Tag: Antiwar movement

Aaarrrrrrgh!

Prepare to retch if you read this…..

I saw the flick last night, and it’s disappointing. I knew going in what the limitations were going to be. I knew this was going to be an anti-Bush attack, geared toward getting him out of office, but I really hoped there would be more substance in this flick.
The opening sequence, a pre-amble about how the 2000 presidential election was stolen from Al and Joe, is laughable. Moore seems to be saying that Fox News bullied the other networks into giving Florida to Bush when they had already given it to Gore. Those racists at Fox caused the whole thing. Movies can never afford to waste time, and this movie wastes at least half of its screen time. Continue reading “Yet Another Fahrenheit 9/11 Review”

Some Soldiers Seem to Be Enjoying the Whole ‘Killing’ Thing a Little Too Much

“I enjoy killing Iraqis,” says Staff Sgt. William Deaton, 30, who killed a hostile fighter the night before. Deaton has lost a good friend in Iraq. “I just feel rage, hate when I’m out there. I feel like I carry it all the time. We talk about it. We all feel the same way.”

Disturbed yet?

Thats from an article in the LA Times. That’s not just some random crazy guy either, that’s a person that the United States government felt it would be a good idea to hand a gun to and send to an occupied nation as a ‘peacekeeper’. And at least in his opinion that’s how they all feel.

Then, just like everything else nowadays, they blame video games for desensitizing these people to violence. Now either they are vastly overestimating the power of Super Mario Bros., or they are vastly underrating a normal human being’s aversion to killing others.

I play video games, lots of them… and killing Iraqis doesn’t sound remotely enjoyable. I’ve got news for you people: If Splinter Cell makes you thirst for the blood of Iraqis, you had some major problems to begin with.

Just the kind of problems that make you perfect for running some Iraqi prison, or patroling the streets of Baghdad, apparently.

Here’s an interesting juxtaposition of articles that came over the news service I read within minutes of one another:

Fallujah savors peace

FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) – Two months after U.S. Marines pulled out, residents of Fallujah feel safe again, sleeping on their roofs to escape the heat without fear of the once-constant nighttime gunbattles, and traveling the streets without worrying they could be stopped or detained.

Fallujah, they say, is savoring its most peaceful spell in more than a year. U.S. forces camped on the city’s outskirts say they want to return to help out, but no one here is interested……

U.S. Airstrike in Fallujah Kills 14

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A U.S. airstrike Sunday on a Fallujah neighborhood previously targeted by American forces destroyed a house and killed 14 people, hospital and local officials said.

Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s office said he had given the go-ahead for the attack. U.S. officials declined to provide details of the strike.

I guess, considering the history of the American Occupation forces’ violent relationship with the people of Fallujah, having a house bombed every now and then could be said to be relatively peaceful.

Recently, a reader, Bill Kelsey, sent me a nicely considered discussion of why Intervention for Good Reasons is still trouble. Here are his thoughts:

“Here in the States it is illegal for a political party or campaign to accept foreign money. When this happens it is also a scandal and very bad PR for the candidate. We don’t like to believe that we are manipulated by foreigners. A good idea can be poisoned when improperly introduced or imposed by foreigners. And in America we are only talking about money, not military force. Imagine a Chinese occupation enforcing abortion rights and the one child policy in a part of the United States. It is not far fetched to say that is what Islamic societies are perceiving when ideas are brought in and enforced by a foreign invasion. (Whether they are good ideas or bad ones is secondary – they are foreign and are introduced by foreign forces who are getting local folks killed).

“It is true that colonized people accepted and excelled at many things brought in by the foreign armies – soccer, cricket, and bagpipe bands come to mind. But deeper things of religion and gender relations are a lot more delicate. One thing to bear in mind is that whatever the debates are in our society about women’s issues, to many in the Third World their understanding of emancipation of women western style is what they see on the Jerry Springer show (yup they get this stuff over there) and our movies.

“One place where women’s rights got confused as a result of foreign militarism was in Algeria and its independence war in the late fifties and early sixties. Women’s rights French style and Islamic repression of the same were given by the French as a justification for their war and in turn the concept became associated with collaborationism in the minds of Algerian patriots.

