Re: How America Massacred Many Innocent Civilians At Fallujah

From: A_Weisman (a_weisman_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/15/04 

Date: 15 Jun 2004 12:13:04 -0700

derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message news:<f2af2263.0406141900.60ef64c2@posting.google.com>...
> a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0406141110.3aff136c@posting.google.com>...
>
> Weisman:
> Before I go through this line by line...let me make a couple of
> observations...first, I have previously avoided this
> topic...intentionally. Today,(probably against my better judgment),
> thought I saw something finally resonably intelligent posted on the
> subject...and thought I would weigh in.

Your comments are always welcome. You present them civillly and they
are invariably intelligent. Even though we don't always agree.

> Seems to me you are responding in a manner that suggests I am
> endorsing the US policy towards Iraq. Not sure where you got that
> idea...but it does explain your apparent confusion over the concluding
> paragraphs.

Well I guess much of your post was devil's advocate but you didn't try
to distinguish.

I see from your answer below that we don't actually disagree about all
that much.

> You seem, from my viewpoint, to be unduly concerned with the
> "justifications", the legalisms...I am talking about pragmatic, real
> life motivations and not the window-dressing rationalizations that are
> placed on them after the fact.

I don't agree that the legalisms are not pragmatic.

International law, whether or not an effective "legal" system, has
important political implications.

The pragmatism of obeying international norms, working through
multilateral organizations, and obeying treaties and laws whether or
not "binding" shouldn't be underestimated.

For instance, should we obey the geneva convention? John Ashcroft can
write legal opinions arguing that they don't apply.

But then that opens the way for our soldiers to be ill treated using
the same legalistic justifications.

I don't like when people talk about "legal technicalities" which is a
phrase invariably used when people disagree with a particular result.
Usually those "technicalities" involve fundamental constitutional
rights. And people are disagreeing with the dictates of due process
and often with the decision of a judge or jury who actually heard the
evidence in a case.

Dan Abrams on MSNBC does this all the time. It is demagoguery and
nonsense.

> If you want to know where I am coming from on the Iraqi
> intervention...sitting right on the fence having my cake and eating it
> too.

LOL Watch the carbs der.

> Here, I was merely trying to point out some of the practical,
> pragmatic realities involved...avoiding simplistic moralizations.

I think that you're using the word pragmatism to diminish the
importance of conduct that can't be justified without ignoring
international law. And you can't do that because international law is
part of pragmatic politics.

Bush tried to argue that the UN and multilateral action was irrelevant
if they didn't go along with what he wanted. He out and out called the
UN irrelevant and tried to bully them into doing what he wanted saying
if they didn't they were irrelevant.

That was instead of trying to act together with our allies and the
nations of the world and by eschewing diplomacy as a means of gaining
consensus. He was ready to go it alone.

At some points he even argued that it was his way or the highway with
britain our staunchest ally.

But now he is DESPERATE for help from the UN and other nations. Who
aren't anxious to save his bacon for lots of reasons.

I guess the legalisms and diplomacy and use of multilateralism and
multilateral institutions was more important than he thought.
Multilateralism, it turns out, helps focus power rather than weakening
it. Going it alone was a mistake.

And maybe bush is beginning to see that now. Even if he can't quite
understand it.

His most recent diplomatic failure at the G8 summit shows that he
still doesn't quite get it and our allies don't quite get him.

So all of this ends up being an important part of pragmatism.

> I would suggest that whatever verdict history, political judgment
> comes down...still must be awaited, as there is a LOT of unknowns
> still...and this is very much an "outcome-determinative" situation.

The ends will never justify the means. And never have throughout
history though this argument has often been made. And is inevitably a
dangerous one.

And the likely outcome is that we will have created instability and
chaos and not helped anyone nor made the world safer.

How bad the outcome is remains to be seen.

I could be pleasantly surpised. But I'd bet against it.

The only hope is for regime change here and then fence mending and at
best we can salvage something and perhaps not leave iraq and the
region worse off than under sadaam. But that seems unlikely to me.

