On the 15th of february 2003, the planet experienced the greatest international manifestation against a certain policy in human history. Millions of people demonstrated all around the globe. The White House cast it aside. That about sums it up.
The Bush administration has the guts to think they know better, and goes along according to plans inspired by hate and greed.
I would have been in DC yesterday, but I decided to go home for my Alma Mater's homecoming game (I'm actually posting from the 'Family Computer').
But one thing I still think these protestors are forgetting is that they need to forge themselves into a POLITICAL force that can vote the war party out and put people willing to work with the rest of the world into office. They need to realize that all the noise they make is useless if there's no one (or very few people) that will listen to them.
Protests alone are not the answer. They are but one facet of the process of making people aware that Bush is not universally accepted.
Perhaps I can bring you back to the original question. Which was not about Bush's lies, the right to protest should we or shouldn't we, or whether we should or should not have been in Iraq to begin with? These are all valid questions and have been discussed time and time again on a2k.
The question was
"What is your opinion should we just, as these people say, cut and run? What do you think the consequences would be in Iraq, the middle east, the war on terrorism and in general US prestige and influence?"
As already noted, there are many different agendas for the many different demonstrators, just as there are many different agendas for the folks who stayed home.
Edgar
As in every demonstration there are all stripes of people in attendance and various agenda's interjected. In fact there are I believe a hard core of what I can only describe as professional protesters that show up with their agendas at every demonstration. However, the basic one in this demonstration is "stop the war I want to get off." Therefore my question still stands.
All right I'll play by the rules and answer you straight up, AU.
(However the question is analogous to: now that your administration has caught you between a spiked wall and a maniacal steam roller, what would you suggest?)
Clearly we can't cut and run. Militarily it would invite the sort of chaos that always follows turn tail retreats, endangering every innocent party involved. There's also the face loss to consider, but then, hey, it isn't my face, and I don't care about the Bush people's pride in this... it exceeds pride. Nonetheless, no cut and run is possible, thanks.
So: alternatives. 1. Bush and Co. somehow present more humility in the international arena, enough to bring in more power players to help the transition, and we step cautiously out as they filter in. Along with this we withdraw the questionable forces of Halliburton and the likes, since this all seems to be for their benefit anyway. Will Cheney and Co. go along with this? Well, er, no, there's juicy contracts involved. So guess that won't happen. 2. We immediately empower the Iraqis to run their own country and back out moderately quickly. This means, probably that some guy we don't like gets power and it's back to rack and ruin in iraq and iran, with Kurds in the way.... In other words, the whole effort proves wasted, and Iraq becomes Afghanistan II. Will this be permitted? See above answer.
or, how about this, since we've run out of 'realistic' options to deal with this highly manufactured situation: 3. The people of America recall Bush, the new President publicly apologises to all the rest of the world for the previous dubious policies, and the good will we may recover encourages other nations to intervene meaningfully, and reveals to the Iraqi people that the US is indeed, as it pretends, a nation run by its people, not its plutocrats... maybe this helps. Of course, none of that is going to happen.
Unless there's a another alternative that's all I can think of. So there we are, stuck between the crazed dozer and the spiked wall. Betcha we're still in this war till the end of the next three Bush (or whoever the kabal puts in front) terms.
I already answered that question for my own part.
Dear AU:
All right ... I'll answer the question. I will rephrase it a little, although it doesn't change the meaning at all.
You ask "Should we reward the Bush Crime Syndicate and their benefactors for stuffing us into an intenable position"?
My answer is not no ... but HELL NO!! The Bush Administration has perpetrated what accounts to treason. They need to go to a World Court and be tried for war crimes. Then, after the World Court is done with them, they need to be returned to the United States and summarily executed as traitors!
I will back an occupation of Iraq under TOTAL UN control. UN direction, UN control, OVER EVERYTHING!
I will back an occupation of Iraq if it is paid entirely by the United States .. the nation who with the backing of it's people, invaded an soverign nation for it's resources!
There must be responsibility for this abomination perpetrated by the American People!
That's my price for backing an occupation!!
Anon
From an email from Kucinich's campaign, an excerpt:
"Let me say it clearly: It is time to bring the troops home! It is time to get the UN in and the US out of Iraq! This is not a demand I make casually. I have developed a plan to make this happen and it can be found on my website at Kucinich dot US. We must go to the UN Security Council for a resolution that includes these three points:
"One) The UN must handle the collection and distribution of all oil revenues for the Iraqi people, with no privatization.
"Two) The UN must handle the awarding of all contracts - no more Halliburton sweetheart deals. No more war profiteering by Republican contributors and Bush Administration cronies.
"Third) The UN must work to create conditions for Iraqi self governance.
"It is time for the United States to rejoin the world community in the interests of international security. I am running for President to completely change the direction of US foreign and domestic policy. I plan to cut the bloated Pentagon budget by 15 percent and use the money for universal pre-school. I plan to establish a cabinet-level Department of Peace to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our foreign and domestic affairs."
Except that I wonder how one can get the UN out and still leave them with the responsibility (that may have been a typo), I'd have to agree with much of what Kucinich says. But I think it's a bad idea to lay a percentage cut on the Pentagon and use the difference for pre-schools. Sounds like campaign rhetoric and it's tiresome. How about significant cut in defense spending down precisely to the amount needed for defense of the homeland, ongoing scrutiny of Pentagon budgets by an elected civilian commission, etc. etc.? Stop shifting money cosmetically. What do pre-schools need? Get it and provide it but don't indulge in either/or semantics.
Tartarin:
Bravo Tartarin ... BRAVO!!
Anon
I appreciate your matching your font color with my wildflower, Anon. Great taste!
Tartarin:
No one can ever accuse me of not being color coordinated!!
Anon
Somewhere in A2K there exists a What Are You Wearing Today thread. Perhaps you should check in? Update us? Strut stuff?
I would rather see a "cut and run" policy than a continuation of dead and maimed soldiers for the purpose of NOTHING. There is no victory in death.
Peace.
Today, while the radio goes on and on about the overwhelming importance of the Yankee's loss at Baseball, the 'shadowy insurgents' of Iraq let loose a well organized barrage at the hotel where Paul Wolfowitz was staying during his 'well guarded' visit to the occupied nation.
The attackers were not anticipated. They were not, at present accounting, caught. They were not, clearly, disorgaized.
What does it take to convince the likes of AU that when one nation invades another, forces arise to dispel the invaders, and it has nothing to do with the rhetoric du jour of the ruling party of the occupying country.
If someone invaded the US (I mean someone other than right wing fundamentalists Republicans) wouldn't you rise against them? The again... maybe even then. But no, never mind. They are the good guys. I keep forgetting.
Today, while the radio goes on and on about the overwhelming importance of the Yankee's loss at Baseball, the 'shadowy insurgents' of Iraq let loose a well organized barrage at the hotel where Paul Wolfowitz was staying during his 'well guarded' visit to the occupied nation.
The attackers were not anticipated. They were not, at present accounting, caught. They were not, clearly, disorgaized.
What does it take to convince the likes of AU that when one nation invades another, forces arise to dispel the invaders, and it has nothing to do with the rhetoric du jour of the ruling party of the occupying country.
If someone invaded the US (I mean someone other than right wing fundamentalists Republicans) wouldn't you rise against them? The again... maybe even then. But no, never mind. They are the good guys. I keep forgetting.
