I dunno, John. It seems naive of you to ask why UNICEF food for kids
didn't go to kids. Why were children of dissidents--including toddlers--
jailed? Why didn't the money from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program go to
the Iraqi people, rather than to weapons and palaces? That just wasn't
how Saddam operated. He was evil to a degree that most of us can't
even wrap our minds around.
I do not believe we're seriously considering invading Syria. I believe
we are simply exerting pressure for them to behave a little bit better.
This is another of those instances in which the threat of force is the
best plan for averting the *use* of force.
India cannot go into Pakistan for the same reason we couldn't go into
North Korea: it might start a nuclear war. This will have to be explained
to them, as it was explained to N. Korea (probably by China) that they
need to show some goddamned manners. Their attitude seems to have changed
in the past month or so . . .
John, I'm assuming you were also against Clinton's war in Kosovo, since
it was justified on humanitarian grounds but didn't have U.N. approval.
I'm also assuming everyone's just as upset about France going into the
Ivory Coast recently--also without any kind of U.N. resolution.
Lenny is right about one thing: 9/11 did create a new paradigm: we see
things a little differently now. I'm as concerned about overreaction and
the judgment of history as the next girl, but at the same time I see
that we have no guarantees we won't be attacked on our own soil, and
that there are elements in the Arab world (most definitely including the
Islamic fundies) who respect nothing so much as force. I have no qualms
about making U.S. security a priority. None whatsoever.
David: I don't care what the world thinks. I care that it's a better
place now. I care that Bush and Blair had the leadership and vision to
pull this thing off. I care that there is finally a chance for democracy
to flourish in the Middle East. Popularity means nothing to me. I mean,
let's face it: it's always been hip to hate us. So what? It's like being
from L.A. As far as our allies are concerned, we had 16 out of 19 NATO
nations on our side--and 45 in the coalition at large--so I don't really
see us as isolated in any way.
As for censoring people in inappropriate contexts, well . . . I wish
the Robbins/Sarandon thing had been handled differently, but I do
understand the fear of actors using podiums for inappropriate purposes.
(Michael Moore, are you listening?) The incident also provides us with
the hilarious spectacle of Robbins (whom, again, I love as an artist)
making melodramatic speeches about how everyone is cowering in fear
and afraid to speak up. He reminds me of Michael Kelly's brilliant
article about all the talk about dissent being stifled--whereupon
he began to list all the places in our country (mainstream media, talk
radio, internet news sites, bloggers) from where "the stifled" might be
heard.
As far as this "civil liberties" thing is concerned, I'll keep researching
it, but I haven't really found a smoking gun. I've found a lot of
hysterical talk about John Ashcroft. But as most of you know, I really
felt that previous to this administration the Constitution was in
trouble, what with Ruby Ridge, Waco--and the War on Drugs essentially
making the fourth amendment null and void. Y'all should feel free to
send me fact-oriented pieces on the civil liberties front, but so far
I remain unconvinced that this administration is worse than the last
two in that regard. (Though I'll admit to being furious about the
attempts to do an end-run around California's medical-marijuana laws.
The cool thing is I can write letters "as a registered Republican.")
That verbose enough for you, Baby?
--Joy
> The people of Iraq are no doubt better off now that Saddam Hussein
is
> out of power. Even as a member of Amnesty International, I was still
> surprised at what went on there, with all the political murders and
> toture... In one of Uday's palaces (he is the oldest son of Saddam),
> among all the guns, booze and porn, US Forces found a large cache of
> UNICEF supply boxes intended for Iraqi children. Why weren't the
Iraqi
> children getting these things, which they were certainly entitled
to?
>
> I am, however, still against this war. The fact that Hussein has
WMDs
> (e.g. "big bad weapons") and may use them is no excuse to invade.
> Doing so sets a dangerous precedent: As we mull over the pros and
cons
> of now attacking Syria for the same reasons, reports are coming in
> that India is considering attacking Pakistan, for the very same
> reasons: India claims that Pakistan has WMDs and is harboring
> terrorists. Why would India's "war against terror" be any less valid
> than the American one?
>
> The United States does not have the unilateral right to "correct" a
> regime that it sees as unfit.
>
> Just my two rupees.
> I had written a long response to this, which, alas got lost due to
> various computer anomalies. To sum up, I wrote:
>
> - A good end does not justify questionable means.
> - Even if we find WMD (and I think we will, in moderate quantaties),
> it does not necessarily mean we should have gone in.
> - The government f*cked up the diplomatic side of this thing horribly
> and has alienated allies and the great majority of the world's
> populace
> - Joy, you should know better. My comment re: Robbins/Sarandon has
> nothing to do with them or Holywood types and everything to do with
> not censoring people in inappropriate contexts for their views (thus
> I am equally if not more opposed to campuses cancelling speakers for
> their political views).
> - This government has done more to limit civil liberties than any
> goovernment since at least Nixon and possibly Eisenhower. The Patriot
> Act and maintaining a 'war footing' have allowed a great many people
> to have their civil rights affected.
>
> But really, it was much more eloquent (well, and verbose) in the lost
> posting.
