|
|||||||||
Posted April 10, 2003
Regarding Virginia Ansley's letter posted April 3:
Wife of a military pilot, eh. That result of mere chance gives you unimpeachable authority to say anything you'd like without risk of rebuttal? Well, as an eight-year veteran of the submarine service and veteran of our last little fool's errand in the region (Gulf "War" I), I think that I have a fair measure of credibility on the subject, as well. This "war" is nothing short of madness. (By the way, according to the Constitution, treason is punishable by death at any time. But I digress.)
Your husband, as a (presumably) commissioned officer in the United States military swore, as part of his oath of office, to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies – foreign and domestic". By violations of that Constitution too numerous to list here, this president (and most of his predecessors) has proven himself to be an enemy of that Constitution. Thus, to be true to his oath of office, your husband has only one honorable course of action open to him – to resign his commission and actively oppose the unconstitutional usurpation of power by this president and his administration (honor demands that the oath of office remains binding even after one's term of service ends). I support your husband and every other person currently serving unconditionally. I voice that support by demanding through every available forum that they be brought home and redeployed in a manner that is consistent with requirements of the Constitution.
Eric Garris Replies
Can you tell me who is removing the Iraqi corpses? Does the US military leave that to Iraqis?
It's strange that there are no images of Iraqi dead. We hear that 3,000 were killed when the US entered Baghdad but no photos. The censorship of that is very successful. Is anything written about that?
I'm grateful in some ways. One opens photo links with a cautious and heavy heart. But the death of thousands of men feels like an abstraction without the reality of documentation. It feels like a video.
Any information on these two issues would be appreciated.
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
Here is a clue, from an article in the San Jose Mercury News about the family killed last week at a checkpoint ("3 Iraqis hurt in shooting are airlifted to base for aid"):
"The Hassans' three slain children were buried by U.S. Army soldiers on Thursday in a shallow grave by the side of the road near their hometown of Twriq. When the couple are well enough to return home, they will be given a paper in English telling them where their children are buried, in case they later can afford to rebury them."
I wanted to bring to your notice an article in Reason magazine by Ronald Bailey on March 26. He states that the harmless effects of depleted uranium have been greatly exaggerated by the Iraqi government for propaganda purposes and also by anti-nuke activists who want to ban anything smacking of radiation. He adds that WHO offered to investigate these claims and was turned down.
This article made me wonder about the figures on the effects of sanctions and how reliable those were; it does not make me change my view of this war at all but at the same time, antiwar activists have to be careful not to come off as credulous or untruthful.
I would be interested in hearing what you or your readers have to say.
Eric Garris replies:
I don't see the sanctions and the DU issues the same.
Sanctions have clearly contributed to killing large numbers of Iraqis, but so have other factors. If a million die because of sanctions combined with the effects of Saddam's policies, do you split the responsibility equally? It is possible that they would have all died ONLY from either one, or maybe both are required. Saying that a certain number died from either sanctions or Saddam's economic policies are just a guess. And both sides are going to skew the numbers in their favor. But I have NO DOUBT that sanctions have resulted in killing a huge number of Iraqis, and I have NO DOUBT that Saddam's economic policies have also done so. Both are bad, but as an American, I only have influence over one. So that is the one I fight against.
The DU issue is different. There is a lot of fake science out there, and DU may be totally harmless (unless you are hit by a bullet made of it). I am not sure about DU and I am not sure about global warming. I am not afraid of my microwave or my cell phone. I spend my entire waking life staring at CRTs.
My main objection to DU is what it is used for (bullets, shells, etc.). The fact that such items may be toxic in some other way seems redundant.
At Antiwar.com, we have tried to be cautious when referring to studies about DU and sanctions. We have written about the horrors of sanctions, but the numbers are just some bureaucrats' guesses. We usually talk about DU in terms of "study says" or using a ? in the headline. It is important to stress our real reasons for being opposed to war and sanctions, and not rely on such nebulous information.
