evidence of > WMD in Iraq, or that any such WMD were shipped off to Syria. I HAVE heard > Rush Limabaugh hopefully speculating that something like that happened. > Like him, your opinions on this seem much more immutable than the > speculations you offer in support of them. Damn all the evidence, somehow > there were WMD's. Of course you may be unconcerned either way, but this was > the reason the Bush administration most strongly advocated for invading Iraq > against the better judgment of most of our allies. > > >snip< > > > Just for the record, Kalkor and Jake what do you recommend as the > > solution to the Iraq situation? US pullout? Reinstatement of Saddam? > > Handing over > to > > Al Sadr? > > With current US leadership I don't see any good solution in sight. The way > this administration has squandered its credibility with most of our closest > allies, the only way I see that they can end this would be a unilateral and > catastrophic US pullout. This of course would be terrible for the Iraqis, > but probably no worse than they have endured for decades anyway. If we get > new US leadership, we will probably be in a better position to attempt a > happier ending with the aid of allies who won't currently bother risking > their own credibility with this current US administration. The real > question is do we want to proceed alone or with help? Like a one trick > pony, the Bush administration has so consistently and so pre-emptively > chosen unilateralism to the point that they have burned all bridges to real > diplomacy, not that they show any interest in actually trying that now > anyway. The more alone we are in Iraq regardless of our military strength, > the more disappointing the experiment in democracy will become. I think the > best we can reasonably hope for in a Bush future would be an Islamic Iraqi > state like Iran. > > >snip< > > > Let's stop gloating at every setback and roaring "I told you so" so > > very prematurely about circumstances long anticipated and in the > > scheme of > things > > minor setbacks agitated by countries who are trying to divert > > attention > from > > the WMD programs. > > > > Iraq has to work. If it fails it will not be anyone's fault by the > > tribal mafia/Mujahedin/Islamist alliance, the hostile western and Arab > > press and those of you who continue to take out your anger at being > > impotent to stop the war by supporting the ruining of the peace. > > > > Regards > > > > Limbic > > I see. Once again anybody who opposes the current admnistration is an > angry, impotent, unpatriotic person hoping that peace will fail and the > economy will collapse. Yep, that's what godless liberal babykillers like me > pray for every night. What an amazing job of uncovering my secret political > motivations! > > Yet again the Bush apologists who cannot handle the message, would simply > prefer to destroy the conversation rather than deal with facts that have > become fairly obvious to the rest of the world. It saddens me to see you > participating so eagerly in this intellectual dishonesty. > > -Jake > > > [Original Message] > > From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net> > > To: <virus@lucifer.com> > > Date: 05/05/2004 4:33:13 PM > > Subject: RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq > > > > If by Bush apologist you mean people like me, then you are right about > > one > > thing: my opinions have not changed one whit. > > > > The reasons for going to war are as sound as ever, even with the > > benefit > of > > 20:20 hindsight. Even what I considered one of the lower order good > reasons > > (of many) - the WMD *threat* - was real and increasingly we see > > evidence > of > > what happened to Saddam's arsenal (it went to Syria) and there are > > studiously under-reported discoveries of his nuclear and weapons > > program almost every day. > > > > Iranian and Syrian backed insurrections are causing a few problems, > > but > the > > military response has be nothing short of brilliant. The situation in > > troubled but utterly winnable. If people back home have courage, > > determination and good will. > > > > I this forum, politically, we get a self-reinforcing cycle of > > anti-Bush > and > > anti-War opining that whilst emboldening rabid anti-Semites bigots > > like > Jei > > and spurring my esteemed fellows Jake and Kalkor to harsh claims, is > mostly > > unbalanced and based on bunk. > > > > For quality analysis of what I going on in Iraq, why not try > > dispassionate and balanced commentary? Try: > > > > http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/ > > > > I also recommend the absolutely brilliant Victor Davis Hanson. Here > > are > two > > latest essays: > > > > What the President Might Say > > http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200404300833.asp > > > > Myth or Reality? > > Will Iraq work? That's up to us. > > http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200404230833.asp > > > > His recent essay on the Iraqi torture scandal is magnificent. He > concludes: > > > > "If a small number of soldiers has transgressed, then let us punish > > them severely, as well as the officers who either ordered or ignored > > such reprehensible behaviour. But let us also accept that the reaction > > to this incident is indicative of larger moral asymmetries that are > > the burdens of the West when it goes to war, a culture that so often > > equates the understandable absence of perfection, either moral, > > political, or > military, > > with abject failure -- a fact not lost on our enemies. > > > > We have seen terrible things since September 11 -- monotonous public > > executions, taped decapitations, videos of brutalized hostages, > > diplomats gunned down, aid workers riddled with bullets, children's > > bodies blown > apart > > by improvised explosive devices, nuts, bolts and rat poison added to > suicide > > bombs -- most under either the sponsorship of some autocratic Middle > Eastern > > governments or of terrorist cabals that could not exist without at > > least > the > > tacit support of thousands in the Arab street. > > > > So as we in America address the moral inadequacies of a handful of our > > soldiers, let those in the Middle East take heart from our own > > necessary > and > > stern democratic inquiries and audits, and thus at last now apply the > > same standards of accountability to tens of thousands, far more > > culpable, of their own." > > > > http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/3955 > > > > > > > > Just for the record, Kalkor and Jake what do you recommend as the > > solution to the Iraq situation? US pullout? Reinstatement of Saddam? > > Handing over > to > > Al Sadr? > > > > I suggest you heed the UN representative to Iraq : > > > > "A key question is whether a credible political process is even viable > under > > such circumstances [Limbic notes this he refers to recent insurrection > > and strife]. It is important to note, in this context, that the > > limited task > we > > are presently engaged in - the formation of an