Joy-
The problem is that it's not clear yet that the world *is* a better
place for our actions. That has yet to be seen. Remember that you can
draw a pretty straight line from the first gulf war to 9/11 -- not
that we shouldn't have gotten involved, but rather it's always more
complex than it seems.
And as far as making US Security a priority goes, our popularity (or
at least the level of hatred we inspire) is clearly connected to our
ultimate security. Obviously you can't have everyone love you, but
even in the NATO countries that supported us, the populations of
those countries were against the war by outlandish margins -- and
most of these are people who poured out their love for us after
9/11. We inspire a complex set of emotions, and for our long-term
security and that of the world it would be better if we were
perceived as benevolent, empathetic and participatory. Just because
we can go wherever we want and do whatever we want doesn't mean we
should.
- David
--- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, mayhem <meurtre_at_e...>
wrote:
> 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 23:07:22
