Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sorry, but WE are all responsible for Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
LawDem Donating Member (366 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:02 AM
Original message
Sorry, but WE are all responsible for Iraq
I see a trend developing in the Iraq threads. Some of us are saying that "we," as in the United States, are now responsible for preventing a complete meltdown in Iraq and the bloodbaths that would surely follow. Unfortunately, that means that even more Americans will die as a result of Bush's deceptions. Others insist that we should let Iraq be damned and pull out immediately.

Both groups here at DU are made up primarily of people who strongly opposed the war from the beginning, a point the second group often tries to obscure. This second group, those favoring an immediate pullout, tend to object to the use of the word "we," insisting that because they opposed the war, they are not part of the "we" that bears moral culpability for the results of the invasion. This is much more than a linguistic dispute. It goes to the fundamental nature of democratic citizenship. And the second "groupers" are, sadly, dead wrong in this.

As citizens of the United States we are all responsible, at least to a degree, for the actions taken by our government, including those we violently oppose. That's why we oppose them and why we say, "not in my name." (Canadians and other foreign DUers are obviously excepted from this, though not, of course, our good friends the Britts.) That's the nature of Democracy. We're Americans all of the time, not just when we want to be. We have to fight for what we believe is right, but ultimately, on those occasions we lose, we are still Americans living in a democracy (as broken and misused as it may be) and we bear responsibility for the actions taken in our name.

The United States and Britain broke Iraq. True, we broke it based upon the criminal lies and manipulation of our so-called leaders, and we must be certain they are at least held politically accountable for that. But ultimately, having broken the country, we cannot ethically or morally simply wash our hands of the place. As much as I hate it, we are duty bound to see this thing through.

Now, seeing it through does not mean keeping it as an exclusively American and British operation for the benefit of our corporate interests. Seeing it through should mean turning post-war Iraq over to the U.N., including the right to issue the lucrative reconstruction and petroleum related contracts. If we took that step, hopefully we could get our people out relatively soon. But to simply move out now, without some structure in place to avoid total lawlessness and ethnic warfare, is unthinkable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. Agreed
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. I think you're probably right
I personally don't feel any guilt for the conflict since I marched many times in opposition, but as an American citizen (and participatory member of society) I share responsibility (unfortunately) for what my nation did. Just like parents are responsible for damage their children cause, so we are responsible for the damage our pResident has done. :(

Good post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
3. This is what I have been advocating, 'Coalition' pays UN peacekeeping
ASAP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pepsi Donating Member (103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. Agreed....
Good words, LawDem.

IMO, the Dem Pres candidates need to be screaming from the top of their lungs for this administration to bring in UN peacekeepers and voice their/our/the countries, displeasure at our reconstuction efforts. Maybe there are so many ways to beat this President, they don't know where to begin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pbeal Donating Member (506 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
31. France, Germany, India, Pakistan etc.. have pretty much said no
Unfortunally Jr and company burned those bridges, It seems that the all the countrys with Troops to send are a little upset with us. And no one in the coalition of the willing has any troops(in the numbers we need) they can send either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
searchingforlight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
4. I agree that "we" all have a responsibility to rectify the situation but
I do not agree that I have any responsibility for the war. I voted against George Bush. I am a vocal opponent of the war and I fail to see that I could have done anything else to stop it.

I do agree that it is being done in my name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Now the question becomes
will you vote for someone who didn't represent you in their support of the war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
searchingforlight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. Not in the primary - - but - -
in the big race - - Damn straight I will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. Isn't it convenient ...
... for "Quisling Dems" to reject responsibility?

"Hey, I'm not responsible (even though I'll support a candidate who went along with this corruption)!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
searchingforlight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. So, are you telling me that if the democratic candidate is
someone who voted for the war, you are going to vote for George Bush? Or Green, Or someone who doesn't have a chance of defeating him? --- That is your right.

My emphasis is on getting Bush out of the White House. There is more than the war at stake here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #21
34. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #34
41. I will only
say that the poster assumes we actually have a democracy and builds his piece on that premise.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #34
55. "Deleted"?
Manure. There was nothing in it that violated the rules, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NIGHT TRIPPER Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
25. "would you vote…?" (Kerry didn't vote yesterday)
WE are not responsible !!!!