I think that many of these studies are the same as domestic studies. Both sides use conjecture to establish facts that are theories. Just like the inflated numbers of deaths from secondhand smoke (I will probably get letters for this), I have no doubt that these bureaucrats have invented and exaggerated things to justify their jobs. But that doesn't change the basic facts about war, peace, and free trade.
Jon Skarphol: I believe that everyone can have their own opinions about the war, and I have no problem with protesting a war before the war begins. But now that the war is in full stride, give it a rest. Their not gonna just up and quit the war because some idiot war protesters are blocking a road and making life hell for the rest of America that has nothing to do with the war. If your gonna really protest, why don't you find some way to go over to Iraq and protest over there. That way, the people that you are helping (Iraqi Military) with your stupid protests, can use you as their human shields instead of the innocent Iraqi people. That way we can get rid of the Iraqi military as well as you people. It is because of people like you that I am almost ashamed to call myself an American, but then I realize that there are people that give a damn about America, and those people are over risking their lives for it and us, and that makes me proud to be an American. So why don't you spare us the bullshit protests and support your country for a f*cking change.
Eric Garris: As a conservative Republican, I am following in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, who led the opposition to war during the Mexican War before he became President.
There is no more important time to speak out.
By the way, we are not at war. The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war, not the President.
JS: It's funny how on your site it says that the possible WMD found were filled with pesticides and not chemicals, but then I go to ABC news, NBC news and every other f*cking website on the net and it says nothing of this. You guys must use the psychic hotline for your headlines because it even said Tuesday April 8th on the posting date. That's funny, where I am it is Monday April 7th. Man, you even use ABC news online, but when I go to ABC news online, there is no mention of WMD found to be filled with pesticides. You guys are a joke. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
EG: Like every previous "find" of chemical weapons, the major networks didn't run any retractions for at least 24 hours. Check the timing of the reports, and realize that the same people are being quoted, saying they were wrong. MSNBC just announced (moments ago) that initial tests show pesticides, not nerve agent, but that burying pesticides in such a place was an "environmental crime." Of course, when the US and Britain used poison gas in previous wars, they were not considered to the weapons of mass destruction. Check out Robert Novak's column today, "Where are the WMD?"
Regarding KV's letter posted April 6:
Well said, KV.
Old-guard antiwar leftists and principled conservatives are often called traitors by folks like Ewell and Jennifer W., and told to leave the country if we don't like the policies of our unelected government. The thinly veiled implication is that we're ivory tower intellectuals, that we're cowards, that we're afraid to fight.
But many people who actually have firsthand experience with serious violence do not support this war. I suspect this is why so many veterans who have seen real action don't support this administration, and have joined forces with activists and other citizens who live in urban areas where violence is common.
Where I grew up, the streets were probably not as dangerous as Johannesburg's, but it was pretty bad. I'm not talking about schoolyard brawls. I've been stabbed, had guns pointed at my head, and been knocked unconscious. It took a few years, but I learned how to defend myself, not just with my fists, (though it came to that on a few occasions) but also by using my head. I don't claim to be any kind of veteran street fighter, but I will say this: Most people who tried to rob me did not succeed.
Ewell and Jennifer W. remind me of a lot punks in my old neighborhood who talked really tough, and never realized that everyone on the block – Anglo, African American, Latino, Dominican – was laughing at them. These guys should realize that people all over the world read their letters, and that it isn't always wise to publicly insult those you disagree with. This tactic simply displays weakness that can be exploited by your enemies – and by enemies, I mean America's real enemies, not the antiwar movement.
Put it this way: If a terrorist screamed "God is Great" in a shopping mall, and reached for the trigger on a vest packed with C-4, who would be more likely to try to stop them? Some crazed activist who has been to jail once or twice, has a four-inch scar on his cheek, and breaks up knife fights in his school cafeteria once or twice a month? Or an armchair blowhard like Ewell or Jennifer?
Here's the sad truth: If America is attacked while all our troops are overseas, the rest of us are going to have to protect these fools – as well as every other flag-waving lard-ass listening to Limbaugh in their SUVs. Because like it or not, these are our fellow citizens, and we do have a responsibility to look after them. And we have to protect their freedom to speak their minds, even if it means that we are facing off against police officers with shotguns at every demonstration while they're sitting at home watching soldiers kissing babies on Fox News. ...
