|
|||||||||
Posted February 25, 2003
Regarding 'Vive la France!' by Justin Raimondo:
"The amount of France bashing that is going on at the moment would make you that that it was the French who are howling for the blood of Iraqis! Typically, in today's Express paper here in the UK, a picture was published of Saddam Hussein visiting a French nuclear reactor in the mid seventies, with Jacques Chiraq, then Prime Minister, in the background."
A more interesting picture to publish, possibly on your website, is one that I saw on a banner at the antiwar demo in London last weekend. Taken from TV footage, it showed a smiling politician warmly shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein. That politician? None other than Donald Rumsfeld!
Excellent column once again, Justin. Lets just hope France sticks to its position. We can all write to the French legation to the UN Security council and give him our thanks and appreciation, and urge them to stand by their position and express our support by e-mailing here: france-presse@un.int.
As usual you make some excellent points, but at times this is quite a weak analysis coming from you. Who are Bush's allies in Europe? You want to say they are the left and left leaning governments. This ignores Spain. It ignores Italy. Silvio Berlusconi is to the left of who? Benito Mussolini? Which European states are causing Bush headaches? You want to hold out France to show they are governments of the right, but Germany is governed by the Social Dems and Greens.
Chirac provides some meat for your "market nationalism" plate, but you're making a big mistake to ignore the internal French political situation. Like everywhere else, the French people overwhelmingly oppose the Bush war plan. Blair thinks he doesn't have to care what the people think because he has no viable opposition. Chirac knows better. Contrary to what has been portrayed, the French electorate didn't swing to the right in their somewhat recent elections, but to the left. Voters didn't abandon the Socialists for Le Pen or Chirac but for a trio of Trotskyite parties. Only the fluke of election law and the splintering of the left vote led to Chirac's victory. This puts him in a position where he can't politically afford to go along with Bush even if he wanted to.
On the east European support for war you're also ignoring something important. They want to join the E.U. and join it on the best terms possible. Pissing off the French and Germans doesn't help, but as they have so little negotiating power of their own, pissing off the U.S. is the last thing they want to do. They want Washington to pressure the E.U. on their behalf. For the US to even get Turkey discussed as an E.U. prospect is proof to why they believe this to be a smart strategy, but personally I believe it's much more likely to backfire on them.
...You are ignoring the fact that Germany, the other major European nation resisting this war, is ruled by a coalition of left and center-left parties. South Africa, which led the non aligned nations to almost unilaterally make statements in the UN against the US, is led by a left-wing government.
On the pro-war side, you have the center-right to right governments of Spain and Italy, just to name two of many.
In the countries that are led by those who lean left, the right-leaning political opposition is generally even more pro-war – just look at Britain and the Tories.
What unites the pro-war nations is not the larger political traditions of right or left, but a rule that is disconnected from the people they supposedly govern and in thrall to the growing empire of the United States. Both leftist and rightist governments can succumb to this fault, and do. The people of those countries, right or left, shouldn't make the mistake of blaming each other for the misdeeds of their "leaders."
Anyway, I just thought I'd do my part to keep you from overreaching, as your overall message is on target. Other than that, keep up the good work!
~ E. Heino, Seattle, Washington
Thanks for making it all very clear; market nationalism, transnational "progressivism," and American hegemonism. Now we desperately need a neo-Washingtonian/Jeffersonian/libertarian foreign policy document; but it hasn't been written. We need it to counter balance the neocons policy paper written first in 1992 by Wolfowitz and revised by Rumsfield and now finally being executed by Bush II. PBS's Frontline made it clear how influential this policy paper was (written by Wolfowitz now at the State Dept. and others) and how in a time of crises (9/11), the document was pulled out of the drawer and dusted off. Off course I read that all first at your antiwar website.
We need the same type of heavyweight document. Sure it will get little attention. Sure it will go in the drawer. But when "blowback" occurs, the crises will ensure, doubts will surface, a new crises of confidence will arise – and there will be those that will be in the right position to open the drawer, dust it off and put it into action the New Lassie Faire Foreign Policy of the US – by Justin Raimondo and signed by hundreds of other libertarians (Robert Poole, Milton Friedman, and the usual bunch). Trade with all, War with none will be a theme that will suddenly make sense after the country experiences some devastating blowback (and you know the time will come). ...
~ Treg D. Loyden, Tempe, Arizona
Thanks for posting "Vive la France!" The National Council of Churches of Christ has been encouraging American Christians to write to the French embassy in Washington to express thanks for standing on principle with level-headedness. Here is an e-mail address for the embassy if your readers wish to do the same: info.washington-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr.