You're right though. Only time will tell.

Lots of events between now and history that we can't begin to predict
today.

> > There may even be some here who have been deeply troubled and
> > > frustrated over the anachronistic tribal political structure in some
> > > middle eastern, oil-rich states, and have great sympathy for the
> > > people who starve in the face of great wealth...literally flowing from
> > > the earth. There may have been many in the State Department...former
> > > and present...who saw the need to "modernize" the gulf states
> > > political structure and distribute the wealth of these nations more
> > > appropriately among their people.
> >
> > "Uh der dritte mann, have you ever heard of the concept of SOVEREIGNTY"
> Yes.
> >
> > "It is the first and most fundamental principle of international law".
> And?
> >
> >" Basically it means that it ain't none of our business. Or more
> > accurately, it isn't our right to decide their forms of government or
> > how they treat their own people"
>
> Nonsense. What I was referring to was a generalized empathy for the
> aspirations of insurgents in some Arab states. We are also entitled to
> formulate opinions concerning other governments...didn't say you were
> supposed to act on those opinions, necessarily.

You're right that you can form opinions. I would be cautious not to do
so in a jingoistic or culturally biased fashion.

What is good for us isn't necessarily good for them.

> Specifically, the reference was to Saudi Arabia...not Iraq...and I did
> NOT say that it was permissible to intervene on that basis alone.

Saudi arabia is a brutal and repressive monarchical non democratic
regime that maintains power by suppressing the rights and aspirations
of its own people. The ruling class benefits disproportionately
economically from the wealth of the nation. Their maintenance of power
is precarious at best. They have sold their people out for their own
benefit and betrayed much of what their own people believe in. The
house of saud is linked for decades to the house of bush. And both
houses have betrayed the interests of their people in order to
maintain their own power and wealth.

In the meantime, they pay lip service to us but also pay what amounts
to "protection" money to terrorists and wink and nod while those
terrorists threaten us.

The Sauds do what is good for THEM. Because they've got a pretty good
gig going so why risk doing what is right for their own people?

I'm not sure what you're saying about them at all.

> > "Otherwise other countries would have the same right to decide that
> > they don't like our form of government, our leaders, our distribution
> > of wealth, how we treat our people".
>
> You might have a legitimate argument here if I had actually said
> something like that.

The argument is legitimate if it is legitimate. If I misunderstood or
mischaracterized your position, I didn't mean to do so but that
doesn't affect the legitimacy of my argument substantively. It is
either right or wrong whatever your position is.

> > > Some may even have sympathy for the objectives of anyone who would
> > > aspire to bring down such regimes. Their attempt to drive a wedge by
> > > attacking the allies of the Saudi regime, however, makes them
> > > international criminals...and the US has a right to defend itself from
> > > such attacks...al Qaeda and Osama are ouside the boundaries of
> > > international law, now...regardless of how one may understand the
> > > motivations...or even sympathize with them.
> >
> > "Whether or not al qaeda and osama are "outside the boundaries of
> > international law" isn't so clear".
>
> My point, admittedly not well-expressed, is that they are common
> criminals...murderers, in fact. I think it was a GROSS mistake for
> Ashcroft to insist on "enemy combatant" status...and a miscarriage of
> justice...abroggation of principle on our part.

The ICC gives subject matter jurisdiction to an international body
over common criminals, which is a departure from most international
law prior to that which conferred jurisdiction over the actions of
states as states and individuals acting on behalf of those states
rather than with rare exceptions the individuals themselves.

With rare exceptions (such as crimes against humanity). The ICC gives
increased subject matter jurisdiction relative to previous law.

> > > "Unfortunately, the "free-flow-of-oil" from that region is not only of
> > > paramount importance to the United States...but to the GLOBAL
> > > economy...particularly, Asia...increasingly China. An ascendency of
> > > fundamentalist Moslem regimes...controlling the world's supply of
> > > oil...threatening the world with that control...is frightening ...from
> > > a GLOBAL perspective...probably capable of throwing the world economy
> > > into deep economic depression".
> >
> > "That may be true. But it doesn't give us any right legally to take
> > action in those countries".
>
> And I certainly did NOT say that it did.

