Heres another....
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Heres another....
GEORGE W. BUSH is beating the drums of war to invade Iraq. Why is this happening now? Is the war that they're planning on Iraq about oil?
WHY NOW? I think it's because the "war on terrorism" looks more and more to the American public--and certainly to the world--as, at best, unsuccessful, and, at worst, a sham.
The bombing of Afghanistan has gone on for almost a year, and we see no sign of Osama bin Laden, and no indications that we've uprooted any terrorist networks. So the Bush administration needs to turn the attention from a situation of failure to one of success. Iraq is an easy target, it is assumed, and a war there will lead the country to rally around Bush as it did after the attacks on September 11.
Is it about oil? I have no doubt that oil is a big factor. All of the U.S. policies in the Middle East since the Second World War have been rooted in the desire to control the enormous oil reserves there--and certainly to control the price of oil and the profits from oil.
Oil is not the only reason. There is the political motive of winning popular support by creating a war atmosphere. Then there's the motive of establishing control in a country that has so far eluded the American grasp. The United States cannot abide the existence of nations that do not go along submissively with American policy. Iraq used to be such a country, when it was a close ally, but that changed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.
Also, a war with Iraq will help maintain the emergency atmosphere in the United States, in which civil liberties are curtailed, for both non-citizens and citizens, with war being the convenient excuse.
THE BUSH administration and the other supporters of war justify the "war on terrorism" with rhetoric about democracy. What are their real interests?
THE REAL interests of the Bush administration--and the Democratic Party supporters of war--are what the interests of the U.S. have been for a very long time, long before September 11.
The long-term interest of American governments, from the end of the Revolutionary War down to the present day, has been the expansion of national power, first on the continent, then into the Caribbean and the Pacific, and since the Second World War, everywhere on the globe.
Each time there was a period of expansion, there was an explanation: "Manifest Destiny," the need to "save Spain," the need to "civilize" and bring Christianity to the Filipinos, the Germans are sinking our merchant vessels, North Korea has invaded South Korea, we've been fired on in the Gulf of Tonkin, we need to stop the spread of Communism.
But behind all those justifications was the urge to expand American economic and military power. The "war on terrorism" is the latest opportunity to expand U.S. political, economic and military power into other parts of the world.
SOME PEOPLE have compared the situation of the detainees from September 11 with the incarceration of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. You lived through that period. What was the climate like?
THE INCARCERATION of the Japanese took place with the American public unaware or only vaguely aware that it was happening. Many liberals and radicals, knowing what was happening, were silent, believing it was necessary to win the war. Racist attitudes toward the Japanese were widespread in the population, thus making it harder for sympathy to be aroused.
Today, anti-immigration sentiment and racism are still strong in this county. It's disturbing to see that Muslims have been detained without benefit of constitutional rights, and with no public outcry.
AS A participant in the civil rights movement, what was it like to hear political leaders talk about saluting the flag, and knowing that the most elementary rights supposedly guaranteed under that flag were being denied to African Americans?
BLACK AMERICANS have always been ambivalent towards the flag and "patriotism." On the one hand, they have wanted to be recognized as supporters of the country, as people willing to fight in the nation's wars. On the other hand, they have recognized that wars "for freedom" were based on hypocrisy, given what was happening to Blacks in this country.
Blacks in the Civil War struggled for the right to fight in the war, and yet knew they were being used as cannon fodder and treated as inferiors. Black soldiers in the Philippines at first welcomed the chance to show that they could serve in the military as whites did, but soon realized that they were killing people of color, while back home their Black countrymen were being lynched.
In the Second World War, though certain Black leaders (Joe Louis, notably) were used to build up Black support for the war, there was a great deal of disaffection, not only because of segregation in the armed forces, but because of how Blacks were treated in the nation. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for instance, refused to support an anti-lynching bill.
And in the Southern civil rights movement, Blacks were among the first to declare their opposition to the Vietnam War, pointing out how the federal government, under both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, was collaborating with Southern racists and was not protecting Blacks from violence.
WITH THE anniversary of September 11 approaching, the politicians are again wrapping themselves in the flag and talking about freedom and democracy. What are their motives?
THE RECORD of American political leaders on "freedom and democracy" is so poor that wrapping themselves in the flag is an attempt to conceal that record.
