But can the UN say that the countries that INVADED Iraq pay most of the COSTS.
If so we may have a way to keep the anti-war movement going and back Bush further into a corner.
Mon 17 Mar, 2003 10:29 pm
Neo - At this point I don't know anything. I find today that if I go into a cocoon I feel much better. I can't believe this is happening.
And it all seems so unreal to me - like Bush is playing with his latest game. What has happened to us?
Mon 17 Mar, 2003 10:55 pm
Well, you know what Mama? My best friend's mom
is a staunch Bush, Inc. supporter - can you actually
believe that people out there could love this guy????
She has convinced herself that we've had this dire
financial situation all the time during Clinton was in office
and it only showed up after he was out of office, because
he kept it covered up....good grief, since Bill and Monica
started swapping saliva - ain't a darn thing been kept
secret up at the big house. If Clinton was keeping a lid on
a financial downswing - he sure was not the one doing it.
He lacked the brains, the know how, the sense, or the
finesse. Now, Hilary, on the other hand, would have - AND
STILL WOULD - make one heck of a terrific president.
Compared to Bush, Inc. I'd pick just about anybody,
even another movie star. At least a movie star MIGHT
have a few standards of decency, vestiges of altruism.
Tue 18 Mar, 2003 02:10 am
I'm with you mama today was hard for me too I couldn't even paint and that usually takes me out of things. There is a lot of bad karma attaching to this war I think.
Tue 18 Mar, 2003 07:31 am
Some of you may remember that after 9-11 I kind of went into a shell a bit.
NOT THIS TIME--not the way I work now. I am a "Warrior For Peace"--I'm gonna fight this.
Rallies Thursday and Saturday and any other ones in the interem and after. My blog http://thenextwar.blogpsot.com and I have three Pacifica stations set on my player.
I'm also gonna bring a flyer about rallies to the plasma center as soon as I leave the net and get dressed.
READ MY SIG AND YOU'LL SEE WHAT I MEAN!
Wed 19 Mar, 2003 08:22 pm
Does anybody get the feeling of watching the first act of a play about to open? Bush has bet everything on this, and I am so conflicted. I don't want anyone hurt, yet I want him to fail miserably. I think Hussein and his sons should be consigned to oblivion, but not this way, and by his own people. I don't want people here to suffer economically, yet I want the economy to be such that it points out a big weakness of the Bush cabal. I don't want the awful effects of a long (or short) war, yet I want one long enough to do damage to the Bush cabal.
And I figure, if I feel this way, how do the democratic hopefuls feel?
Very interesting PD and thank you for posting the link it is good to know that at least a few Senator's take their job of representation seriously.
Fri 28 Mar, 2003 10:25 am
So, it seems that anti war protestors were lying on the street
in front of the White House, which caused a traffic problem
(supposedly - I didn't think that any vehicle was permitted
to drive directly in front of the White House) Well it looks
like this will be no quick, easy victory, but a prolonged fight
against enemy soldiers who are at home in their own land
and it reminds me of Vietnam. Just the idea of what is
happening to those enlisted persons, they WILL be suffering
from post traumatic stress syndrome for the rest of their
lives. And because the all news stations insist on running war
coverage 24-7 - those who spend days watching this war on
TV, will ALSO succumb to post traumatic stress syndrome also.
Everyone knows that whether it is you being killed or tortured
or you are a witness to it happen to someone else, it's equally
as serious a cause of post traumatic stress syndrome as it is
for the military personnel, and in some cases, even worse. How
many parents, when the news says 2 Marines were killed today,
suffer hours or days of agony and terror, wondering is it MY
child? Then upon finding out that it's not their precious child,
feeling guilt for their own relief over the fact that it wasn't their
child? Knowing as they do, that it HAD TO BE SOMEONE'S kid.
So many people addictively watch this "war movie" all day long;
what affects will this have on them in the long run?? Why is this
being broadcasted? Just because it CAN BE - does not mean
that it SHOULD be. These networks; do they manage ratings
too - the commercial value of air time, in comparison/ competition
to a Seinfeld rerun or a daily soap opera show? I am sick with
fear over what effects this war will have on our country, and on
our relationships with other major countries - such as China, for
example - never wake a sleeping tiger, as the expression goes.
Fri 28 Mar, 2003 12:15 pm
Babs - it seems as if nothing in Bush's war is going as planned - except for the constant bombardment of tv quick bites (which Rumsfeld now seems a little concerned about?).
There are still small protests going on in lots of places - in Teaneck, NJ, a small group positioned themselves across a major road. Not a major thing, but still.
I hope this isn't so - but it does look like the Bush war decision has helped polarize the country.
Fri 28 Mar, 2003 05:22 pm
You may have heard the saying, **** rolls down hill. Well that surely applies here.
One good sign Pearle resigned and I heard one other senior deputy on the political side in DOD is going to resign soon. Sounds a bit like the Saturday night massacre. Bush/Nixon - impeachment? They should never have sent the 7th cavalry to lead the charge.
Bush and his general's are stating the blame the press. Hmm, sound like Vietnam. While I was out today I even heard a BBC reporter state that one battle apparently on going in Iraq was worse than the first Tet Offensive (1969) I think.