Good.

> > > The United States...as the world's largest military power has had the
> > > unenviable task of securing that flow...which means supporting those
> > > with their hands on the shutoff valve.
> >
> > "The US has no such right in any interpetation of international law. It
> > is outrageous to assert that we do".
>
> And I did NOT make any such assertion.

Good.

> > >
> > "That MAY be a motivation but the US has consistently denied it".
>
> And that surprises you? LOL. I find it somewhat amusing when people
> ask "is this all about oil, then"?
>
> Hell YES, IT IS. No blood for oil? What in the hell do you think wars
> are fought over? Access to raw materials...wealth...land...forget
> religion. Religion is a rationalization.

I wouldn't underestimate religion as a motivation for wars throughout
history. It is a primary motivation for some. Economics may motivate
others. It isn't simple to say one or the other. Even if economics
motivates some, wars at some point specially in the modern era require
some degree of popular support. And that support is often gained by
appeal to non economic often ideologic issues. Without that support
those motivated by economics alone might not convince nations to go to
war.

Obviously it doesn't surprise me since I admitted that oil MAY be a
motiviation and pointed out the hypocrisy where the US has
consistently denied it.

The reason that it is denied is that it is not an appealing idea to
justify war to the masses or to the world.

I'm not so naive as to accept the denials. But I think it is too
simplistic to say it was all about that.

It was about many things.

For the neocons it was about a delusional ideological vision.

For bush it may have been about his dad and psychological factors.

For others there might have been religious motivations. And economic
ones.

Human beings are complex (with some exceptions such as hick) and so
are their motivations.

> > The collapse of the former USSR left the US as the preeminent
> > > economic, miltary and political power...a position unparallelled,
> > > probably since the UK in the height of the Empire. The challenge is to
> > > use that power wisely...for the good of the world's people...and not
> > > just the narrow interests of the west...or the US in particular.
>
> > >
> > > "To the extent that the intervention in Iraq makes any sense, it's real
> > > primary objectives were probably to intervene in the region, where
> > > there was an opportunity...before the Islamic revolution spirals out
> > > of control...establishing a positive western presence...and securing a
> > > foothold against total oil shutoff. We see the future...we will need
> > > new oil buddies, basically".
> >
> > Well this is a hard argument to make since, under Sadaam, there was NO
> > "Islamic revolution" that threatened to spiral out of con trol. Sadaam
> > was a baathist, a SECULAR leader. He was NOT an islamic fundamentalist
> > and in fact acted to suppress the islamic fundamentalists in Iraq. He
> > fought a long battle against Iran an theorcratic state.
>
> You are missing the point. I am NOT talking about Iraq per se, but the
> entire gulf region and the growing fundamentalist movements. The
> neocons thought they could take down Saddam AND build this nice
> pro-western oil-rich state in its place. The guerilla fighters now in
> Iraq understand the point full well...as they are now clearly aiming
> at the provisional government. Such a government, state, would be a
> shining example of the western way and its superiority...or so goes
> their line of thinking, anyway.

I don't disagree with your analysis though I do think the neocons are
delusional.

I would argue that the way to create good will towards the US is to
stop supporting the "pro western" oil rich state regimes which treat
their own people so badly and exploitatively. If we believe in the
rights of people we should stand for them.

And the "pro western" states are more accuratly pro themselves to the
extent that the ruling classes benefit from their ties to the west
usually at the expense of their people. They maintain power through
force not by popular consensus or by serving their own people. Which
one of them is "democratic" WHich one values the rights of women?
Which one respects the rights of their own people?