That record includes the starving of funds for health care, jobs and housing while huge sums are expended on the military. It also includes the imprisonment of huge numbers of people of color, whose desperate situation growing up is due to the very neglect of poor people in this country by our political leaders. Their patriotism is a way of covering all of that over and distracting people from these issues.
INITIALLY, THE Vietnam War had the same level of patriotic support as all the others. But significant numbers of people ultimately turned against it. When did this begin to change and why?
THERE WAS a dramatic shift in American public opinion between 1965, when 61 percent of those polled supported the war, to 1971, when 61 percent opposed the war.
You saw a gradual buildup of opposition. In 1965, 100 people gathered on the Boston Common to protest the war. In 1969, 100,000 gathered on the Common to protest the war. Later, millions were involved in demonstrations around the country.
I believe the change was due to the fact that the American people, by 1967 and 1968, finally began to understand that it was a brutal war against innocent people. They saw images on television of U.S. Marines burning peasant huts, of children being napalm victims, of the My Lai massacre. And also, they saw the toll of American life mounting week by week.
I believe this is an important thing to remember. There is no natural inclination to support war; it has to be artificially induced by political leaders. And when Americans, normally of good will and decent morality, begin to get information different from the official line, they have second thoughts and question the official line.
EUGENE DEBS, the leading U.S. socialist at the beginning of the last century, had a lot to say about this question of patriotism. Could you talk about his views of war and patriotism?
DEBS WAS a leader in the protest against the First World War. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, a decision that was affirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court led by the presumed liberal jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes. Debs was sentenced because in a speech in Canton, Ohio, he said that the master classes made the wars, and the working classes fought in them.
He said: "Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. In the Middle Ages, when the feudal lords who inhabited the castles whose towers may still be seen along the Rhine concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth, they declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war, any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street, go to war.
"The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another and to cut one another's throats for the profit and glory of the lords and barons who held them in contempt.
"And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose -- especially their lives."
Debs rightly saw war in class terms--as benefiting the rich, and killing the poor.
Print-Friendly Version
Email This Article To A Friend
ZNet Top | Home
This guys a little overzealous for sure, but he's on the right track,
and who can deny that last statement?
I know ,I'm raining on the patriotic parade, but facts are facts.
Regards.
WHY NOW? I think it's because the "war on terrorism" looks more and more to the American public--and certainly to the world--as, at best, unsuccessful, and, at worst, a sham.
The bombing of Afghanistan has gone on for almost a year, and we see no sign of Osama bin Laden, and no indications that we've uprooted any terrorist networks. So the Bush administration needs to turn the attention from a situation of failure to one of success. Iraq is an easy target, it is assumed, and a war there will lead the country to rally around Bush as it did after the attacks on September 11.
Is it about oil? I have no doubt that oil is a big factor. All of the U.S. policies in the Middle East since the Second World War have been rooted in the desire to control the enormous oil reserves there--and certainly to control the price of oil and the profits from oil.
Oil is not the only reason. There is the political motive of winning popular support by creating a war atmosphere. Then there's the motive of establishing control in a country that has so far eluded the American grasp. The United States cannot abide the existence of nations that do not go along submissively with American policy. Iraq used to be such a country, when it was a close ally, but that changed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.
Also, a war with Iraq will help maintain the emergency atmosphere in the United States, in which civil liberties are curtailed, for both non-citizens and citizens, with war being the convenient excuse.
THE BUSH administration and the other supporters of war justify the "war on terrorism" with rhetoric about democracy. What are their real interests?
THE REAL interests of the Bush administration--and the Democratic Party supporters of war--are what the interests of the U.S. have been for a very long time, long before September 11.
The long-term interest of American governments, from the end of the Revolutionary War down to the present day, has been the expansion of national power, first on the continent, then into the Caribbean and the Pacific, and since the Second World War, everywhere on the globe.
Each time there was a period of expansion, there was an explanation: "Manifest Destiny," the need to "save Spain," the need to "civilize" and bring Christianity to the Filipinos, the Germans are sinking our merchant vessels, North Korea has invaded South Korea, we've been fired on in the Gulf of Tonkin, we need to stop the spread of Communism.