That's just an easy out to walk away just like we all did when the Supreme Court decided that it was not necessary to "count" all the votes…

Well, I think they should hang responsiblity on the parties responsible, but that means an investigation to find out who exactly is responsible. If (when) it is found that certain key figures deliberately misled the American people they should be promptly removed from office.
But We Can't Do Anything Without an Investigation !!!
*******51 to 45*******
*******An independent investigation of the prewar intelligence
was defeated Wednesday in the Senate on a 51-45 vote--******

I remind you Kerry didn't vote-
-Lieberman didn't vote--
and that other dude what's his name didn't vote.==3 big votes

These guys are chicken to stand up still..??...even after everyone is waking up to this?? what does that tell you??
What does that say about them?

You'd vote for them???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
searchingforlight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. I wouldn't like it but who would you vote for if it was a choice between
them and Bush?

Would you "throw your vote away"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
37. WHAT????????
Edited on Thu Jul-17-03 12:46 PM by CWebster
WHAT!!!!!!???????
Wait a minute--The dem presidential candidate who voted for the resolution didn't vote for an investigation when the count was that close?

Hell, is anyone beating those candidates over the head with this? This should be setting off alarms!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CafeToad Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Are you a war tax resistor?
They are the one and only group of people I would exempt from collective responsibility.

Sadly, I am not one of them (not brave enough to risk losing my home, etc, over this matter)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
searchingforlight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #9
22. No, I am not and though I understand the principal, I don't believe
there is a way to do that until we can direct where our taxes go. I don't support the war but I do support the schools, the highway system, social programs and many other things that my taxes (small though they may be) go to fund.

Unlike rich republicans, I believe I have a duty to support the federal government because I use or want existing programs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
5. by logical extension then...
...we are all guilty of war crimes.

sorry, i don't buy your argument. i think we are talking about two different things. i flatly reject any moral responsibility for the damage done or to be done in iraq. i do accept that THE U.S. GOVT is responsible to solve the problem it created. since at least 1970 i have known that the govt does not represent me. the u.s govt represents the interests of big money--period. and guess what, no one in the govt is going to care one way or the other what my opinion on the matter is unless it agrees with what it wants to do and then only to justify what they have already decided to do.

what bush has done is to have created one of the most dangerous situations this naiton has ever faced. it's clearly a hobson's choice to stay or go in iraq. the only real way to solve it is to place another govt in power here and apologize profusely while trying bush & co for war crimes and treason. perhaps then the u.n. or some of the sane nations would step in to help. but the world is not going to be inclined to let bush & co off the hook easily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. I have to agree with the original assessment
we ALL allowed things to get this way

we ALL endorsed a system where a coked-up frat boy would be allowed in the halls of power

we ALL share responsibility for the the government is and what the government does
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. Yup.
The only people I'd absolve of any responsibility are those who could honestly say they couldn't have done any more at some time in the last twenty-plus years. And those folks, sadly not including myself, would have spent time in jail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. wow, you guys are tough on yourselves.
as long as you don't get tough on me we'll be ok.

i wonder, is there an oppressed country somewhere where you would abslove the citizens for the actions of their govt? didn't the citizens of, i don't know, afghanistan, or apartheid s. africa, or guatemala, e.g., "allow" those govt's to come into being? weren't crimes committed in their names? is there some reasonable place to draw a line?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
35. Revolution is always an option.
Ignoring that (and the aphorism of "Give me liberty or give me death!") is the culpability of accommodation. I assert: Democracy cannot exist without acceptance of joint and several responsibility by all citizens! I view this as axiomatic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. We can't leve that mess
even if we are not individually responsible.