And though I don't think you're agreeing that the western way is
"superior" I think that you saying that the neocons think that and
they do, which is part of the reason that people hate us. For all the
times bush has said that it isn't a war against islam, it is very much
a war against islam. It is a war of western "democratic" CHRISTIAN
values. It is about converting them to the "right" way of thinking.
Connoting a deep disrespect for their traditions and values and
culture and religion. Which by the way has been around a LOT longer
and has a richer heritage than ours.

Americans wonder why "they" hate us so much.

And the first reason that "they" do is our lack of insight into why
they hate us. Our insensitivity to their cultures and values and
traditions and religion. Our self righteousness.

Face it bush is a fundamentalist who thinks he's on a mission from
god. So does Osama. Not much difference between the two. Did Osama
plot to kill thousands of us? Yes> Are bush's hands clean of the blood
of innocents? Of course not. Do I see moral equivalence ? Yes to some
extent. Do I condone the actions of either? NO. I find both of them
frightening.

And neither of their actions justified despite their claims of being
on religious missions from god.

> Not making the argument you seem to think.

Ok.

> > "For this fundamental reason Al Qaeda was NOT linked to Sadaam. He
> > would NOT have given them WMDs even if he had them since they would
> > have been likely to use them against him".
>
> Never said he was.

Good. Too many people think he was.

> > > Secondly...by taking out Saddam...one of Israel's most fervent, vocal
> > > and dangerous enemies is off the board, in theory, making the
> > > possibility of progress there possible.
> >
> > The US has lost any pretense of acting as an "honest broker" in the
> > peace process.
> >
> > Also it has long been clear that Bush has no real plan or inclination
> > to deal with the israel-palestinian problem. Belatedly a lame effort
> > that predictably fell far short was made on the eve of the invasion of
> > afghanistan and later iraq.
> >
> > When was the last time that even a high level envoy made a trip that
> > showed an effort to deal with the ongoing problems?
> >
> > What ever happened to the road map? There were so many detours that no
> > one could find their way from step 1 to step 2.
> >
> > What a joke.
> >
> > > The reality here, for our European friends, also, is that the fairly
> > > substantial Jewish population in certain key states in the US means
> > > that American presidents or presidential candidates are reluctant to
> > > oppose Israeli policy...and are eager to convince Jewish voters of
> > > their support of Israel. While the raw numbers are not high...in the
> > > last election, this issue could easily have cost either side the
> > > election.
> >
> > "Jewish voters are overwhelmingly liberal on most issues and have
> > consistently voted 2/3 democratic. Polls show the same is likely this
> > time. Each election year the republicans claim they're going to make
> > inroads".
>
> Neither party wants to offend the Jewish vote.

Sure. Why would they?

>Traditionally it is
> Democratic, yes, but it is a "no-cost" to a pol...by aligning
> him/herself with Israel, the pol won't risk alienating Jewish
> votes...few others are so involved with foreign policy that they will
> vote otherwise because of a candidate backing Israel.

Well there are reasons beyond the domestic jewish vote for aligning
ourselves with Israel having to do with geopolitics.

>Plus, you now
> have a growing rather bizarre alliance between evangelical Christians
> and conservative Israelis. In my district, last time around, three
> Jewish candidates got into a rather absurd and embarrassing, frankly,
> dispute(pissing match was more like it)about who was Israel's best
> backer.

It is bizzare. The infusion of religion into politics is a dangerous
thing. Ronny raygun married fiscal conservatives to religious freaks
giving back power to the republicans but betraying at the same time
many traditional republican values.

The democrats are now the party of fiscal discipline. `Irresponsible
tax cuts and deficit spending is the policy of the Rs not the Ds.

The founders were wise in creating a separation of church and state.

The attempt to take down those walls is a dangerous mistake. And a
threat to democracy.

> No national campaign wants to risk losing New York or Florida.

Well if it turned out that John Kerry was a child molestor he wouldn't
lose NY. NY is not in play.

Florida is.

So the Ds really don't have to worry about NY no matter what. Not in a
national election. Even though much of the state is more rural and
republican.

