How Dare We Call It a War!

Dys, You are reminding me that when a friend and I wanted to get onto the set of "Cleopatra" (in Spain), he suggested that we use his Jeep, put a sign on it reading "20th Century Fox" and just drive in. I refused, saying that would be a lie, but I would go along with "19th Century Fox." So friend painted a lovely sign and off we went and were welcomed by the entire crew because they thought we were so funny.

Lightwizard<

Thanks for the Arianna Huffington post.

As for your personal remarks that followed, I shall -- once again -- with you.

Peace.

should read . . .

" . . . agree with you."

Are "we" now at a stage that the "name" for the whatever-on-Iraq will start having a final "name"? As I look over the whole stretch of weeks in active force against all of Iraq, it seems clear that Iraq did not mount a 'real' counter to "war". To most, I'd think that their "side" appeared to be defending themselves AFTER the US and "coalition" came on ahead. Why are no major media sources commenting on this? We just have a "war" and then go on and not look at this over the perspective of time? We don't find it useful to openly discuss something that is a "fait accompli"? Certainly the spin factory must be working excessively to continue to churn out the context for "us" and for "them". Shall we just look at pretty photos about meetings in tents, take it as fact that "US Doesn't Want Iraq Rule" (headline), see the soldiers giving out aid, comfort and candy, and concentrate on the intricacies of regime change and monetary "aid"? The headlines of the last 48 hours in the US reflect the "US" concern that sanctions now be lifted for monetary aid to Iraq in re-building. Dang, shouldn't the US pay for it all? Ah - perhaps too many questions? Ok, maybe I should toddle off to the side again...

Just to point out one big lie that Arriana passes over, the 'Iraqis dancing in the streets' talking point which gets repeated endlessly in classic marketing style, is itself a deceit. http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/04/16/anti_american/index.html

And, non-US media cover this fuller and more truthful picture far better than US media.

Somebody wanna bump cobalt there?

Appears to be stuck...

Good grief! What happened??? Could someone please report this to Jespah or Timber asap as I have to leave right away for work and this is bizarre! My apologies.....aaaaak

One would have thought that the United States' victory over the mean Iraqis would have brought "dancing in the streets" of this nation. Not so.
We are not so jubilant as Americans because we haven't "won" anything.

Instead, we are viewed as a "bully nation" by most countries (excepting those of the "coalition of the willing," of course.) Meanwhile, because Sadaam Hussein was a monster dictator, we have left his country as a monstrosity which we will be paying for decades to rebuild. The hands of our nation are just as bloody as those of Hussein. That's because we can't really stand for the world to be at peace.

We have to go where no man/woman has ever gone before whether or not we were invited. We are the Almighty incarnate, and we have to let everybody know that (as if anybody cared). We have destroyed a nation; we have not united the world in harmony.

I agreed with almost everything you said except the above.

The people of the "coalition of the willing", for the most part, ALSO think we are a rogue nation -- a bully.

They probably also consider us a bunch of goddam liars for calling that pathetic grouping a "coalition of the willing." It was neither.

Frank<

Thanks for your post. The point you make is wise one.



Everyone on this thread<[/i]

Please forgive my duplicate posts (above). They will be removed.

Looks like the duplicate and triplicate post mess has been cleaned up, and Frank Apisa's quote from williamhenry3 got tidied, too.

A frequent cause of multiple identical posts is that a member will encounter a slowdown of the website ... which happen for any of a number of technical reasons. After submitting a reply, a member may sense that "It isn't doing anything", and click "Submit" a time or two more before either seeing the post appear or giving up and moving on. The server indeed received all the submissions, but due to traffic or other considerations fails to acknowledge the submissions with customary timeliness. The next thing you know, there are duplicated, often multiply duplicated posts. As a rule of thumb, if the "Submit" button is clicked, the message WILL make it to the board. Not always, mind you, but generally. If the site seems slow or unresponsive, it does no good to click "submit" multiple times. It doesn't hurt anything either, and if you happen to notice it has happened to one of your own posts, you can always delete the superfluous entries yourself as long as no replies have been posted subsequently. No big deal, and nobody did anything "Wrong" ... just trying to clear up the question. If anyone has questions about this, feel free to PM me and I'll see if I can help clear it up.