If we're so concerned with spreading democracy around the world, then why is it that we berate Chirac, who is, after all, only representing the will of 80% of his people?
...Italy, Spain, and Denmark are reckoned to have centre-right governments, and are cheering on the Bush-Blair Axis of Stupidity. Gerhard Schroeder is a leftist (and an awful man, who is screwing up his country just as badly as Bush, Blair, Chirac, or any of the other "world leaders").
Unfortunately, Europe doesn't have any major league politicians with Pat Buchanan's moral stature and clarity of vision. (Even more unfortunately, neither does America, unless you count the heroic Ron Paul.) The Franco-German initiative against war is welcome, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that the men who are leading it are any better than the other political elites of the Western world.
Still, Vive la France! And keep up the good work.
You say, correctly in my view, that the French-German model is pacific, collaborative and evolutionary. this is the new European model. It is a necessary feature of political-economic integration ultimately originating in the experience of defeat and occupation shared by nearly all European countries.
The old European model was balance-of-power games, war and imperialism. The country now practicing it was born of Europe. Many of its people, especially its current leaders, evince unreconstructed 19th century attitudes towards the rest of the world which have yet to be corrected by invasion and occupation.
From the perspectives of a Martian and of Earth's nonwhite population, the United States is old Europe, while Europe itself has moved on.
~ William Buckland, London, UK
Dollars
So, what's the rush to war in Iraq? Well it took a little digging, and reading, but the jig is up. Most oil producing countries are switching to the Euro for payment for oil delivery, instead of US dollars. Iraq switched last year, Venezuela switched soon after, and apparently, many other producers are in the process of switching.
Once the switch is made, the US dollar will tank and be worthless. War for the US is not inevitable, it is a necessity. That lowly Canadian funny money is looking better every day. Prediction: Canadian dollars trade on par with US dollars within 18 months.
~ Malcolm G. Ratcliffe, Canada
Indict Hussein
Instead of just bashing the war effort, why don't you get after Saddam Hussein? If it's done quickly, that will stop the war. (See: The Iraqi Forum for Democracy – a campaign to call for an International Criminal Tribunal to indict Saddam Hussein's regime.)
Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:
Because Saddam Hussein is the leader of a foreign country. Arresting him would require the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and invading and occupying countries that haven't attacked one's country is military aggression, and Antiwar.com is opposed to military aggression.
Also, Antiwar.com not only bashes war efforts but also advocates military non-interventionism as an ethical and prudent foreign policy.
ANTI-PROTESTERS!
Jefferson P. Carter (A PROUD AMERICAN SUPPORTING OUR PRESIDENT AND OUR SOLDIERS!, Brandon, Mississippi): TO ALL YOU LIBERALS: I AM SORRY THAT YOU GUYS FEEL THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A WEBSITE PROTESTING THIS WAR. WE HAVE MEN AND WOMEN (SONS AND DAUGHTERS, HUSBANDS AND WIVES, FATHERS AND MOTHERS) OVER THERE PROTECTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. HOW DO YOU THINK THAT WE BECAME A FREE COUNTRY FROM ENGLAND? BY TALKING? NO!!!!! WE HAD TO FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM! SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 – DO YOU REMEMBER THAT DAY? WHAT WERE YOU DOING? DO YOU REMEMBER SEEING ALL THOSE PEOPLE JUMPING OUT OF THE WINDOWS? WHAT THEY (YOU KNOW WHO) DID TO US – WE ARE PROTECTING OUR SOIL, OUR FLAG, OUR CHILDREN, FATHERS, MOTHERS, PARENTS, OUR FUTURE AND OUR FREEDOM BY GETTING THIS MAN OUT OF CONTROL. THE ONLY REASON THAT YOU GUYS CAN PROTEST LIKE THIS IS BECAUSE – WHY??????? WE ARE A FREE COUNTRY THAT HAD TO FIGHT FOR ITS FREEDOM AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR THE FREEDOM OF AMERICANS. GOD (YES I SAID GOD) BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
Sam Koritz: Antiwar.com is not run by liberals. See: http://www.antiwar.com/who.html. Please feel free to write back if you have any factual or analytical points to make regarding any specific articles or letters posted on Antiwar.com.
Jefferson P. Carter (A TRUE AMERICAN): SURE IT ISN'T RUN BY LIBERALS!!!!! WHAT ARE YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS? THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT!!!! GET THE HELL OUT OF THIS COUNTRY IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY IT IS RUN!!!!!