They have two democratics senators. And vote with the Ds in national
elections.

> >> > Domestic electoral politics sometimes have critical roles in
> American
> > > foreign policy actions.
> >
> >
> > > The other objective, apparently, was to build a "model democracy" in
> > > the middle east...and thus, provide an example of how a pro-western
> > > government would work for the benefit of other arab states with
> > > similar tensions.
> >
> > Delusional neocon nonsense. Someone should drug test Wolfowitz, Perle,
> > Feith, Cheney, Rice, Armitage, Scooter Libby etcetera
> >
> > > Naive, at best.
> >
> > Freaking delusional is what it is.
> >
> > > But the overall objective may have...may have...been
> > > more benign than many critics, particularly in Europe, have
> > > insinuated. Perhaps a good objective. Brilliant military execution. No
> > > follow-through on the most important objective. Too few resources
> > > devoted. Ridiculous assumptions concerning "planting the seeds" of a
> > > democracy in a desert and expecting them to grow.
> >
> > What was benign?
>
> Think ahead and consider the possibilities...realize that part of the
> motivation here might have been an effort to thwart even larger
> catastrophe.

I don't buy that argument. And more important I don't think the
approach taken advances those objectives. It has made us more hated
and the world a more dangerous place.

A more diplomatic and less bullying approach makes more sense in the
long term. Diplomacy isn't weakness. It would be a basis for strength.

The elder bush knew that. the younger one is a cowboy. At best.

> > Some of the European criticism is a bit difficult to hear at
> > > times...as some of it is an outgrowth of the very colonial,
> > > imperialistic policies which created the very exploitive divisions in
> > > the first place. The French and Russians, for instance, had their
> > > hands deep into Iraq.
> >
> > It would be nice to learn the lessons of history. The same problems,
> > logistically, politically, morally that haunted imperialistic policies
> > are germane today. Along with new issues in light of the
> > "globalization" of the economy and to a lesser extent, politics. One
> > of the problems is the absence of working political globalization
> > mechanisms.
> >
> > > Very moralistic now...liberals, neo-Socialists and "Green" parties
> > > objections shpould be, perhaps viewed in the historic context of the
> > > roles of European intervention in the area.
> >
> > "I don't follow what you mean. DO you mean that we are saddled with an
> > irrelevant legacy of imperialism"?
>
> I mean that a lot of very moralistic-based "liberal" European
> criticism of the US role is "carrying the water" of powerful European
> corporate interests. I also mean that Europe is very quick to forget
> whose predatory policies made the region such a mess in the first
> place.

It wasn't just them unless you are looking back decades or more. It
has been us as much if not more than them for at least half a century
now.

And those european corporate interests we're carrying the water for
now are as critical to our economy as to theirs.

But you have a point that they are a "free rider" problem getting the
benefits without the work or blame.

But we're not doing it for them. We're doing it for us. And to expect
them to be grateful especially considering how little respect we've
shown for them, is a little unrealistic. And not important anyway if
they appreciate it. Since we acted for us and without them, even if
they benefit, of course they resent it.

Now that we need them after bullying them ignoring them demeaning them
we want their help. I still don't think we are willing to let them
participate in the rewards though, not equally (remember we wouldn't
let them even bid on "reconstruciton contracts" but now we want their
help).

> >
> > > In other words...thanks for the mess. Thanks for blaming us for trying
> > > to straighten it out. And, if and when Islamic fundamentalists shut
> > > down the world's oil supply...and economic chaos ensues...please
> > > remember to donate your help. Talk to us then.
> >
> > "This isn't a legal OR moral justification".
>
> Didn't say it was.

Good.