But behind all those justifications was the urge to expand American economic and military power. The "war on terrorism" is the latest opportunity to expand U.S. political, economic and military power into other parts of the world.
SOME PEOPLE have compared the situation of the detainees from September 11 with the incarceration of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. You lived through that period. What was the climate like?
THE INCARCERATION of the Japanese took place with the American public unaware or only vaguely aware that it was happening. Many liberals and radicals, knowing what was happening, were silent, believing it was necessary to win the war. Racist attitudes toward the Japanese were widespread in the population, thus making it harder for sympathy to be aroused.
Today, anti-immigration sentiment and racism are still strong in this county. It's disturbing to see that Muslims have been detained without benefit of constitutional rights, and with no public outcry.
AS A participant in the civil rights movement, what was it like to hear political leaders talk about saluting the flag, and knowing that the most elementary rights supposedly guaranteed under that flag were being denied to African Americans?
BLACK AMERICANS have always been ambivalent towards the flag and "patriotism." On the one hand, they have wanted to be recognized as supporters of the country, as people willing to fight in the nation's wars. On the other hand, they have recognized that wars "for freedom" were based on hypocrisy, given what was happening to Blacks in this country.
Blacks in the Civil War struggled for the right to fight in the war, and yet knew they were being used as cannon fodder and treated as inferiors. Black soldiers in the Philippines at first welcomed the chance to show that they could serve in the military as whites did, but soon realized that they were killing people of color, while back home their Black countrymen were being lynched.
In the Second World War, though certain Black leaders (Joe Louis, notably) were used to build up Black support for the war, there was a great deal of disaffection, not only because of segregation in the armed forces, but because of how Blacks were treated in the nation. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for instance, refused to support an anti-lynching bill.
And in the Southern civil rights movement, Blacks were among the first to declare their opposition to the Vietnam War, pointing out how the federal government, under both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, was collaborating with Southern racists and was not protecting Blacks from violence.
WITH THE anniversary of September 11 approaching, the politicians are again wrapping themselves in the flag and talking about freedom and democracy. What are their motives?
THE RECORD of American political leaders on "freedom and democracy" is so poor that wrapping themselves in the flag is an attempt to conceal that record.
That record includes the starving of funds for health care, jobs and housing while huge sums are expended on the military. It also includes the imprisonment of huge numbers of people of color, whose desperate situation growing up is due to the very neglect of poor people in this country by our political leaders. Their patriotism is a way of covering all of that over and distracting people from these issues.
INITIALLY, THE Vietnam War had the same level of patriotic support as all the others. But significant numbers of people ultimately turned against it. When did this begin to change and why?
THERE WAS a dramatic shift in American public opinion between 1965, when 61 percent of those polled supported the war, to 1971, when 61 percent opposed the war.
You saw a gradual buildup of opposition. In 1965, 100 people gathered on the Boston Common to protest the war. In 1969, 100,000 gathered on the Common to protest the war. Later, millions were involved in demonstrations around the country.
I believe the change was due to the fact that the American people, by 1967 and 1968, finally began to understand that it was a brutal war against innocent people. They saw images on television of U.S. Marines burning peasant huts, of children being napalm victims, of the My Lai massacre. And also, they saw the toll of American life mounting week by week.
I believe this is an important thing to remember. There is no natural inclination to support war; it has to be artificially induced by political leaders. And when Americans, normally of good will and decent morality, begin to get information different from the official line, they have second thoughts and question the official line.
EUGENE DEBS, the leading U.S. socialist at the beginning of the last century, had a lot to say about this question of patriotism. Could you talk about his views of war and patriotism?
DEBS WAS a leader in the protest against the First World War. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, a decision that was affirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court led by the presumed liberal jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes. Debs was sentenced because in a speech in Canton, Ohio, he said that the master classes made the wars, and the working classes fought in them.
He said: "Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. In the Middle Ages, when the feudal lords who inhabited the castles whose towers may still be seen along the Rhine concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth, they declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war, any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street, go to war.
"The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another and to cut one another's throats for the profit and glory of the lords and barons who held them in contempt.
"And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose -- especially their lives."
Debs rightly saw war in class terms--as benefiting the rich, and killing the poor.