Sam Koritz: Why are you asking about the site's political views when I just provided a link describing them? Maybe you'll be willing to read this essay posted on Antiwar.com on Independence Day – it's by President and General George Washington, and it's a good explanation of Antiwar.com's views: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/washington1.html.
Iraq, Cambodia, Vietnam
Frank Kushner: Activists for appeasement of Saddam Hussein should contact freedom-loving Iraqis with the help of groups such as The Iraqi Prospect Organisation and the Iraqi-American Council – just like they should have contacted Cambodians (millions now dead by a similar non-human – Pol Pot).
Sam
Koritz: A good analogy. All of those millions of Cambodians were
killed after the US destabilized their country by dropping 540,000 tons
of bombs and killing 150,000 to 500,000 people. (See "Caught
in the Crossfire," Frontline, PBS.)
Frank Kushner: Yes – I know that some leaders of protesters love Pol Pot and other evil ones listed below. A North Vietnam General recently said they almost surrendered except the antiwar protesters (Hanoi Jane and communists) stopped the USA. Pol Pot would have been stopped before the carnage.
In the Associated Press report of Feb. 6, 2003, Muslim ethnic people in Kosovo see Americans as saviors. One of them, Besnik Barhdi said; "If there is a God, his missionaries on Earth are Americans".
Where were the antiwar protesters when the USA and NATO (not the UN) went into the Balkans against evil extremists, ending the Bosnian war and then later controlled conflicts in Yugoslavia/Kosovo/Macedonia? The USA forced the Serb opposition to remove and extradite Slobodan Milosevic to the international tribunal in The Hague. Of course, the communist supporters of tyrants such as those belonging to "International Answer" did support Milosevic and others....
Well-meaning activists are being pulled by their noses by them and other similar groups. I also wonder how much they would protest if clones of the following evil leaders came into power in another country, perhaps Mexico or Canada (or Ireland for the British; or Monaco for the French who couldn't defeat them without help): Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Kruschev, Mao Zedong, Mao Tse-Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Hirohito, Pol Pot, Kim II Sung, Nicolae Ceausescu, Heinrich Himmler, Idi Amin, Hideki Tojo, Feliks Dzerzhinsky, Ayatollah Khomeini, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Deng Xiaoping, and of course Osama bin Laden (dead and suffering in Hades with the others based on Swiss analysis that his November, 2002 taped message was fake). These non-humans were all responsible for a total of at least 100 million and perhaps 200 million deaths. Besides Butcher of Baghdad Sad-Dam Hussein, there are others in the same league – Cuba’s “In-Fidel” Castro, Panama’s Manuel Noriega, Libya's Col. Muammar Qaddafi, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, Columbia’s Manuel Marulanda, and N. Korea’s Kim Jong-il.
Sam Koritz: I don't understand the first sentence of your reply; nothing in my email indicated support for Pol Pot – just the opposite.
I don't have the time or energy to debate the dozen situations you've raised, but regarding Vietnam, I think you're blaming the messenger.
Graham
Greene's The
Quiet American
was published in 1955. Greene argued that the US intervention (already
under way) in Vietnam was, and by implication would continue to be, a
disaster. Around the same time, as the
Pentagon Papers show, US analysts were coming to the same conclusion:
short of nuking North Vietnam, the war there would be a grinding failure.
A
decade later – after thousands of Americans had died in a country
most Americans previously couldn't find on a map, and with no end in sight
– significant numbers of Americans started agreeing with Greene's
and the Pentagon's analyses, and some of them started to publicly object
to the war. It seems perfectly reasonable and arguably even patriotic
for citizens to object to a military disaster, especially a decade into
it.
I would like to see the actual quote by the North Vietnamese general that you paraphrased. I find it hard to believe that the Vietnamese fought for centuries against the Chinese, French and then Americans, lost hundreds of thousands of people, but were about to give up until they heard about Jane Fonda and friends.
Frank Kushner: Perhaps you should find Commie General Giap's book. See: http://www.war-stories.com/hayden.htm:
"By Gene Kuentzler: The question raised by Gary Beaver, 'Do you have any data on actual US troops, by name who were killed as a direct result of Fonda's actions?' can be answered by reading the book written by General Giap, Commander of NVA forces. Giap clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again. By 1968, NVA morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for 'Tet' '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.
"At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 US casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained access to the Embassy – there were some VC who had been killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America.
"According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Remember, this decision was made at a time when the US casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968.