Fri 28 Mar, 2003 11:55 pm
Oh, Joanne, I like that. That's one I didn't know.
And Halliburton is removed from the bidders' list for the rebuilding of Iraq.
It's not only blaming the press. We'll also have the army. Tonight, Rumsfeld referred all matters to Franks - as in "You'll have to ask the general..." And I notice that Tommy Franks has now become Tom Franks.
One of the more notable things about this administration is the way they've slid off any responsibility taking. So this will be interesting - with the CIA saying they had advised the WH months ago (which was written up in several publications back then, explaining that the Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle team preferred the intel of the Iraqi National Congress to the CIA), various generals now coming out with not so veiled criticisms of the Rumsfeld high-handedness - and the war definitely not going according to the war games plan, which does make you wonder what games they were playing.
So yes, this is our war. Or, more precisely, Bush's war, which is how it's rapidly becoming known world wide. It might be a little difficult for the administration to get out of that one.
Sat 29 Mar, 2003 11:02 am
President Bush's aides did not forcefully present him with dissenting views from CIA and State and Defense Department officials who warned that U.S.-led forces could face stiff resistance in Iraq, according to three senior administration officials.
Bush embraced the predictions of some top administration hawks, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney, who predicted in the weeks before the war with Iraq that Saddam Hussein's regime was brittle and that Iraqis would joyously greet coalition troops as liberators, the officials said.
The people who led us into this should be held responsible for its outcome. I hope that outcome is as good as possible, and if so they'll be responsible for that, too.
But make no mistake, if this is a disaster the blame falls on their shoulders.
Sat 29 Mar, 2003 01:52 pm
Help me understand this I just heard on the news that the US was sending covert agents into Iraq to search for Saddam and take him out. Now what is the difference between our bad guys and his bad guys expect we call his guy death squads, terrorists, and war criminals? Could it be will be arresting Saddam's special forces as enemy non-combatants and sending them to Gitmo forever and ever with out a trial, hmmm. Home of the Free my ass.
Sat 29 Mar, 2003 04:02 pm
Sounds of desperation? They say they're hitting pockets of resistance in the country they didn't expect, and now there are suicide attacks, but Bush says his war is going well. But this move has some funny sounds to it. And somewhere, don't we have a national law or policy or something saying we couldn't do this, that it was illegal? Oh wait - I forgot about Ashcroft.
Sat 29 Mar, 2003 08:47 pm
YOU HAVE AN EXCELLENT QUESTION THERE JOANNE!!!
NOW, IF ONLY THERE WAS ANYONE, ANYWHERE IN OUR
GOVERNMENT WHO WAS UP TO SPEAKING WITHOUT
THE CROOKED TONGUE (as the American Indians learned
about the American government only too well)
FROM HENRY D. THOREAU WE HAVE A QUOTATION THAT
IS SO TRUE OF THE CONCERNS OF 2003, JUST AS IT WAS,
IN THE YEAR HE WROTE THIS, IN 1849. THOREAU COULD
SEE WHAT UTTER MADNESS COULD BECOME OF THIS
COUNTRY, OF THIS GOVERNMENT, OF THE CITIZENS OF
WHICH HE SPOKE WHEN HE SAID;
"The government which is only a mode the people chose
to execute their will, is as equally liable to be abused &
perverted before the people have a chance to act
IN TOTAL, THIS IS BUT A SMALL PART OF WRITINGS
REGARDING CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, AND THE NEED
FOR EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL TO HEAR & TO
HEED THEIR OWN INNER VOICES, RATHER THAN TO
ALLOW ANY GOV'T TO ABUSE AND PERVERT THE WILL
OF THE PEOPLE OF THE USA.
AS WRITTEN BY HENRY DAVID THOREAU:
"I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best
which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted
up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it
finally amounts to this, which also I believe, That gov't
is best which governs not at all"; and when HUMANKIND
are prepared for it, that will be the kind of gov't which
they will have. Gov't is at best, but an expedient;
but most governments are usually & all governments
are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have
been brought against a standing army, and they are
many & weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last
be brought against a standing gov't. The standing army
is only an arm of the standing gov't. The gov't itself, which
is only the mode the people have chosen to execute their
will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before
the will of the people can act THROUGH it. Witness the
(CURRENT WAR) the work of a comparatively few individuals
using the standing gov't as THEIR tool; for, in the outset, the
people would not have consented to this measure!!"
THESE WORDS RING SO MUCH MORE TRUE TODAY, THAN
THEY EVER HAVE, IN OUR HISTORY!!! HERE WE ARE,
LOSING OUR FREEDOMS LITTLE BY LITTLE AS EACH DAY
PASSES BY - A STANDING GOVERNMENT TAKING OVER
MORE & MORE WITH EVERY PASSING DAY. I DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT ANY POLLS HAVE BEEN TAKEN WHICH
PROVE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE CONFIDENT
IN, OR APPROVE OF - WHAT BUSH IS DOING. THOREAU
SAW PRECISELY WHAT GRAVE DANGER A STANDING
ARMY AS WELL AS A STANDING GOVERNMENT POSED
TO WE THE PEOPLE.