Print-Friendly Version
Email This Article To A Friend
ZNet Top | Home
This guys a little overzealous for sure, but he's on the right track,
and who can deny that last statement?
I know ,I'm raining on the patriotic parade, but facts are facts.
Regards.
Logistics Pro
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,821
Likes: 19
From: South Dakota
Heres another....
Originally posted by rockledge
I don't see a lot of them in the article.
I do see a lot of strong opinions that are set forth as "facts". A poorly reasoned commentary, IMHO.
I don't see a lot of them in the article.
I do see a lot of strong opinions that are set forth as "facts". A poorly reasoned commentary, IMHO.
I really wonder if were going to still hear this kind of garbage after we find these WMD that everyone knows he has, and destroying them.
Sure is going to be a lot of dumb looking people when Saddams arsenal is revealed, I just hope that it's not used on our troops.
BTW for all you Oil baron Bush bashers, If we were SOOO concerned with oil too feed our pooor starving SUV's, The middle east only supplies a small fraction of our oil.
If we were really serious about going to war over oil, as you people seem to think we are, don't you think that it would be a heck of a lot cheaper to drill on our own soil, rather than spending a whole wad of cash on our military to obliterate some country that we would still have to ship from half ways across the world?
Some people.....
Posting Guru
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 2,415
Likes: 3
From: Comox Valley, Canada
Heres another....
I thought it was an interesting article. As an "outsider" (since I am not an American) I can see some good points in the text. Not saying I agree or disagree just saying it is interesting.
All that was missing was a statement about the "power" of the media to sway Public opinion to the pro or con of an issue as the Government so desires
All that was missing was a statement about the "power" of the media to sway Public opinion to the pro or con of an issue as the Government so desires
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver WA
Heres another....
Here are some actual facts you may find interesting. Which three countries are vowing to veto any resolution authorizing military action against Iraq? They would be, Russia, France and Germany. All three of these countries just happen to have contracts with Iraq for millions of dollars worth of oil. In fact, Russia has the biggest contracts including future oil exploration within Iraq. Yeah, it's about oil. Just not the way the liberal media tells you about.
Trending Topics
Elder User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 899
Likes: 0
From: 5600 feet high
Heres another....
burly,
how bout I punch you in the face? What kind of crap it that, anyway? How bout I punch you in the face...geez.
Yeah, I agree with about 90% of franktheman's post. Are you gonna punch me in the face, too?
Please. That's the kind of mentality that all the jocks in my high school had. "I can't outsmart you or argue with you, but I can beat you up, so I am right." Kinda figures that most of those guys that I knew I still see today waiting tables at Macaroni Grill or delivering pizzas...
I fully agree that we are being misdirected by our government, and that is not a shift from government policy in the past. And all the folks that say "Bush is honest and moral" are a bunch of suckers. Politics isn't about protecting freedom, liberties, or rights, and it never has been. It's about protecting power and wealth, which is evident in the way that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, and the government only pretends to do anything about it.
And war is still the same as it always has been. If you think that invading Iraq is just about protecting freedom, you got fooled, and you should be ashamed. Is it about oil? Sure it is, but it's not ALL about oil. It's also about distracting Americans from the things they are doing to screw us, and we'll find that out soon enough.
All these "acts" of Congress contain legislation that chisels away at our freedom. They title these acts so that people will get the idea that if they don't support them, they aren't "patriots"
-Homeland Security Act. This pile of junk has more garbage rolled into it than a cigarette, such as the obligatory Congressional Pay Raise, and a full exoneration of several CEO's who would have easily been convicted of Securities Fraud, among other things. So we get this "act", which by its title sounds great, but it has so little to do with security that it's really a joke.
-The USA Patriot Act. The only reason they titled it like that is to decieve people from its actual purposes. Include the term "patriot" in anything nowadays, and if you don't buy it, watch it, drink it or vote for it, you are not a "patriot". I am surprised a car company hasn't built an SUV and called it the "Patriot". This act enables law enforcement to relieve you of your right to privacy, and to seize your personal property and guns, as well as your liquid assets, as long as it's for the defense against "terrorism". That's the language of this law, and they wrote it that way on purpose; as we've seen, just about anything can make you a "suspected terrorist", and the cops just LOVE that...Don't think for a second that as soon as the terror threat has been squashed that they will stop using this law to invade your privacy.