"Today, there are 58,000 names on the Vietnam Wall Memorial that was built with the donations made by the American public. Although Giap did not mention each and every protester's name in his book, many of us will never forget the 58,000 names on the Wall. We will also never forget the names of those who helped in placing those additional 48,000 names there: Bill, Jane, Tom, Cronkite, and others.
"Those of us who rotated prior to Walter Cronkite's report on 'Tet-68' can clearly state, 'We were still winning when I left!'
"Gene
Kuentzler, '66-67
S-3 Operations,
19th Combat Engineer Battalion"
SK: I'll try to remember to check out Giap's book if I run across it but you might want to to find a copy yourself since you're the one claiming that it contains certain statements. I assume that you don't have a copy of the book or else you would have quoted it, rather than reference an advocacy website's quote of an enemy of the general's paraphrase of what he claims the book states.
Survey Proposal
In light of the study showing only 13% of 19-24 year olds can find Iraq on a map: It would be great to see the results of a survey that first asked whether an Iraqi war is necessary followed by a pop quiz on finding that country on a map. My guess is that the more for war, the less likely knowledgeable
Draft
Do you realize that Germany and Austria both still have the Draft. So a lot of Americans who are not prepared to go to Irak themselves are giving me flack because I`m trying to stop my children from being sent there against their will.
Antiwar Radio
I discovered this website about a week ago and became a financial supporter today. I would urge everyone who has a desire to 'keep the world safe for democracy and freedom' to send whatever you can to keep this site and others like it alive and well. Problem is, people who don't have access to the internet and have to rely on television or talk radio, are bombarded with the typical right rhetoric of blaming 'liberals' for every evil in the world. Since the demonstrations worldwide last weekend I've noticed a shrill, intensely vitriolic hatred against anyone who opposes war with Iraq. This is course is coming from the legion of right wing wackos who seem to be spreading across the airwaves like crab grass.
My question, if anyone can answer, is why aren't there at least some left leaning individuals being seen and heard on TV and radio on a regular basis? I know there are millions out there that disagree strongly with what they are hearing these days or for that matter the past few years. Is my son correct when he says the major studios/stations won't support or allow the opposition air time? I admit to being disgusted with some of the past popular 'liberal' positions on any number of issues – but I have never felt attacked, threatened or heard such slime as I do today when I push a radio button.
Good Antiwar Website
I like your site. Though I am for the war in Iraq. I always like reading everything about everything so I have been looking for a "good" antiwar site, that doesn't state opinions as fact and where the news articles aren't tasteless and baseless like all the other ones. I especially like how you link to respectable papers around the world, rather then making your own news.
Keep up with the good work. (Freedom to Iraq!)
Who We Are
Tina Heidrich: Where were Helen Thomas and all of you when Clinton went into Kosovo and Haiti? And when he bombed Iraq? You are all hypocrites!
Managing Editor Eric Garris: If you read the "Who We Are" you would see that Antiwar.com was started to protest the bombing of Iraq in 1998 and the Kosovo war. I can't speak for Helen Thomas on Clinton, but I remember she opposed the Kosovo war as well.
By the way, I am a Republican.
TH: I realized after I sent the e-mail that your e-mail address had "kosovo" in it. I didn't mean to sound bombastic but I can't stand to hear Helen Thomas bash Bush anymore – especially calling him the worst president we've ever had. I've watched her at White House briefings and it is obvious that she can't stand the President.
I heard a clip of her appearance on the Donahue show on the radio today which prompted me to try to contact her. I did a yahoo search on her name and your website was at or near the top.
Thanks again for taking the time to send me a response – and I, too am a Republican!
Regarding CC's letter posted February 20:
Sorry, but, to boycott (or punish) nations for what their government officials do is as childish a thought as to bomb countries whose leaders are 'evil'.
Regarding "Their Master's Voice," by Roy Greenslade, the Guardian (UK):
Your recent link on Rupert Murdoch and the war has got me thinking about history. It is a real pity Rupert is not more like his father Sir Keith Murdoch. Keith Murdoch played a major role in getting allied forces out of the First World War disaster called Gallipoli . His son would rather get us all into yet another Mideast mess!
~ Tim Gillin, Sydney, Australia
Regarding "A 'Toxic' Meme" by Justin Raimondo:
Don't forget in all your rants and raves that Israel is not a dictatorship. It is a democracy; the only one in the region. And just because Sharon is in power doesn't mean the whole country should be condemned. I don't want the rest of the world to condemn me just because I'm an American and Bush happens to be my president for the moment.
~ Jordan Hobfoll