“People who support the US invasion of Afghanistan usually don’t realize that just about all their justifications for it are the same as those offered by the Soviets – fighting Islamic fundamentalism and backward warlords, war against terrorism, and most significantly for this discussion – emancipation of women. When Americans of many political stripes were feeling all sorts of warm fuzzy romantic feelings about the ‘muj’ and their patriotic resistance against the Soviets, the women of Afghanistan in Soviet controlled cities had more freedoms than ever before. The muj beat the Soviets, had their own civil wars out of which came the Taliban and greater repression of women than ever before. Women’s freedoms were something associated with Soviet invasion. Now the US is in the position of fighting Afghan traditionalists and many women are somewhat emancipated in Kabul. Indeed they are grateful to George Bush – as their mothers had been to the Soviets.

“It’s not an easy dilemma for someone trying to take a truly principled ethical position. I do believe that if or when the US invasion fails – or the US ‘declares a victory and withdraws’ – the advances of women risk being brutally reversed by virtue of having been brought in by American invaders.”

And for some compelling pictures of and stories about women in Afghanistan, you can see the work of Peggy Kelsey, Bill’s spouse, who traveled around Afghanistan in the summer of ’03.

Commenter Bill Kelsey writes about the unintended consequences of interventionism on Catallarchy.

Lounsbury on the uselessness of airstrikes as a counter insurgency method.

The Bush Administration is having problems controlling the press.

From idleworm: Ever notice how you never see Iyad Allawi and Saddam Hussein in the same place at the same time? The Butcher of Baghdad cleans up real nice…

U.S. Election Held Yesterday “Just to Be Safe” If you intend to vote, you should have.

Terror in the Skies!!! I really detest drama queens like the one who wrote the article dissected in this World ‘O Crap post and all the morons who sympathised with her.

No, it’s not a story about somebody remaking Airplane!, it’s about how a woman and her husband were terrorized on a flight from Detroit to Los Angeles by a group of Middle Eastern men who went to the bathroom a lot. Fraught glances are also exchanged, and somebody carries a McDonald’s sack on board. It’s pretty intense stuff.

Check out the customer reviews on Amazon of My Pet Goat. Link from The Poorman via Sadly, No!

Amazingly, Michael Bérubé has an actual letter sent by GW Bush to General Pervez Musharraf posted on his blog.

Mark at Rafah Kid Rambles has a post up about a woman living in the West Bank who wrote about trying to get to the village of Abu Dis:

“We went to a meeting last week in a village on the outskirts of Jerusalem . A 10 minute journey from Damascus gate in the old city to the village, took 2 hours. First we had to go all the way around east Jerusalem to the village of Abu Dis. The taxi driver let us off at a ‘hole in the wall’ (literally) but unfortunately there was a checkpoint there and the soldiers wouldn’t let us through.

Luckily we were rescued by the women from Machsom watch who had been there monitoring the checkpoint since 6am that morning. They drove us to another hole in the wall where we were able to climb through and get a taxi on to our destination.”

Go to the post to see the picture. Then, look at the picture of the village of Abu Dis Lawrence of Cyberia has posted here, kicking off an excellent post about the ICJ and The Wall. On the subject of the ICJ, I thought Stephan Kinsella had an interesting insight:

With the danger of the UN turning into a one-world government looking remoter all the time (if anything, the US is more likely to do this), the UN is looking more attractive, if only as a brake on US bellicosity and imperialism.

Summarizing the ICJ’s decision, Kinsella writes:

The latest praiseworthy action by the UN is the ruling by its top court, the International Court of Justice (sometimes called the World Court) that the West Bank barrier is illegal.

In this case, the ICJ was asked “to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following question”:

“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?”

The court ruled today “that the barrier Israel is building in the West Bank breaches international law and cannot be justified by Israel’s security concerns. ‘The wall … cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order,’ said Judge Shi Jiuyong of China. ‘The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of its obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law.'”

See Kinsella’s LRC post for included links.