I could type for days...
BDV
how bout I punch you in the face? What kind of crap it that, anyway? How bout I punch you in the face...geez.
Yeah, I agree with about 90% of franktheman's post. Are you gonna punch me in the face, too?
Please. That's the kind of mentality that all the jocks in my high school had. "I can't outsmart you or argue with you, but I can beat you up, so I am right." Kinda figures that most of those guys that I knew I still see today waiting tables at Macaroni Grill or delivering pizzas...
I fully agree that we are being misdirected by our government, and that is not a shift from government policy in the past. And all the folks that say "Bush is honest and moral" are a bunch of suckers. Politics isn't about protecting freedom, liberties, or rights, and it never has been. It's about protecting power and wealth, which is evident in the way that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, and the government only pretends to do anything about it.
And war is still the same as it always has been. If you think that invading Iraq is just about protecting freedom, you got fooled, and you should be ashamed. Is it about oil? Sure it is, but it's not ALL about oil. It's also about distracting Americans from the things they are doing to screw us, and we'll find that out soon enough.
All these "acts" of Congress contain legislation that chisels away at our freedom. They title these acts so that people will get the idea that if they don't support them, they aren't "patriots"
-Homeland Security Act. This pile of junk has more garbage rolled into it than a cigarette, such as the obligatory Congressional Pay Raise, and a full exoneration of several CEO's who would have easily been convicted of Securities Fraud, among other things. So we get this "act", which by its title sounds great, but it has so little to do with security that it's really a joke.
-The USA Patriot Act. The only reason they titled it like that is to decieve people from its actual purposes. Include the term "patriot" in anything nowadays, and if you don't buy it, watch it, drink it or vote for it, you are not a "patriot". I am surprised a car company hasn't built an SUV and called it the "Patriot". This act enables law enforcement to relieve you of your right to privacy, and to seize your personal property and guns, as well as your liquid assets, as long as it's for the defense against "terrorism". That's the language of this law, and they wrote it that way on purpose; as we've seen, just about anything can make you a "suspected terrorist", and the cops just LOVE that...Don't think for a second that as soon as the terror threat has been squashed that they will stop using this law to invade your privacy.
I could type for days...
BDV
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 6 Best Deals Available on New Fords & Lincolns Right Now
Brett Foote
This Hennessey Takes the Expedition Tremor's Off-Roading Capability to the Next Level
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Posting Guru
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 2,415
Likes: 3
From: Comox Valley, Canada
Heres another....
Originally posted by mrwizard
Here are some actual facts you may find interesting. Which three countries are vowing to veto any resolution authorizing military action against Iraq? They would be, Russia, France and Germany. All three of these countries just happen to have contracts with Iraq for millions of dollars worth of oil. In fact, Russia has the biggest contracts including future oil exploration within Iraq. Yeah, it's about oil. Just not the way the liberal media tells you about.
Here are some actual facts you may find interesting. Which three countries are vowing to veto any resolution authorizing military action against Iraq? They would be, Russia, France and Germany. All three of these countries just happen to have contracts with Iraq for millions of dollars worth of oil. In fact, Russia has the biggest contracts including future oil exploration within Iraq. Yeah, it's about oil. Just not the way the liberal media tells you about.
Or am I misunderstanding this
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Heres another....
___quote___________
franktheman-
i would love to punch you in the face and see whether or not you fight back.
___________________
I doubt you'd even think about it if you actually saw me...lol.
But I realise you are talking figuratively in a comparison with war on terrorism.
So I'll expand on this a bit. If inspite of seeing me, you still had the nerve to punch me in the face- inspite of the fact that I had done nothing to deserve it...put it this way.. you'd find out really quickly that I'm no pacifist...lol.
But I can also tell you this, if for whatever reason I could not even the score with you, I would not take it out on your little brother, or your son, or your pop, or anyone else, and then try citing the fact that I'd been wronged by you as justification for my actions-my problem would be with you and only you.
Thanks for the back up BDV, that was a great post, and summed
things up rather nicely.
Regards.
franktheman-
i would love to punch you in the face and see whether or not you fight back.