Regarding Mark Schirber's letter posted April 5:
Mark Schirber may be right about Peter Arnett's citizenship; it is true that he is a native of New Zealand. But citizenship made no difference to the judges in the case of William Joyce, known to British short-wave listeners of the early 1940s as Lord Haw-Haw. Although born in Chicago, and therefore an American citizen by birth, he was tried for treason against the king and hanged. If they want you, they'll get you.
Regarding "Armageddon" by Morgan Strong:
I just read what you wrote about what Evangelical Christian's believe, and I had to take a moment to chuckle. I did not know that old Jerry Falwell was our appointed leader nor did I know that we were supposed to be for the war.
A college professor should know the trouble with stigmatizing a group of people. Gosh, if I were to judge college professors by what you say I'd have to say college professors were stupid. However, I cannot generalize like this so I'll just say that you certainly do not like Evangelical Christians to much. ...
The War on Reporters
Well, they claim 10 reporters have died in this 19 day old war in Iraq. But today 3 were killed. Who was hit?
Tareq Ayyoub, Al-Jazeera cameraman Jose Couso, 37, Spanish TV, Telecinco Taras Protsyuk, 35, Ukrainian cameraman.
But where they were hit is important too, I think. Yesterday Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, Iraq's Minister of Information, stood before the Palestine Hotel and declared there were no US forces in Baghdad.
Today the same hotel was hit by US tank fire.
It was the best propaganda tank shell of the entire war.
As for Al-Jazeera, the Bush Administration seems to find it desirable both here in Iraq and formerly in Afghanistan that "you will hear no word but my word."
After War
I called my Senator and the comments line at the White House to suggest that Congress or Bush make a binding resolution (or whatever it's called) stating that the United States will take a strictly "hands-off" approach to Iraq's rebuilding (both the country and its government), supplying the bulk of the money for repairs and humanitarian relief, but nothing else. Decision-making would be left totally to the Iraqi people, with the advise and aid of the U.N. (minus US, Britain, Australia, and any other actual combatants) only if the Iraqis requested their help.
I suggested this as a way for us to redeem ourselves to the world, to prove that our motives for invading Iraq were pure (yeah, right), not motivated by greed, and to reassure the international community that we will not repeat this action elsewhere. The White House aide I spoke with said Bush had made those reassurances already (ha!), but I insisted we need something legally binding to convince the rest of the world, not just words. If we don't do something, we could be looking at another Iran in ten years – and in the meantime, our tax dollars will pay Halliburton to clean up the mess from the burning oil wells, which will then go to them and other hungry US oil companies.
It's time to prevent the NEXT war, by removing the profit motive, but we have to begin before this war is over. If we can start a national movement to get this resolution passed (or at least as far as Bush's desk), we might succeed; at least we can show Bush's hand and leave him more vulnerable in the next election.
Missionaries
There was a news item in Al-Jazeera said that US missionaries are waiting to enter Iraq with bread in one hand and Bible in the other. Well if that comes to past it will be only a matter of time before we find that the bread will be in the hands of the Iraqis and oil in the hands of the missionaries. God bless America.
WMD Update
As our feckless, power-drunk administration celebrates its victory, the phenomenon reminds me in many ways of the ludicrous enthusiasm conservatives (myself included) displayed in the attempt to impeach that bastard rapist Clinton. Sure, he deserved it – as Hussein and virtually every other Arab leader deserves hanging from a lamppost. But what would it actually have accomplished, removing him from office? Well, it would have allowed Al Gore to run as an incumbent, in a booming economy, in a country at peace. Given how close the election was, we can see now in retrospect that Gore would certainly have won. Intelligent observers pointed out at the time that Gore would have had at least a modest electoral boost from being a sitting president – especially in the wake of a highly unpopular attempt to remove a popular (if loathsome) president over what was seen as personal peccadillo. But the jejune American "conservative" movement, acting like a hyperactive, inexperienced, 13-year-old chess player, refused even to consider what move its opponent might make in response – so intoxicated was it with the SHEER brilliance of the combination it had conceived.