Sun 30 Mar, 2003 02:34 pm
But the polls (such as they are and whatever they are) show support for Bush. I have been told many times lately that peoples' memories are short, that this will pass. But apparently memory plays a factor with a lot of the Iraqis. What they remember is the last Iraq war with the U.S., and it has made them skeptical.
It's interesting to read the propaganda on all sides. We read about how the Iraqi people would welcome us, but they're afraid of what Hussein would do to them. Which doesn't explain some of the fighting they're doing, which seems to be planned and executed in ways different from what was war-gamed here. We also got the identical story from Bush and rumsfeld about the Iraqi who had his tongue cut out by Hussein's people. May or may not be true, but it's unsubstantiated. It is, however, believed by as many people who believe it was Hussein's people who engineered the Twin Towers assault.
More and more, this is our war and we're stuck with it. And the Liberators of Iraq stand doesn't seem to be working so well. Wonder what the next rationale will be?
Mon 31 Mar, 2003 04:55 pm
"We had a great day," Sergeant Schrumpf said. "We killed a lot of people."
Both Marines said they were most frustrated by the practice of some Iraqi soldiers to use unarmed women and children as shields against American bullets. They called the tactic cowardly but agreed that it had been effective. Both Sergeant Schrumpf and Corporal McIntosh said they had declined several times to shoot at Iraqi soldiers out of fear they might hit civilians.
"It's a judgment call," Corporal McIntosh said. "If the risks outweigh the losses, then you don't take the shot."
But in the heat of a firefight, both men conceded, when the calculus often warps, a shot not taken in one set of circumstances may suddenly present itself as a life-or-death necessity.
"We dropped a few civilians," Sergeant Schrumpf said, "but what do you do?"
To illustrate, the sergeant offered a pair of examples from earlier in the week. "There was one Iraqi soldier, and 25 women and children," he said, "I didn't take the shot."
But more than once, Sergeant Schrumpf said, he faced a different choice: one Iraqi soldier standing among two or three civilians. He recalled one such incident, in which he and other men in his unit opened fire. He recalled watching one of the women standing near the Iraqi soldier go down.
"I'm sorry," the sergeant said. "But the chick was in the way."
Posted also in The US the UN and Iraq:
I wasn't shocked by the Times article. I didn't think it was an insult to anybody. I thought it sounded like Marines.
I liked the Marines I served with. In 1967-69 We were at DLIWCB (Defense Language Institute -West Coast Branch, all branchs together USAF, US Army, US Navy and US Marines. They were fun, fearless and loyal to the idea that a job had to be done the Marine way or ----well, there was no or. Jesus, they could polish a hallway so you could see the fingers of your hand in the reflection.
They were tough with each other but I think they saw the rest of us, the zoomies, squids and groundpounders, as some kind of inferior forest creatures. They kept a few of us as pets and tolerated the rest.
They were tough sons of bitches. They could endure immense amounts of pain. (There's a Marine game including cigarettes that I won't describe here, trust me, they couldn't be hurt.)
They were great drinking buddies. One never worried about getting left to the mercy of some townie.
They were terrible poker players, but gracious losers. (Thank God)
They laughed at strange things: artworks in a gallery, a movie about a man and a woman, the name of a dish of pasta (ZITI YO! ZI-TIE!)
What the article doesn't explain (the chick was in the way) is that those Marines were/are in a different mind than the rest of us. They are about getting the job done. Do you notice any wavering? un Uh. We have the privilege of splitting hairs regarding whether they should be where they are, they are merely attending to the task at hand. Literally, at hand, and if they seem aloof to the emotion of the moment, it's because, at the moment, it's them or that guy in the black shirt with the carbine. I don't ever disparage the beings doing the fighting, it's their pasty faced non-combatant, never thrown a punch in defense of a brother-in-arms with whom I have the problem. I know these men and women are worthy of our love and admiration, they are warriors. What I want is leaders who of worthy of them.
USAFSS 6948th Intelligence Squadron (Mobile) 1967-1971
Fri 4 Apr, 2003 01:03 pm
Joe Nation - and that's what's so difficult to explain to people about all of us who have protested this action. Most of us respect the military. They, after all, are doing the job they were trained to do. The training includes indoctrination of the mind as far as who the enemy is, what the aim is.
Whata is happening is not unexpected. Every war has casualties of all kinds. It takes bravery to be sent to an unknown land to fight an unknown enemy.
On the other hand, our understanding of that is one thing. I am in protest of this entire exercise. The reasons for it were lame from the start, and they kept shifting as one after another reason became suspicious. The search for WMD, but that was false as the US did not really want any inspections. The toppling of a regime - but we've done that many times for many different reasons. But the role of liberator - that's been a hard sell. Who are we liberating, and for what? We were not asked to come in and liberate, and now we're told that the US will be the administrators, the court, the jury, the judge, the controllers and distributors of Iraqi oil - what does that make us? Doesn't change the picture of us from before.
So I support our troops. My husband is a vet, various members of my family have served in fifferent wars. But I do not support this administrations' policies, and they are two different things.