___________________
I doubt you'd even think about it if you actually saw me...lol.
But I realise you are talking figuratively in a comparison with war on terrorism.
So I'll expand on this a bit. If inspite of seeing me, you still had the nerve to punch me in the face- inspite of the fact that I had done nothing to deserve it...put it this way.. you'd find out really quickly that I'm no pacifist...lol.
But I can also tell you this, if for whatever reason I could not even the score with you, I would not take it out on your little brother, or your son, or your pop, or anyone else, and then try citing the fact that I'd been wronged by you as justification for my actions-my problem would be with you and only you.
Thanks for the back up BDV, that was a great post, and summed
things up rather nicely.
Regards.
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,416
Likes: 4
From: PacNW
Heres another....
FTM and BDV,
From Webster's:
fact n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
3. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
o·pin·ion n.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion”
If you apply those definitions to FTM's post it clearly has a lot more of the latter and not much of the former. It consists mostly of ultra liberal propaganda about race and class distinctions. The author tries desperately to tie past events to non existent current events. Example: The internment of Japanese-American citizens in 1942 to a few dozen legitimate post 9/11 detainees. Can either of you cite an example of people of Muslim descent in this country being rounded up and put into camps? No...I didn't think so.
Now let's look at some other facts:
Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has a history of mass murder, genocide and invading neighboring countries. Sounds a little like a fellow who back in 1941 caused a little fracas you might be familiar with, it's commonly known as World War II.
The fact is that Iraq's leader along with several other current heads of state is what's known as a "destabilizing influence". Hitler was the same type of influence and we all saw what happened when we let him stay in power for too long. In today's world with the proliferation of weapons of not just mass destruction but actual global extinction we cannot afford to allow these "destabilizing influences". It's just too dangerous.
The article you posted points out a few rather unsavory periods in the history of this country. We made some mistakes, the Japanese internment, allowing political opinion to determine military tactics, etc. The fact is we haven't repeated those mistakes which means we learned from them. Let's not make the mistake of letting an unstable dictator continue to rule when we have the means to stop him.
From Webster's:
fact n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
3. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
o·pin·ion n.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion”
If you apply those definitions to FTM's post it clearly has a lot more of the latter and not much of the former. It consists mostly of ultra liberal propaganda about race and class distinctions. The author tries desperately to tie past events to non existent current events. Example: The internment of Japanese-American citizens in 1942 to a few dozen legitimate post 9/11 detainees. Can either of you cite an example of people of Muslim descent in this country being rounded up and put into camps? No...I didn't think so.
Now let's look at some other facts:
Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has a history of mass murder, genocide and invading neighboring countries. Sounds a little like a fellow who back in 1941 caused a little fracas you might be familiar with, it's commonly known as World War II.
The fact is that Iraq's leader along with several other current heads of state is what's known as a "destabilizing influence". Hitler was the same type of influence and we all saw what happened when we let him stay in power for too long. In today's world with the proliferation of weapons of not just mass destruction but actual global extinction we cannot afford to allow these "destabilizing influences". It's just too dangerous.
The article you posted points out a few rather unsavory periods in the history of this country. We made some mistakes, the Japanese internment, allowing political opinion to determine military tactics, etc. The fact is we haven't repeated those mistakes which means we learned from them. Let's not make the mistake of letting an unstable dictator continue to rule when we have the means to stop him.
Last edited by Bill_Beyer; Mar 8, 2003 at 03:25 PM.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 1997
Posts: 23,165
Likes: 18
From: Enjoying the real world.
Heres another....
We have about 3 people who seem to be doing nothing lately but stirring the pot. Showing everyone how much testosterone you have doesn't impress anyone and just puts the user on a watch list with the moderators. I'm getting really tired of hearing "heh, so and so is at it again" from the moderators. I'll just eliminate the problems without warning if it continues --- don't test me on this one, I'm serious.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,873
Likes: 3
From: Atlanta GA
Heres another....
> the Japanese internment
It was not a mistake. It was the best solution at hand. WW II was a "all or nothing" war, which we did not start, that cost over 405,000 soldiers lives. Not to mention all the civilians brutually killed by the Japanese.