> > > "There needs to be some kind of balance. For all the danger,
the era of
> > > > the cold war did provide a certain inherent check".
> > >
> > > Honestly, I think this "balance of power" theory hasn't been heard
> > > since the treaty of Versailles. I don't think we think along the lines
> > > of these concepts any longer. You cannot "create" a balance to the
> > > United States(unless it is China, perhaps)...nor can you "dismantle"
> > > the US.
> >
> > Wrong. Kissinger talked about it and was a devotee of metternich.
>
> LOL. If Hank the Wank said it was a sunny day...reach for an umbrella.
> Screw him. What a total ***. How many years...and he's still got
> that cheesy accent? At least he dated Jill St. John once. Give him
> credit for that, anyway.

I do give him credit for dating babes. Proving power is the ultimate
aphrodisiac. It sure wasn't his looks.

But I think he was an important political thinker and though he may
have been a real *** (see the documentary "The trials of Henry
Kissinger" or read the book) that doesn't mean he was wrong or should
be ignored.

> > Here's an interesting two part article:
> >
> > Kissinger, Metternich, and Realism - 99.06
> > http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jun/9906kissinger.htm
> >
> > Kissinger, Metternich, and Realism - 99.06 (Part Two)
> > http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jun/9906kissinger2.htm
>
> Ugh. No thank you.

LOL

Ok skip it.

> >
> > In fact the last fifty years were dominated by a balance of powers
> > approach. It was called the Cold War.
>
> Nonsense. That was, always was, a very one-sided US domination. Bull.

Disagree strongly. It may seem that way now. But at the time the USSR
had lots of power. As does china now.

And as more nations join the nuclear club now, they can't be ignored.
See Iran.

US domination is a myth to the extent that power can't be excersised
effectively unilaterally. Even today the US is NOT succeeding by
acting alone.

You could NOT say that US domination was one sided from 1950-1980.

Our whole foreign policy was predicated on the notion that we weren't
dominant. Or that our domination was a fragile thing that we had to
fight to preserve. Literally fight sometimes, figuratively other
times; struggle, work hard at.

> > Nixon's foreign policy recognized the importance of the balance of
> > power. Between the USSR, the US AND CHINA which was emerging and
> > growing in importance.
>
> Nixon's boy was...HANK!!! What a coincidence.

So that was the history. It did involve a balance of power. My point
in response to yours was that modern history has involved a balance of
power it didn't end with the congress of nations or metternich. In
fact european imperialism involved a balance of power well into the
twentieth century prior to the emergence of the US and USSR as
"superpowers" and the emergence of the "cold war."

Power balance has characterized centuries of modern world history.

> > > > "Throughout history there has been a need for a balance of power to
> > > > check the unfettered power of any one nation".
> > >
> > > Metternich? Is that you?
> >
> > No. And I'm NOT Henry Kissinger either. But I have read Kissinger and
> > studied metternich and history.
>
> Waste of your time, I'm afraid.(Kissinger, I mean). Undergrad in poly
> sci and history, myself.

I think you underestimate the importance and actual role of kissinger
and the role of balances of power prior to his even being born. You
might dislike him or disagree with him. But I think it is a mistake to
ignore him and what he did because of your opinion of him.

> > And I think you're quite wrong about it der dritte mann.
>
> Nope. So there.

LOL Good answer. Sort of hick like? LOL ;-)

> > > >
> > "The more apt historical parralel to what we're really trying to do in
> > Iraq is the bannana republics in south and central america in the
> > 1950s. And viet nam. And our puppet governments and military forces in
> > South Viet Nam. Our recent efforts in Iraq amount to an attempt to
> > Iraqize the war, just like our policies of vietnamization in the
> > earlier war. THe parrales grow between viet nam and iraq. And the
> > soviet attempt to dominate afghanistan too in the 1980s".
>
> Possible.

No parralel or comparison is exact. But I think the two I made are
pretty apt.

And if you take the comparisons there may be something to learn.

If only we had decision makers ready to learn from history rather than
intent on repeating the mistakes in glorious fashion.

> > "And if we're going to take action against those who harbor terrorists,
> > we should probably start with our "allies" the Pakistanis, the Saudis,
> > and other truly terrorist nations".
>
> Pakistan has nukes. Saudis are allegedly "friendly"...they are in for
> a regime change soon, most likely.