Likewise, the neocons today are drunk with the effectiveness of the Iraq campaign... The key to this euphoria – as we slam down our side of the chess clock, breathing "YES, cha-ching!", is to refuse to imagine how the other side – the enraged Arab world – might respond. Don't think about terrorism that might come our way – don't remember the causal connection between our troops' presence in Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden's assault on NYC, between our one-sided Middle East policy and the focus of Al Qaeda on the US Imagine instead massive, disproportionate retaliation against Islamic targets, in case "those people" try anything. "Nuke Mecca," as the preadolescents over at National Disgrace magazine like to say, snickering through cyberspace. Pontificate about the mustard-gas shells that are found in Iraq – useless to terrorists, by the way – while forgetting that the US used napalm, atomic bombs, fire-bombing of entire cities (Tokyo, Dresden) – and not only against mortal enemies such as Nazi Germany, but against colonial antagonists such as North Vietnam. Ignore the callous, cynical American betrayal of Iraq in 1991, when Colin Powell and George I goaded the oppressed people of that tragic country into revolt, then left them to be slaughtered. Then, when the next terrorist attack occurs on American soil, keen and whine as if a single American life were worth a million foreign lives – and feign surprise when the world doesn't share your outrage.
Meanwhile, open your borders to thousands of Islamic immigrants every year – and leave the back door from Mexico wide open. Try to appease Arab opinion by bombing the Serbs when they fight to hold onto their nation's heartland – to which they've a better claim than white people have on any part of North America – and by shoving Turkey into the European Union, through which Islamic hordes will flood from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. Always remember that Americans are immune to Original Sin. So why do people resent us? I really can't imagine.
The Hidden Costs of War
I am a Grant Writer by trade; I work primarily for Native American governments and organizations, helping to secure funding to combat Alcohol and Drug Abuse among Tribal populations.
Recently, the funding decisions were made for a Federal grant program for which I had written two applications (for two different Tribes). Both were to be funded (at about $425,000 yearly for 3 years, each) to help women and their children recover from the effects of the mothers' substance abuse problems.
Then the budget ax fell – twice. And in the second cut, both of the projects for which I had written were eliminated. Seems someone asked for $85 Billion to prosecute a war and provide humanitarian aid to civilians, while simultaneously cutting taxes on the richest 1% of Americans, and the money had to come from somewhere, so –
I am so angry at this that I can barely speak of it. I'd like to shake the man until his teeth rattle, to try to shake some sense into him, but that's not gonna happen.
All I can do is vent.
Regarding "Seeking Scapegoats" by Nebojsa Malic:
I went through several articles of the author at this occasion (including "myth" of Srebrenica) and must say that I never understood Serb's impression about the global conspiracy against them. Even as I am living close to them, have several (very good) friends I trust and appreciate their loyalty (meaning that they will sacrifice their life for you, but just until the moment that they feel being "betrayed" – and for this is just enough not to talk what they don't want to hear).
I mean, war in Yugoslavia is over – Milosevic's regime provoked it and I feel sorry for the people who regret not to speak loud enough against the "cheap" ideas that Serbian Academy was spreading around (about all the Serbs living in one state) and for which corrupted politicians grasped in order to maintain their power (same way like Saddam Hussein). People in Serbia I am talking to feel particularly sorry about the 10 years they lost and through which they became one of the economically poorest countries in the Europe – the pain today has nothing to do with "scape-goating " as nobody really wants to do this.
Regarding Srebrenica – I remember pictures on TV when Mladic marched in and when he promised lives to the people who lost all the dignity and starving children. It is fact that "blue helmets" and with them international community failed on the exam, however questioning Srebrenica in the manner "myth or reality" would be perverse the same way as to put under question Nazi's camps of death – is there enough evidence for them or are they just a product of the World War II "winning coalition".