The U.S. could not afford to have enemy agents running around on the West coast, if they could help it. Do not forget the Japanese DID invade the U.S.A. in Alaska. The Japanese were a VERY small minority. There was no way to determine who might harbor an agent and who might not, or be one outright with the resources available to the government back then. I bet most were not in this country longer than a generation.
The Chinese in this country for generations since the railroads were built were not rounded up, were they? No, they even served and died in our armed forces.
What the government should have done is move everything into secure storage, let them keep their houses, and then move them into government built camps. Compensate for lost wages and jobs when the war was over.
What no one mentions is they were much safer in the camps then they would have been in their own homes. You think your local KKK member would have thought twice about gunning down an innocent Japanese-American, even if they were wearing an American flag?
It was a "them or us" war and mentality. It was a brutal war, brutal times, and harsh meaures were taken. It was done so the U.S. could survive, I am glad we did.
It was not a mistake. It was the best solution at hand. WW II was a "all or nothing" war, which we did not start, that cost over 405,000 soldiers lives. Not to mention all the civilians brutually killed by the Japanese.
The U.S. could not afford to have enemy agents running around on the West coast, if they could help it. Do not forget the Japanese DID invade the U.S.A. in Alaska. The Japanese were a VERY small minority. There was no way to determine who might harbor an agent and who might not, or be one outright with the resources available to the government back then. I bet most were not in this country longer than a generation.
The Chinese in this country for generations since the railroads were built were not rounded up, were they? No, they even served and died in our armed forces.
What the government should have done is move everything into secure storage, let them keep their houses, and then move them into government built camps. Compensate for lost wages and jobs when the war was over.
What no one mentions is they were much safer in the camps then they would have been in their own homes. You think your local KKK member would have thought twice about gunning down an innocent Japanese-American, even if they were wearing an American flag?
It was a "them or us" war and mentality. It was a brutal war, brutal times, and harsh meaures were taken. It was done so the U.S. could survive, I am glad we did.
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,416
Likes: 4
From: PacNW
Heres another....
I'm sure the "It's for their own protection" line was tried back then too. It didn't fly then and it doesn't now.
Why would the government have interred the Chinese-Americans? They were our allies in WWII. You also didn't mention the fact that there were a significant number of Japanese-Americans in the U.S. military during WWII who also fought and died.
Nope sorry, it was a huge mistake and nothing anyone says can convince me otherwise. Arbitrarily imprisoning citizens of this country solely on the basis of their ethnicity is a blatant violation of the Constitution. There are a lot of sacrifices that need to be made during war even by non combatants but the Bill of Rights should not and can not be one of them.
Why would the government have interred the Chinese-Americans? They were our allies in WWII. You also didn't mention the fact that there were a significant number of Japanese-Americans in the U.S. military during WWII who also fought and died.
Nope sorry, it was a huge mistake and nothing anyone says can convince me otherwise. Arbitrarily imprisoning citizens of this country solely on the basis of their ethnicity is a blatant violation of the Constitution. There are a lot of sacrifices that need to be made during war even by non combatants but the Bill of Rights should not and can not be one of them.
Junior User
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Heres another....
franktheman understands where i am coming from, but for all of you simpletons who thought i would actually punch him in the face given the chance, you need to stop and think about it. i am totally against war. at the same time sadaam is building an arseanl of nukes, and biological warfare that could completely wipe us off the map. he has made threats in the past towards the usa, he is allies with some terrorist organizations other than his own regim that are out to get free, flourishing countries such as the usa.
what you need to do is make the link between me punching franktheman, and iraq. the last thing i want to ever do is start a fight, but should some sucker start one with me you can garuntee im not gonna lay on my back like some little harlot and take it. i know for damn sure that if i punch frank, i best be one good punch, or i be one fast runner, because i dont expect him to be diplomatic about it, i expect him to be hunting me down.
in my opinion the diplomatic method of resolving problems should be the ONLY method. but as we all know it doesnt always work. thats why we have guns, bombs, tanks, troops and the like. the dirty s.o.b. had 12 years to clean out his shed, he didnt. he had one hell of a clear cut last chance to clean out his shed, and he flipped us the bird. i say we show him we (the usa) mean business, with or without the support of the UN. i didnt have to ask permission to fight back when the jocks pushed me around, and neither does the usa. we are 100% capable of defending our counrty and the birth given rights it allows us to enjoy, such as freedom of speech wich allows people who disagree to voice thier opinion. i dare you to voice your opinion against sadaam in iraq, or with the alqueda.