administration to > > assume responsibility as of 30 June - is part of a much broader > > political > process, > > and that this political process has to be seen against the background > > of > the > > realities that made it necessary: namely, war and occupation and, > > before that, a very harsh and brutal regime, and severe, even > > crippling > sanctions, > > not to mention two earlier devastating and costly wars. > > > > The political process aims at restoring Iraqi sovereignty and > independence, > > preserving the country's unity and territorial integrity, and making > > the Iraqi people truly the masters of their own destiny, with the > > political system of their choice and control over their own natural > resources. > > > > So: Is it possible for the process to proceed under such circumstances? > Will > > it be viable? Will it be credible? I put it to you and the Council, Mr. > > President, that *there is in fact no alternative but to find a way of > making > > the process viable and credible*. Between security on the one hand, > > and > the > > end of occupation, the restoration of sovereignty and independence and > > the advent of a legitimate Iraqi government and political regime on > > the other, there is a dialectical link which is obvious. Security is > > essential for > the > > process to be completed. A viable political process is no panacea. It > > is a powerful contributing factor to security; hence, the importance > > for a credible Iraqi Government to be in place and lead the way in the > completion > > of the next phase of the political process. In the end, the solution > > to Iraq's problems will have to come from the Iraqis themselves. The > > sooner a credible Iraqi government is in place to lead the way, the > > better, especially because the absence of such a sovereign government > > is part of > the > > problem in the first place." > > > > http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq1.asp?NewsID=730&sID=19 > > > > Let's stop gloating at every setback and roaring "I told you so" so > > very prematurely about circumstances long anticipated and in the > > scheme of > things > > minor setbacks agitated by countries who are trying to divert > > attention > from > > the WMD programs. > > > > Iraq has to work. If it fails it will not be anyone's fault by the > > tribal mafia/Mujahedin/Islamist alliance, the hostile western and Arab > > press and those of you who continue to take out your anger at being > > impotent to stop the war by supporting the ruining of the peace. > > > > Regards > > > > Limbic > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On > > Behalf > Of > > Blunderov > > Sent: 05 May 2004 21:32 > > To: virus@lucifer.com > > Subject: RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq > > > > Jake Sapiens > > Sent: 05 May 2004 10:58 PM > > > > It's generally much more easy and comfortable to attack a source that > > says "I told you so", rather than admit that you were completely or > > almost completely wrong. Habitual Bush apologists seem to have no > > lack of irrational denial to call upon in these situations. I > > wouldn't expect > even > > a bare modicum of intellectual honesty from them from here on out now > > that almost all of their rationalizations have gone up in delusional > smoke. > > It's a pretty common human response, however, so I wouldn't > > automatically write them all off as anything less than common without > knowing more. > > Disillusion is an ugly process that often has no concern for honesty > > or reality unless and until it has run its course. > > > > [Blunderov] The whole Iraq scenario is a hideous fiasco and now the > > whole world appears to be seething with bombs in public places. (Hope > > the Rhino > is > > safe.) > > > > At least Jubagulord made it out OK. > > > > 'Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war'. Havoc it certainly is and so > > it looks to remain. > > > > Gloomily > > > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > --- Jake Sapiens > --- every1hz@earthlink.net > --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet. > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens --- every1hz@earthlink.net --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
Re:virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq
« Reply #12 on: 2004-05-06 10:17:57 »
Oh frabjous day! Welcome back Jonathan. I see that we managed to get your attention to the matters of the church after all. If I understand your sources correctly, Saddam's weapons of mass destruction have already been found but there is a conspiracy of the mass media to keep it a secret, right? So it is not correct that Saddam was telling the truth and that Bush administration was lying, right? And they have been keeping it a secret from Bush himself too, right? Everything seems possible at the point we have reached, doesn't it?
What about Syria? Should they be invaded and searched and taught some Democracy in the process?
Now, where was that torch? Here is my Quiz of the Day. Who said this last Tuesday?
<begin quote> "My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture ... I don't know if it is correct to say what you just said, that torture has taken place, or that there's been a conviction for torture. And therefore I'm not going to address the torture word." <end quote>
Debka is famous for it's pro-israel articles that seem to provide always "just the right 'evidence' needed/ordered" in whatever topic is relevant to Israel's current interests at the moment. - They, however, always lack the necessary proof, despite claims and apparent leads to the contrary.
I really haven't seen any other "news" establishment quite like it, claiming reliability.
...
A nice article summarizing what has been done by our representatives in our name:
Look What You Have Done Spare Us Your Disgusting Ethics
[...]
Now, was it worth it?
Personally, I am surprised that no jewish groups have expressed any kind of sympathy to the modern day holocaust that has been perpetrated on the civilians. Jews, of all people, should understand what kind of numbers of dead people we are talking about.
And the fact that there is no excuse left for us having done it should demand some kind of public court of justice to condemn those leaders responsible in order for western democracies to redeem themselves.
The hypocrisy is reaching higher than the peaks of mount everest, and the fact that Hitler's side won, does not make it any more right.
Yep, Juuko; Counterpunch is right up there with Common Dreams, znet and Yellow Times. Home to Fisk, Pilger, Rall, Chomsky and the late Ed Said. Real objective sources, there, Bucko. Gotta be better than mine, which are Insight, Reason, Tech Central Station, Asia Times, National Review Online, The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, Spiked Online, Slate, Salon, The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, Harper's, Foreign Policy, Policy Review, Foreign Affairs, the Wilson Quarterly, etc.
Note to Jake: How's Ol' Dean-o doin' ya ol' Deaniac?
Author
Logged