>
> - David
--- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "dne44" <dne_at_d...>
wrote:
> --- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "toughslush"
> <meurtre_at_e...> wrote:
> > I'm curious, of course, as to whether any of you will be changing
> > your minds about this war if (when) we can definitely test the
> > potential WMD sites (labs, etc.) and prove that they were there
all
> > along (rather than being magically dissolved by pixie dust in the
> > early 90s). And if (when) we are able to comb through the
> > records and establish that Salman Pak and other terrorist
> > training camps in Iraq were used by Al Qaeda in their actions
> > against us. [For more, see my last blog.]
> >
> > But, no matter. I think it's possible to support the troops on a
> > certain level without approving of the war. But I suspect the
> > troops prefer to hear that we like what they are doing, feel more
> > "supported" by the demonstrations that use the flag and applaud
> > the troops versus those that do not.
> >
> > I also think there's something very troubling about having a
> > protest against the war in such a way that it diverts city
> resources
> > against basic security measures, and therefore the "war" against
> > terrorism. Some of the tactics employed by the leftists and
> > liberals in these actions--blocking traffic, throwing up on
> > buildings, looting excursions--keep other people from earning a
> > living during a recession. It's hugely destructive to working
> > people, and a drain on municipal resources.
> >
> > I do not concede that this administration is in any way against
> > free speech. I understand that it's hip to believe that, but I
> haven't
> > really seen any evidence to that effect.
> >
> > As far as Hollywood is concerned, David--aw, come on. The
> > entertainment industry is about 90% liberal-left, and those who
> > are "out" libertarians/conservatives are hurt by discriminatory
> > hiring practices all the damned time. The fact that some
> > entertainers have received a little blowback from saying largely
> > inane and silly things--in some cases, making statements that
> > amount to a "fuck you" to Middle America and add nothing to
> > public discourse--may be an overdue consciousness-raiser.
> >
> > If Jeanane Garofolo or Cheryl Crow make stupid remarks, and I
> > point out that they are stupid--much as I admire these ladies'
> > work--I'm not anti-free-speech. I'm anti-stupidity.
> >
> > --J
> >
> > --- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "tschibasch"
> > <tschibasch_at_y...> wrote:
> > > I could not agree more with David. It is entirely possible to be
> > > AGAINST the war but SUPPORT the military. And it is our right
> > to
> > > demonstrate, if we so choose.
> > >
> > > And another thing: We are only too aware that Iraqis could
> > never
> > > demostrate against their own government. The fact that they
> > cannot and
> > > we can does not mean that we shouldn't.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "dne44"
> > <dne_at_d...> wrote:
> > > > Lenny-
> > > >
> > > > It's as simple as this: I respect and admire the courage,
> > dedication
> > > > and professionalism of our troops. However, I do not believe
> > in the
> > > > cause and timing of this war as outlined by our government,
> > and
> > > > therefore do not support the war. This does not strike me as
> > a self-
> > > > contradicting view in the least.
> > > >
> > > > When we see actions such as those taken by the president
> > of the
> > > > baseball hall of fame refusing to honor the movie Bull
> > Durham because
> > > > of the political views of Tim Ribbins and Susan Sarandon, it
> > strikes
> > > > me that more than ever people are losing the ability to be
> > rational
> > > > about what free speech is supposed to mean (and this is
> > true of both
> > > > sides; however, it is particularly worrisome on the right
since
> > the
> > > > government is taking an actively anti-free speech stand, at
> > least
> > > > rhetorically).
> > > >
> > > > - David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "7visions"
> > > > <7visions_at_p...> wrote:
> > > > > As for the " I Support the Troops" line being bandied
about,
> > it has
> > > > always
> > > > > been a bit of a cliche. This men and women have trained
> > for a long
> > > > time to
> > > > > be where they are. If you say, "I Support the Troops, but I
> > am
> > > > against what
> > > > > they are doing", just what are you actually saying? ..." I
> think
> > > > you are
> > > > > nice people, but I don't like soldiers". ?
> > > > >
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
var lrec_target="_top"; var lrec_URL = new Array(); lrec_URL[1] =
"
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=231971.3069354.4492417.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=17050430
11:HM/A=1540635/R=0/id=flashurl/*
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?p
roflowers2+shopping:dmad/M=231971.3069354.4492417.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=1705
043011:HM/A=1540635/R=1/1050451804+
http://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://www.pr
oflowers.com/rmi-unframed-url/
http://www.proflowers.com/freechocolate/index.
cfm%3FREF=FCHYahooEgroupsEasterLRECgif"; var
link="javascript:LRECopenWindow(1)"; var lrec_flashfile =
'
http://us.yimg.com/a/pr/proflowers/proflowers_easter_300x250.swf?clickTAG='
+link+''; var lrec_altURL =
"
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=231971.3069354.4492417.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=17050430
11:HM/A=1540635/R=2/id=altimgurl/*
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?
proflowers2+shopping:dmad/M=231971.3069354.4492417.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=170
5043011:HM/A=1540635/R=3/1050451804+
http://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://www.p
roflowers.com/rmi-unframed-url/
http://www.proflowers.com/freechocolate/index
.cfm%3FREF=FCHYahooEgroupsEasterLRECgif"; var lrec_altimg =
"
http://us.yimg.com/a/pr/proflowers2/easter_tulip_300x250_choc.gif"; var
lrec_width = 300; var lrec_height = 250;
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Received on 2003-04-15 20:36:46