Nebojsa Malic replies:
I thought I've been clear on many occasions that Empire's involvement in the Balkans is about power, not about some personal animosity towards the Serbs or anyone else. So much for peddling 'conspiracies.' I refuse to dismiss a serious examination of the past decade with several well-worn cliches about the former Yugoslavia ("the Serb Academy created nationalism – Serbs started the wars – they lost – what happened was tragic but fitting – let's get over it and live in prosperity"), primarily because there can be no prosperity on the foundation of lies and deceit. Be they Serb, Croat, Muslim, Albanian, Imperial or other, governments lie; that's in the job description. As someone who has lived through the cognitive dissonance between Official Truth and reality, I am disinclined to believe the comfortable (to some) and politically useful version of history that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Speaking of Srebrenica, I have never denied that a large number of people lost their lives, something I personally find revolting and deserving of proper punishment. I do question the maddeningly and deliberately vague official version of *how* they died. For example, you write as if those women and children we all saw on TV with Mladic were slaughtered, but they were actually fed, then bused to Muslim-held territory. So who is denying facts here? Also, Nazi analogies are always in bad taste, especially when unfounded.
Regarding "The Real War" by Justin Raimondo:
There is also another war that will be waged, the war of economics. The world bank, WTO and other bodies I am sure are already salivating at the prospect of the mass privatization of public utilities. Utilities which prior to 1991 were in many case superior to the Western model. National oil for example sponsored a true free education system, in many cases Iraqis were sponsored to attend overseas Universities and the tab paid by the state. The two tier health system of many countries including America and Australia, 1 for the rich, 1 as a welfare net will be implemented ,despite the true free access system available prior to 1991.
Many forget that Iraq was one of the most developed countries in the region prior to post 1991 sanctions.
As an Australian
on the brink of a vanishing national health system, a widening gulf between
rich and poor and the restriction of rights being imposed on us. I can
only feel even more sorrow as the horrors of this war are perpetrated,
that at the end of it the Iraqi people have all this to look forward too.
I am sure among the first targets will be Iraq's self sufficient water
supply, privatized at the behest of the WTO. Then they will be given marginally
high interest loans which will tie them to the West for many, many years
to come.
~ Chris Horsfall
Regarding "Laughter or Despair?" by Matthew Barganier:
You a wickedly clever writer, but also quite biased. You would make a wonderful politician!
Matthew Barganier replies:
A truly incisive observation. Yes, I'm biased against war. Who would've thunk it, given the site my column appears on? I'm also sure that my fondness for brutal honesty would win plenty of votes.
In
Matt Barganier's excellent "Laughter or Despair", he mentions
John Ashcroft's prudish decision to cover up the seminude statues outside
the Justice Dept. These statues are named "Spirit of Justice"
and "Majesty of Law". Isn't this an apt symbol for a president
willing to bend the law and disregard justice in his quest for imperial
power?
I think it's a bad omen myself. The Chinese would call it "inauspicious".
Evidence
As of today there is no hard evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This makes the government's justification for going to war look bad especially in the eyes of a skeptical world. How long can this continue? How long before we start planting weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I don't claim to know how difficult this would be to do. Perhaps practicality makes it impossible. If not I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet though it saddens me to think this way.
Boycott US and UK
So many have written about against this war on Iraq and so many brave and selfless people have in one ways or the other do some thing which may have some effects on those two murderers leadership.
I do hope those Arab countries that in any way helping the attacking force, please change their mind NOW and STOP what they are doing before they, themselves become the next country to be attack by those two Big Bullies.
For those that are not in Arab, NOW is the time to boycott US and British companies, services and manufactured goods. Maybe I am wrong but this is the least we can do to make the two Bullies from getting their way in the future.
Please understand that I have nothing against the people of the UK and US if they too are against this WAR. War will never make this world a better and safer place for our future generation.
Buy US and UK LAST or NOT AT ALL....