I did it on another forum yesterday as the sight was terrible slow and bit cranky. I went back, deleted one and went ahead and edited with "deleted by author." The Cobalt duplicates are still there, timber

Arianna was on Bill Maher and I forgot who is right-wing guest was but she did have him on the run. She's frequently reminded that she changed positions after her divorce and finding our her ex-hubby was gay! She hasn't exactly become a lefty but she's outspoken and extremely critical of politicians when they represent falsehoods (which they frequently do). Sadaam as an Alolph Hitler figure was a Paper Tiger at best -- now let's see if they can find the elusive WMD. Rumsfeld is back peddling so fast he might end up with his ass in Cuba before I've logged out.

OOOPS ... thanks, LW. Think I got 'em all now.

And, yeah, while I remain confident Iraqi WMD violation, among other things, will be proven, it is entertaining to watch The Current Administration squirm over the issue.

Um, since my last post (you know - the one that kept repeating)

I haven't heard folks responding to some of the many questions on my mind. If interested, I'd sure like to read some comments. Will check back in tomorrow, Saturday. Have a good weekend dear friends!

cobalt

cobalt

Just to take up one point in your post..."ought not the US to pay for rebuilding by itself?"

That argument can be, and has been made. Where a single nation overrules consensus, a moral responsibility is arguably attendent.

Woud not it then stand to reason, should the US bear the cost of reconstruction alone the US be entitled to sole participation in the profits attendent thereto and ensuing from trade enabled by the re-establishmant of a commercial base for Iraq? Frankly, I find both propositions unsupportable. There is no question the US will have the defining role in Iraq's reconstruction, and in fact has undertaken the task and initiated business arrangements to that effect ... which, for the Iraqi People is arguably a better deal than waiting around a half year or so under current conditions while The UN gets its act together. The Reconstruction will be a multi-national affair even if not exactly pan-national. Some would-be players are going to be disappointed, but they made their decisions, took their choices, and now have their lot to deal with. Their behavior in the matter has geat potential to further marginalize The UN, and to open a possibly unhealable rift within the already challenged European Union. The efforts to "Contain" the US may well serve only to bolster, even affirm, the US position as Sole SuperPower ... make that MegaPower ... on the planet, with all the baggage that entails. Those who held the US beholden to The UN may well be the proximate cause of the demise of The UN. The US generally has been amenable in some measure or other to compromise and accomodation, but has never shown any inclination other than to defy and overcome confrontation and ultimatums. The tactics being used to counter real or perceived US agenda are precisely the tactics least likely to favorably influence the US ... quite to the contrary, in fact. That would be the greatest tragedy.

Timber -- As noted in another forum, I've just been reading a piece in the NYRB on the Bush-Rove modus operandi -- their ways of dealing with other countries is called, in Washington, the "foreign policy of snit" -- driven by anger, payback and resentment. We don't see this as well as those countries do which have been treated to the nastiness, so I doubt we could say truthfully that "the US has been amenable in some measure or other to compromise and accomodation..." It has been in the past, but not now. We've made a lot of people angry and they have a right to be so. We need to do some bending and cajoling. And for all kinds of reasons, I think our future actions in Iraq should be closely monitored by the international community, including the media.

Tartarin, I don't disagree with you in any substantial measure. I see a need for more bending and cajoling all around. There is an insurmountable illogic to any attempted resolution of diametrically opposed positions by means of asserting non-negotiable demands from the extremes of the opposing views.

Translation to all those who fall asleep at the overuse of 50 dollar words: It's stupid for both sides of a serious argument to try to cram their arguments down each other's throats.

Timber<

It is my opinion that Dubya's "coalition of the willing" and its subsequent victory over Iraq has neutralized the United Nations. Before the war, Dubya said in several speeches that the UN is really insignificant.

It seems to me that -- if the UN is to become effective -- it must make new alliances quickly. The world might be a more civilized place with the UN up to full steam, but that's about it.

Like it or lump it, Dubya's "for us or against us" approach to foreign policy is charting the international community into its own "awe and shock" mentality.

I guess we're finally in the new world order mode that conservatives have ballyhooed for years. Kind of scary.