They were responsible for the wrong thing, let us be responsible for doing the right thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Bush et al will never voluntarily apologize or give up control of the oil
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
6. Sorry save it for the freeptards
I am no more responsible for Iraq than I am 9-11. The idea is silly.
Some of us are doing everything within our power to stop the PNACers, some of us are not. Those that have not made the effort are to blame no people that are working to stop it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. Too little; too late.
Where was that vigilence for the last twenty years? Fascism has more than a foothold and it's been so for decades. We ignored it and dismissed it as mere extremist lunacy at our peril.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LawDem Donating Member (366 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #6
19. I don't know who you're answering, but it isn't me
You (and others) are answering the argument you want to answer, not the one that was made. The point of the post is our responsibility to clean up the mess in Iraq, rather than abandoning it the way we did Afghanistan. As citizens of this country, we all bear that national responsibility, regardless of the intensity of our opposition to the war. Obviously, Bush and the neocons bear a personal fault in creating the current mess that doesn't apply to most people here. But that in no way changes our duty to follow-up responsibly on the actions taken by OUR NATION.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
27. Everything in your power?
You mean you've engaged in hunger strikes, and lit yourself on fire in protest?

Oh, you mean you've posted on the Internet and handed out flyers. I thought you were capable of more than that. My mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
32. "If You Aren't Part of the Solution .."
Like it or not, our troops are there. Pulling them out is not enough. It's imperative to pull them out in such a way that a)saves at least some amount of face for us and b)leaves Iraq better off than it was before.

This is not about 'bwa-ha-ha-ha' Bush is an ass. It's about how we are perceived by other nations. The individual who protested the war and/or tried to sway others against it is not visible to those who decry the United States' actions in the matter.

Our country is either in or nearing a stage of crisis in foreign relations. Yell about BFEE all you want, but if you choose to take no responsibility for helping to set a constructive dialog, you may as well join Nero and fiddle up in the hills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
7. It's the Fallacy of Personal Responsibility
The Repukes have been whining about "personal responsibility" for so long that some have confused the idea of "responsibility" with "personal responsibility"

We all *are* responsible, but not personally responsibility. We need to remember, because the Repukes are trying to make us forget, that there are other forms of responsibility like "corporate responsibility", "civic responsibility", etc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
13. "we violently oppose"??
Edited on Thu Jul-17-03 11:20 AM by TahitiNut
Methinks you mean "vehemently," no? That said, you may categorize me as one vehemently in oppostion to any preemptive invasions, including both Iraq and Afghanistan. I am also in complete (while nitpicking) agreement with your post. The "learning experience" of our body politic is a real bitch. Until every American has a real, immediate, and personal stake in "defense" (i.e. Universal Service), the military will continue to be used as corporatist mercenaries. As I said elsewhere, the hadwriting has been on the wall for over 2.5 years and any military personnel who joined or re-upped in that timeframe, as well as every one of them who cast votes for this regime, have helped make our nation's bed. Lie about it and lie in it. Whatever goes around comes around. Sang loi, GI. We The People fucked you for the sake of our own indolence, sloth, greed, power, and/or impotence. Them's the breaks. This has been coming on for far more than 2.5 years. Whenever over 40% of the country continues to ignore and/or enable corruption in corporations, government, and religion, this is what we get. Iran/Contra anyone? GATT/WTO anyone? Telecom Act anyone? :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #13
26. sorry, but once again, universal service...
...is out of the question until a sane, representative, non-imperialist govt is in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
36. Chicken and egg.
Cluck, cluck. :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
44. AFAIC
we lost it (it being control of our government) with Kennedy's assassination and the cover-up we allowed to stand. We MAY have had a chance to get our country back during IranContra or the S&L scandals. But the 2000 selection sealed the deal.

Now it's going to be tougher than at any other time, unless they self-destruct which, while unlikely, isn't impossible.

And yes, WE are all responsible. Every single one of us. Sins of ommission for most of us, sins of commission or at least complicity for a whole passle of Congresspeople.

Eloriel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
20. Well said. I will not allow my country to just walk away now
We made the mess. WE stay and clean it up!