Regarding "War Profiteers" by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex):
I submit that the author may not fully understand Foreign Aid. Here's an example that may make things clearer. Many years ago, Egypt chaffed at not being self-sufficient in food. Egyptian national studies revealed that Egypt could raise all of its own food each year by irrigating certain sections of the Nile Valley to raise mainly wheat. They did an exacting study and came to a very close estimate of the cost, far beyond anything that they could afford. So they asked the US for assistance.
No way.
Why should the US give money to Egypt to grow wheat when we have so much wheat store stored right here and often rotting? The US declined foreign aid in the form of money and equipment to build irrigation systems. But it DID approved a huge amount to buy US wheat. Every foreign aid grant (except Israel's) comes with a board of overseers, usually principals in the business world. Firstly, then, from whom would Egypt buy the wheat? Canada? This could not be approved – Egypt must buy the wheat from US suppliers. Egypt didn't care – they were promised enough money to buy the needed amount. Who cares if US grain is three times as expensive as Canadian grain? The US Government is footing the bill. Now, how is Egypt going to ship that wheat? In its leaky old ships? Disapproved! Egypt must engage the enormously expensive "safe"ships crewed by the US Merchant Marine. Now where is Egypt going to store this grain? In it's plentiful silos? No way. The US isn't going to grubstake Egypt to tons of wheat only to have Egyptian rats benefit. Egypt must build all new silos for US wheat, and, oh by the way, they must be designed and built by US firms.
Clearer now, right? Foreign Aid doesn't aid foreigners – it aids US business. Foreign Aid is simply another stream of citizen's tax money into the pockets of the corporations. Running the money through the fingers of a foreign country first is a mere formality, in fact, no cash actually leaves home. I think it would be a lot more efficient if each year US citizens simply sent a portion of their income directly to General Dynamics, General Electric, IBM, Boeing, and the 200 hundred or so other large firms that are somehow a part of every foreign aid gift (and the thousands of small firms who get their share of the pie too, depending on how well they've supported their congress person). It would be more efficient that way. But of course it wouldn't create the impression that we "care" about poor foreign nations, but that would be too close to the truth.
Paul is still right, of course – the Congressional spending is unconscionable. I just didn't want anyone to think that that money was really GOING anywhere, save into the pockets of the already wealthy.
As usual.
I found the item – $6.8 million for Congressional Research Service and General Accounting Office – particularly interesting considering Republicans had threatened the GAO with loss of funding if it didn't drop its lawsuit against VP Cheney. Since the GAO complied with their demand, I suppose the Republicans figured it deserved a reward.
Do you suppose there is any way to get Congress to pass an Excess Profits Tax? Such a tax was instituted in World War I, World War II and the Korean War. The tax was a way to help pay for the war and control inflation, but also it was meant to be curb war profiteering.
Proud of Canada
Firstly I want to express my appreciation for your site and in particular the high quality of the correspondence you publish. The world needs more open discussion on the current situation in the Middle East and on alternatives to armed conflict.
I am a Canadian. In the last few weeks it has become apparent that for many of my countrymen we are now looking at a serious 'parting of ways' with the US. There have been many criticisms leveled at the Bush administration by Canadians of all rank and file including some rather blunt and insulting comments from government ministers. The backlash of course has been expressed by many that the resulting response from Washington will be any manner of economic sanctions (Canada and the US are each other's largest trading partners) and border restrictions. Many Canadians counsel silence and appeasement lest America treats us in an 'unfriendly manner'. Of those I am frankly ashamed; cooperating with the US in an illegal and unjustified war against a sovereign nation for the sake of the almighty dollar is economic cowardice and moral bankruptcy.
Our government has wisely decided to avoid supporting this war, at the risk of offending Mr. Bush and his administration. In fact America's closest neighbours and virtually the entire western hemisphere have made the same decision. And many of those countries, especially Mexico, where under significant pressure to at least lend their moral support to Washington. This lack of desperately sought-after legitimacy by Washington must surely irk the administration; for ourselves and our friends on this continent and in Europe I would say that we are proud of our governments in refusing the invitation to participate in an action that is so morally offensive.
Best wishes for your continued success.