i understand why many people think we should not resort to violence, to a certain extent i agree, and when it comes down to the crossing of the line between diplomacy and war, i hope sadaam buckles under pressure so we dont have any bloodshed. i think we need to start walking our talk, because diplomacy is tired out as far as i am concerned.
as for our war tactics, i think we need to use less bombs and more brains indeed. it hasbeen proven already in many past wars that you cannot bomb anyone into submission. its costly and not so affective. missiles, very effective when aimed correctly. why havent we re-instated the SR-71 Blackbirds yet? WHY WHY WHY are we not circling over that man like turky vultures with our wonderful Blackbirds. also, this whole surrounding iraq thing is not very smart in my opinion. surround iraq with minmal troop numbers spread thin, as a safe hold. as for the actual attacking, a battle method from ancient times known as the Phalynx has proven itself very very very effective with minimal loss to us. i wont get into the deep details, look it up for them. i also think its time we start making phone calls to other countries and reminding them of the times they were in need how we suffered loss and bailed them out, and how now we are in need and any help would be greatly appreciated and duely owed to us.
i hate writing stories so ill stop now. all im trying to say is that i really dont think the talking is working, and i am very afraid of the thought that a nuke could be popped off close to my home, or ebola bombs could be hucked at various locations in our country. its just not the kind of lifestyle i want to lead. i just bought a 97 f350 psd today, i would like to enjoy driving it with the windows down, not with duct tape and saran wrap over the vents while drinking a bottle of red whine to keep the radiation out of me!
what you need to do is make the link between me punching franktheman, and iraq. the last thing i want to ever do is start a fight, but should some sucker start one with me you can garuntee im not gonna lay on my back like some little harlot and take it. i know for damn sure that if i punch frank, i best be one good punch, or i be one fast runner, because i dont expect him to be diplomatic about it, i expect him to be hunting me down.
in my opinion the diplomatic method of resolving problems should be the ONLY method. but as we all know it doesnt always work. thats why we have guns, bombs, tanks, troops and the like. the dirty s.o.b. had 12 years to clean out his shed, he didnt. he had one hell of a clear cut last chance to clean out his shed, and he flipped us the bird. i say we show him we (the usa) mean business, with or without the support of the UN. i didnt have to ask permission to fight back when the jocks pushed me around, and neither does the usa. we are 100% capable of defending our counrty and the birth given rights it allows us to enjoy, such as freedom of speech wich allows people who disagree to voice thier opinion. i dare you to voice your opinion against sadaam in iraq, or with the alqueda.
i understand why many people think we should not resort to violence, to a certain extent i agree, and when it comes down to the crossing of the line between diplomacy and war, i hope sadaam buckles under pressure so we dont have any bloodshed. i think we need to start walking our talk, because diplomacy is tired out as far as i am concerned.
as for our war tactics, i think we need to use less bombs and more brains indeed. it hasbeen proven already in many past wars that you cannot bomb anyone into submission. its costly and not so affective. missiles, very effective when aimed correctly. why havent we re-instated the SR-71 Blackbirds yet? WHY WHY WHY are we not circling over that man like turky vultures with our wonderful Blackbirds. also, this whole surrounding iraq thing is not very smart in my opinion. surround iraq with minmal troop numbers spread thin, as a safe hold. as for the actual attacking, a battle method from ancient times known as the Phalynx has proven itself very very very effective with minimal loss to us. i wont get into the deep details, look it up for them. i also think its time we start making phone calls to other countries and reminding them of the times they were in need how we suffered loss and bailed them out, and how now we are in need and any help would be greatly appreciated and duely owed to us.
i hate writing stories so ill stop now. all im trying to say is that i really dont think the talking is working, and i am very afraid of the thought that a nuke could be popped off close to my home, or ebola bombs could be hucked at various locations in our country. its just not the kind of lifestyle i want to lead. i just bought a 97 f350 psd today, i would like to enjoy driving it with the windows down, not with duct tape and saran wrap over the vents while drinking a bottle of red whine to keep the radiation out of me!