Yes pakistan has nukes. But whether or not they would have effective
delivery systems against us remains to be seen.

I'm not saying we should or even that we can act against them. Or
north korea. Those would be messy battles.

I am saying that if you look at the places where terrorists are
harbored and grown, afghanistan wasn't the first place to look. Or
iraq. Sudan, pakistan, saudi arabia and others are as much a danger to
us as are our "enemies" so our "allies" may be just as dangerous or
more.

I guess we might act to keep our "friends" close and by doing so keep
our "enemies" even closer. To paraphrase.

> > "And alienating our allies and frightening our enemies makes the world
> > more dangerous. We have supported repressive regimes in saudi arabia,
> > jordan egypt and other "moderate" arab states. Their leaders remain in
> > power only by suppressing their own people. And their people hate them
> > and us for that".
>
> Yes. But we DID learn this from the mistakes in Iran...the Shah.
> Interesting that we seem still unable to change the outcome.
> Trapped...trapped like...

I don't know if we've learned. We support similar regimes in saudi
arabia, jordan, egypt, sudan, pakistan and other countries. And give
power to the radicals there who will almost certainly eventually do
the iran thing and take power. The resentment of us is building in all
those countries. And our conduct since 9/11 has made that worse not
better.

I don't see how we've learned the lessons.

I might agree that even if we did there's no easy answers.

But the tough answers might be worth trying. Like acting with respect
towards those people and their cultures and religions and traditions.
And helping them rather than exploiting them. By showing tolerance and
understanding. And respect.

That is idealistic but not more idealistic than the neocon nonsense of
democracit imperialism and democracy taking hold when johnny
democratic seed sows the seeds of "freedom." Freedom is NOT christian
based "democracy." It is about the right of people to self
determination whether it is our form of religion or government or not.

Do you really think we want democracy in iraq? LOL That is our worst
fear.
 
> > We support brutal repressive regimes. And it gives birth to many many
> > fututre osamas.
> >
> > > What we need here is REGIME CHANGE.
>
> Didn't Kerry vote to support?

Hard to get a straight answer from him. But yeah he was bullied and
showed no courage. I think he's pretty despicable.

But between him and bush it isn't a close call.

To my way of thinking the tough choice would be charles manson or
bush. I'd conclude that we already have global helter skelter under
bush. And it is a disaster. So why not give charlie a chance?

I'm voting anybody but bush. ANYONE. And unfortunately that is kerry.
Nader is a bush vote. He is more right than bush or kerry about
everything but running for office which he shouldn't have done.

>Nations have interests...longterm interests. Personally...I suspect
> neither Clinton or Kerry would have pursued this policy. But once
> initiated...they will be forced to follow through.

But the only way out is regime change here. Only then will our allies
begin to work WITH us. And only then can we be seen as at all an
"honest" rather than corrupt broker.

the policies might not sound a lot different. But only with bush out
can we have any hope of working with others. Which is the only path to
any semblance of security. Our fate is tied together. The rest of the
world is not irrelevant and we can't expect them to be happilly
supplicant or happy to submit to bullying.

Strength lies through concerted action and building good will. And
that will reaquire fence mending.

Bush can't do it.

We've NEVER been more hated.

> > I doubt that the relative ease with which this was done should be
> > > overlooked, and it well may be time to review the "War Powers Act" as
> > > it applies to similar actions.
>
> >
> > I don't follow your last statement. Do you mean that we need to give
> > congress MORE power to check the president's actions???
>
> YES.

That might be true. But it would require a congress with some backbone
not one willing to go along with the mccarthyite bullying of this
administration. Congress was no check, they were a bunch of neville
chamberlins.

There's no easy answers der.

Thanks for the exchange. Look forward to further response if you want.
Recognizing that all that we say isn't going to solve anything.

And that this board isn't about this stuff. But happy to have an
intelligent discussion. With someone. Not getting that with the cs
folks. And the hick.

Quantcast