~ P. Escher, Saskatchewan, Canada
Stop This Insanity
Hello peoples! You're not alone in your protest. Like you, I'm a citizen of this world too. Only a dust-particle under millions of others, but if you have a dust-particle in your eye, you shall feel it.
I'll not interfere into American politics, but like me have many peoples the opinion, the Bush administration and the unnecessary war against Iraq has changed the face also the public opinion to America. America loses respect in the world. That would be very pity. America should be an example for the world to beware peace and not to demonstrate predominance over the world. Others would follow the example of America, to make war as a instrument of own powerful politic.
For long time was America the Land of freedom and democracy rights. Also in my mind too. After the war in 1945, Germany became with the help and support of America, democracy with all rights and obligations. The Germans are still thankful to the American people for giving food and help after the war. The connections between Americans and Germans are still good and does not change in future.
The German constitution contents in article 26 a prohibition of preparation and support of an offensive war. It is unconstitutional. This was the reason of Chancellor Schroeder, not to assist Bush in an offensive war, but will respect a decision of the UNO.
Hussein is an rascal in his country, but not responsible for the act against the WTC. There are no reasons to kill civilians with bomb or rockets. There are no reasons to let die soldiers if it is not necessary or for the image of Bush and his staff. There are no reasons to let feel America the contempt of the world.
Probably does America win this war. What is the price for that? Would be the world better than? Become the Palestinian peace, freedom and her own state? Is Bush beginning other wars?
I hope in the next election does not win the Bush party in America. My hope is, there are more peoples like you in America. My hope is, the youth of this world has a better understanding to live together and not against each other's. The demonstration all over the world against this war has shown so many young peoples, included scholars, that there is hope.
I'm writing this, because America is still the only power to beware democracy and freedom for all who are willing to be free, but not on the way that Bush is going.
In America like in Europe some peoples are hysteric on this war. The Pentagon will not use colour from Germany to painting walls there. American are eating freedom fries instead French fries, a German medical doctor will not attend an American, a Italian will not serve Coca Cola in his restaurant. Isn't this a crazy world? Stop this insanity before it is burning all over the world.
Well , with Internet and multimedia, peoples come together and I think, we are all human beings with same thoughts, with same fear. I am wishing peace for all soon.
Island-Hopping
On the diplomatic front, the places where George W. Bush is welcome, are few and far between, save for a few obscure Atlantic Islands.
Sure, The Coalition of Thieves could have gone to Spain or Italy to divvy up the plunder, but could you imagine the protests outside their respective governments.
In N. Ireland, there is no government, sort of, like, it's ruled from London, so in order to protest, one would have to go to London, but Bush, he's in Belfast. Belfast has no government, so, hey, no protesters, sort of, like, if they are anything like the Yanks, well, they're on their way to London, maybe, nah, 'paddys' are smarter than that.
Anyway, good move George. While you're there, take a wee trip through our beautiful walled city, then look up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary, don't bother, Tony will fill you in. Take a trip out to Long Kesh, or Castleraigh, and visit the torture chambers of the regime that oppressed our people. If you'd like to see similar ones, in operation, ones where thousands of Kurds are being tortured, maimed, and killed daily, Turkey should be on your itinerary. Right, sorry, your not welcome there either, oh well, good luck with the island-hopping, mon, I hear Vieques Island is available, what's that, too much DU contamination, hmm?
Clear-Cut War Crime?
I read today that the US has dropped bunker buster bombs on a civilian area, believing that Saddam was in the area. I saw a picture, and it looked like a city block had been reduced to rubble. So, as if there was any doubt, any means can be used to get Saddam, even if it means dozens or hundreds of innocent Iraqis (you know – the people we are liberating) get in the way.
If some Iraqis rig up a bomb and blow up a city block in DC because they had "reliable intelligence" that Bush was dining there, how would that differ from what just took place in Baghdad? When the ends justify the means anything goes. I hope this is one clear war crime among the many that Bush and his team of thugs gets nailed for. The chickens will be coming home to roost, endangering Americans, and others, around the world.
~ John M. Baker