Don't have the money? Then ring back some semblance of a tax for the rich, cut of aid to Israel and Egypt and put it into the hands of the Iraqi people and THEIR chosen leaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pansypoo53219 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. i agree
we made the mess and we are responsible for cleaning it up. nice post war plan BUSH.
when i was in denmark they were collecting signitures to get the Govt. to help in Iraq. And i told the people i was with that they shouldn't pay for OUR fuck up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NIGHT TRIPPER Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. Walk away
Edited on Thu Jul-17-03 12:04 PM by aunteeWar
We absolutely do need to get up and walk away--
Get the military out now-
Our troops are dying daily-
Send help (money)
Send all our best advisors and consutants--
Send our apologies-

Bring our Boys Home NOW-


We seriously need to get Bushco and Haliburton OUT NOW !!!
They don't deserve a dime of Iraq's oil revenue---
It belongs to them--
It's their country not ours--

We need to let them rule themselves--
If we don't they will NEVER stop killing our troops--NEVER!!
Want to send your son when he turns 18?
Believe me the DRAFT is coming !!
Your kid may die next !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CafeToad Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Absolutely!
The Reagan/Bush - supported Iran-Iraq war killed at least one million

The Bush I Gulf War killed over 100,000

The Bush I/Clinton sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi's (mostly children)

(see http://www.harpers.org/online/cool_war/cool_war.php3?pg=1 )

The Bush II war killed up to 30,000 (but at least 7,000)

Whatever the Iraqi's do to themselves after we leave - IT CAN'T BE ANY WORSE THAN THIS!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
38. Have I told you ...
... you're my hero(ine)? I adore your passion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
33. thank you
I haven't followed the discussion you allude to at DU, but I wholeheartedly agree with your position.

And I agree with sangha about the fallacy of personal responsibility. That's something that it can be hard for us foreigners not to get ourselves misrepresented about, when we say that the United States is responsible for the horrendous things that the United States does. Not you, and not her, and not him. The United States. There will be some tiny fraction of responsibility that falls on each individual -- more in some cases -- but it simply isn't usually the issue.

The issue for the individual becomes not what his/her responsibility is for what has happened, but his/her responsibility for ensuring that the group assumes its collective responsibilities for the future.

I demonstrated in the dark and cold and rain in front of my own government and your government's representatives to try to prevent the invasion of Iraq. The fact that I failed doesn't make me personally responsible for the consequences. I did what I could to fulfil my responsibility to influence what my country was going to do -- and yes, my responsibility to influence what your country was going to do. I can't just draw a line at the border and say I have no responsibility for what anyone or anything outside it does. The responsibility I have may be fractionally for what my country does, but it isn't just to my country, it is to others in the world too, and for what others in the world do to them, that I/we might be able to influence them not to do.

Responsibility is the fundamental issue in all "morality". To me, responsibility is always a question of ability. Those who can, must do. Since we, individually, never really know what we can do, and won't know unless we try, our individual responsibility is to try. It applies collectively too: the US can deal with the mess in Iraq, so regardless even of whether it caused the mess, it has a responsibility to try to fix it. (And yes, that does mean that I believe in aggression against, e.g., genocidal governments, but think that as with other things, there must be rules.)

But the fact that the US caused a lot of the mess imposes the other kind of responsibility on it, the kind that its individual citizens don't bear to any meaningful extent: responsibility for the consequences of its own actions, and for remedying them where they are evil.

So to be honest, I have a responsibility for what happens in Iraq now too, to the extent that I am capable of influencing that. Which is of course probably minimal, but that still doesn't excuse me from trying.

Since I have no confidence that the US is at all willing to fulfil its own responsibility -- to do the right thing if it stays in Iraq -- I should probably try to fulfil my own by influencing what my and other countries and international organizations do, so that someone would take over from the US. Hell, let the US fund what needs to be done, since a large part of what needs to be done is indeed directly its responsibility, a consequence of its actions, and let the people who are willing to do what is right, to that end, do it.

So I dream in technicolour. But so -- " Seeing it through should mean turning post-war Iraq over to the U.N., including the right to issue the lucrative reconstruction and petroleum related contracts." -- do you. ;)

We therefore both take the path of the most likely to be available, lesserly evil outcome, and say that the US should stay.

