3
   

Those who lust for war.

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 06:34 pm
There is in this a pretty good listing of American military men who caution against making war with Iraq, including Schwartzkopf:military men who caution
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 06:43 pm
speaking of Swartzkopf, he was on the Today Show this morning and said he hoped that in the event of an Iraq war that Rumsfeld would stay out of trying to manage military matters.
0 Replies
 
New Haven
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 07:02 pm
When the DUST settles, are YOU going to forget 9/11/ ?

Do you really think the Islamic terroristst won't try another incident like 9/11 again? They will, because they will NEVER stop trying to bring the USA to it's knees.

Where will the next attack be? What kind of an attack will it be?
Germwarfare? Nerve gas? Polluted water? Contaminated blood? Poisoned food?

You name it! The terrorists have NOTHING to lose, while the civilized world (Great Britain & USA ,etc ) have EVERYTHING to lose.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 07:25 pm
I am speaking of a war against Iraq. Two different subjects. The best way to remember 9/11 is to go after the terrorist network responsible and to try to understand the process that makes people want to commit terrorist acts so that we can work to wind down the situation. Killing Saddam Hussein will not avenge 9/11 or prevent the same network from trying to strike again as often as possible.
0 Replies
 
Anonymous
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 09:30 pm
dlowan wrote:
Edgar - you think it is more than a human - or nation-state's - desire to have an enemy? The US had a sort of "enemy-vacuum" at the end of the cold war - but do not the Arab nations seem to desire an enemy, too?

Most of human history seems to have involved some sort of struggle - or definition of self - against some sort of enemy - (or "other" for less war-like nations.)

There are some theories that the sort of tribal - and, without terrible weapons, rather ritualized or limitedly dangerous - skirmishes that tend to mark very hunter-gatherer/early agricultural societies - (and those of primates, too - although Goodall's work seems to suggest that these, at least among chimps, can turn genocidal - not to mention those of other animals) - perform a function not only of protecting territory, but of creating excitement and stimulation as well as a sense of group closeness and cohesion.

I think your limiting of your question to the USA is ignoring a dynamic that seems more human - or even more universal than that - than you have been prepared to consider.



dlowan:

I was actually thinking much the same as you! After the cold war, we didn't have anyone the administration could whip up the populace against. George Bush the First created Saddam AND Osama Bin Laden. Yea, Yea, Saddam was a jerk before GB I came into power, but Reagan and Bush gave him strength, weapons, and meaning. They trained and made an Islamic hero out Osama. Ready enemies, made to order!! (and by the U.S.)

This however, as you point out, is true all over the world. Worldwide, there is always one group, or one counry making war on another.

It always seems the rich and powerful (ruling class) always use the uneducated and the ignorant to fight wars in orderto get richer through conquest.

I thought we were getting better, and we were moving beyond all that! Apparently I was wrong!

Anon
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 09:48 pm
I was only addressing America's problem at the start of the thread. One could circle the globe and find group after group of people with their enemy lists also. All wanting to kick butt in the name of God, patriotism, Allah, racial superiority, land, whatever. All bullshit. All very effective for rallying an uncritical populace for whatever political/economic end. A few months back a local paper (the free kind) featured a column by an hysterical writer who pointed out that all that every Muslim shopkeeper in the land need do is step out their front doors and begin shooting every non Muslim they can find. Suggesting what? Get scared and start deporting or killing all the Muslim shopkeepers? Not since the red scare days have we had such rampant paranoia.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 09:49 pm
We're not getting better. The world is going to hell in a handbasket... or else I'm just getting old and cranky.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 11:02 pm
'Tis Pity 'twould be imprudent and impractical to round up the hysterical journalists ... of either persuasion.