But again, thank you for the bell-like clarity of your statement of collective responsibility in a democracy. And I promise to recognize the profound cracks in the bell of your own democracy, and not hold most of you directly and personally responsible for what your government does!

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. At this point, it should probably be noted ...
Edited on Thu Jul-17-03 12:53 PM by TahitiNut
... that those who have acted (in protests and lobbying, at the very least) have normatively done so out of an acceptance of responsibility. Such acts acknowledge responsiblity; they do not absolve one of responsibility any more than one virtuous act makes others unnecessary.

Responsibility ends with a dirt nap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
39. Incorrect
I bear no responsibility for the slaughter in Iraq. Absolutely none. Just because I was born on United States of America's soil, I am responsible for a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation? Uh uh, no way.

Start your thread another way, then maybe the topic of what should be done in regards to Iraq may be truly discussed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Denial of what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CafeToad Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. So you have made no financial contributions towards
the slaughter in Iraq?

Wish I could say likewise!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. I pay no taxes now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CafeToad Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. OK, then you're absolved!
BTW, if you have the time, I would be very interested in knowing how you exist apart from the rest of the economy - but yet can use computers and have internet access, and the like. Personally I have the misfortune of having a Dell computer - the purchase of which both personally benefited the BFEE (Michael Dell is apparently a big contributor) and the military industrial complex (Dell corporation actually does pay taxes . . . http://www.wsrn.com/apps/companyinfo/chart.xpl?s=DELL&graph=A5 ).

I suspect a similar analysis would apply to most suppliers of computers - the point being, even before paying taxes on my income, just by arming myself to access this progressive site, I've ironically enough helped kill a few innocent Iraqi's!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. I live below the poverty level
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwoody Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
46. 95,000 "Nader Nuts" in Fla. are responsible for the war
Let's see, Gore on the env. or Chimpy on the env.? No difference according to Nader, Moore, Donahue, etc. No Nader-no chimpy, no chimpy- no Iraq war. What bites is the votes to keep w. in Texas were standing in the voting booths and they decided to "send a message" or whatever the deal was. Only 3 million more votes and nader would have won Fla, next time leave the bong at home and cast a vote in the real world!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EAMcClure Donating Member (178 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
48. My Utopian Iraqi resolution
The admitted monthly cost of soldiers dying for nothing in Iraq is about 4 billion.

With that in mind, I propose this rather inelegant proposition:

Call an election to happen within sixty days. Any candidate, popular vote. No matter who is elected, allow that individual their rightful position.

Send delegates, such as say George Mitchell, to Iraq, and establish a constitutional Congress. Insist on a coaltion parliamentary government, so as to best accomodate the multitude of ethnic and religious minorities. Bring the UN in and pressure new Iraqi government to uphold human rights, especially civil rights, over women and children.

This kind of process would be worth that kind of price tag. They key would be to prevent domestic terrorism and assassination of the elected leadership while a constitution is being negotiated and ratified.

Absolutely no money or CIA involvement in the election process itself. The US must not put its weight behind any particular candidate. If this war was NOT over oil, then this should be an easy factor. If the war WAS over oil, then I am a utopian and this is a pipe dream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
50. Sorry
Edited on Thu Jul-17-03 02:04 PM by Nicholas_J
But the first unmentionable, forbidden and repressed fact about the civilized world is that all civilization is based on warfare.

The second truth, is that all government power rests upon it police and military powers over the public.

The last truth is:

"It is impossible to establish a just social order."

--Bertrand de Jouvenal, Sovereignty, 1957

Bertrand de Jourvenal, in his work, "Soverignty", states, and I think truthfully, that the very worse kind of government is the one that has lost the good will of those ruled, and must resort to setting examples by using force to control a small portion of society, in order to convince the larger portion to stay in line. The good graces of the citizenry are no longer enough to give those who rule, the power to do so.

One of my favorites is:

First, popular sovreignty has tended to make it harder to recognize that society is legitimated not by majority will but by its accordance with certain principles of natural justice, like the right to liberty and property.