I've been old and cranky a while now.



timber
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jan, 2003 05:46 am
My oldest surviving brother has been a Republican from the beginning. He used to go around telling how great he thought Barry Goldwater was. He loves Reagan like a god or something close. He was gung ho for Bush the first. With Bush the second he has done a complete turnaround. He can find nothing good about the man. At last we agree on something in politics.
0 Replies
 
New Haven
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jan, 2003 06:36 am
Edgar:

Do you really think Sadaam is a innocent and pure man? Wait till he releases that poisoned gas. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
New Haven
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jan, 2003 06:38 am
Piffka:

The world is going to Hell in a handbasket, thanks to the liberals and all of their nonsense ! Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jan, 2003 07:20 am
New haven
You are using the old worn out tactic of saying that if I don't want to crush and destroy someone I therefore am an ideological twin to that person. Reduces the discussion to two lttle kids calling names.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jan, 2003 07:27 am
Further, it seems that New Haven is caught up in the conservative hue and cry for Saddam, which, when asked to connect that monster to 9/11, or show that he is a clear and proximate threat to the US, only hollers more loudly, while condemning those who have the temerity to disagree as somehow less valuable or responsible citizens. "Going to hell in a handbasket?" New Haven--nice christian attitude there on your part toward those with whom you disagree.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jan, 2003 08:25 am
I believe that the lust for war if it actually exists is reinforced by the belief that any attack upon Iraq will be a repeat of the Gulf War. Where almost all of the casualties were on the Iraqi side of the line. I wonder how these people would react if instead of an easy victory we saw, God forbid, body bags and sick and diseased Americans returning from that region. I should note that there were few battlefield American casualties during the Gulf War however, many people were afflicted with is commonly termed Gulf War syndrome. Attack if we must but only as a last resort. Someone needs to put a leash on Rumsfeld who seems to be unable to contain himself.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jan, 2003 08:27 am
U.S. Administration promised to present proofs of Saddam's global threat soon.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jan, 2003 08:30 am
Oh, now really! "Going to hell in a handbasket" clearly applies to a situation, not anyone's opposition.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jan, 2003 08:32 am
If Saddam really possesses the quantities of non-conventional weapons the U.S. Administration claims, hell does not seem too far.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jan, 2003 10:06 am
Roger -- Right on.

Sorry, I was the one who brought up the handbasket... meaning that I'm being carried in a handbasket and there's not a lot I can do about it.

New Haven -- I am a liberal. One of the annoying card-carrying members. Civil Rights is where it's at... something being trompled on right now by those who lust for war. <I am, however, annoyed beyond all heck by reality TV & several other examples of hell in a handbasket.>

Steissd -- You sound doubtful?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jan, 2003 05:51 pm
Why don't the inspectors and the security council already have the so-called evidence? It has been over 60 days since they needed it so they could find the weapons of mass destruction. What is it: Have the war first and the reason for fighting it later?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jan, 2003 06:04 pm
Posted in another thread, but I find these words by Nelson Mandela nothing short of incredible (find them on the Yahoo! News main page as of 6 p.m. CST):

Former South African President Nelson Mandela lashed out at U.S. President George Bush's stance on Iraq on Thursday, saying the Texan had no foresight and could not think properly.

Mandela, a towering statesman respected the world over for his fight against Apartheid-era discrimination, said the U.S. leader and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were undermining the United Nations and suggested they would not be doing so if the organization had a white leader.

"It is a tragedy what is happening, what Bush is doing in Iraq," Mandela told an audience in Johannesburg. "What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust," he added, to loud applause.

"Both Bush as well as Tony Blair are undermining an idea (the United Nations) which was sponsored by their predecessors," Mandela said. "Is this because the secretary general of the United Nations (Ghanaian Kofi Annan) is a black man? They never did that when secretary generals were white."

Mandela said he would support without reservation any action agreed upon by the United Nations against Iraq, but said action without U.N. support was unacceptable and set a bad precedent for world politics.

He also attacked the United States's record on human rights, criticizing the dropping of atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagaski in World War II.

"Because they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that, who are they now to pretend that they are the policeman of the world?...lf there is a country which has committed unspeakable atrocities, it is the United States of America...They don't care for human beings."

But he said he was happy that people, especially those in the United States, were opposing military action in Iraq.

"I hope that that opposition will one day make him understand that he has made the greatest mistake of his life," Mandela said.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 04:25:16