Indeed, historically, popular sovereignty has been often more effec-
tive at destroying the customary structures and mediating institu-
tions that protect natural rights than monarchs, because monarchi-
cal authority was hedged in by customary law and other restraint

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:L8V7vgwpF3kJ:www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/292/McGinnis.pdf+%22Bertrand+de+Jouvenal%22+%22Sovereignty%22+worse+government&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Bottom line is, we are not responsible at all...

If anything, Saadam is resonsible, because all government, whether of a nation, or the international community, is based on both spoken and written agreement of leaders, with the consent of their people, to abide by a set of mutually acceptable rules.

After all, Saddam signed the U.N. Charter, and agreed to certain things. But so did the U.S. This is a very interesting situation the world now finds itself in.

A hundred and forty odd years ago, the First Republican states "A House Divided cannot stand" referring to the fact that a group of states signed a compact agreeing to be part of a larger community of states, called the United States. That this permanancy was a contract. Thatit was enterered into for perpetuity, was not part of the document, but implied.

Now a larger house is being divided, but both parties have broken the terms of the founding document, Iraq, by breaking the rules of the "INTERNATIONAL CONSTITUTION", and the U.S. by breaking the rules of the same "CONSTITUTION" in order to enforce the rules that Iraq broke, outside of the laws binding the international community.

I wonder how long the house will stand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CafeToad Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Blaming it all on Saddam is always the easy way out
For an different perspective, consider the following from

http://www.freearabvoice.org/readerscorner/whatAboutSaddam.htm

Not copyrotten (or spell-checked!). Reproduction and redistribution encouraged (note to the moderators - if too long, please cut).

But What About Saddam?
======================
FAV Note:
The following text comes from Peace Porridge #30.
For more information about Peace Porridge, look at the end of the page.

**********************

I've been to Iraq three times in the past four years. Each time I go
someone asks me whether I met Saddam. The first question the editor of
my local newspaper asked me was, "Did you ever meet a dictator you
didn't like?" That was the high point. The interview went downhill from
there.

I can't figure it out. I go to Nicaragua every year; but no one has
ever asked me if I met Enrique Bolanos; or if I met Jean Chritien when
I went to Canada, or Vicente Fox when I visited Mexico. Perhaps, when
the US government and its propaganda machine demonize a head of state,
people confuse the head of state with the country and its population.

I try to avoid talking about Saddam. My work in Iraq with Veterans for
Peace is rebuilding water treatment plants which were deliberately
destroyed through war and sanctions.

Saddam is irrelevant. He isn't drinking polluted water because of
sanctions, but millions of Iraqis are. Saddam's children aren't dying
from water-borne diseases, but hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children
have died of water-borne diseases because of sanctions. Iraqi children
will continue to die needlessly until the sanctions are lifted and the
12 year old state of war is ended. Saddam is the excuse for continuing
the slaughter.

I've been told that if I don't talk about Saddam, no one will listen to
me. I've also been told that if I don't repeat the litany, "Saddam is a
brutal dictator who gassed his own people," I will have no credibility.

Whether I'm talking to a pro-war hawk, or an anti-sanctions activist,
it's the same litany, "Saddam is a brutal dictator who gassed his own
people." Something is wrong. If everybody agrees, why repeat it?
Strange. This litany would seem to obscure some important truth.

Below, I will debunk some common myths relating to Saddam Hussein; and
then suggest an hypothesis concerning the hidden truth behind the
demonization of Saddam.

----------------

MYTH: By gassing civilians at Halabja, Saddam placed himself on the
level of Hitler and a few other genocidal maniacs.

FACT: It's almost never stated that this happened during the war with
Iran, and that both sides used poison gas (although Iraq did so first).
It's also rarely stated that much of the raw materials and technical
knowledge to produce these weapons came from the US, which at the time,
raised no protest to the gassing of civilians at Halabja.

Most major participants in World War I used poison gas. After WWI,
Britain gassed the Afghans, France the Moroccans, Italy the Ethiopians,
and so it went among the "civilized" Western powers. During WWII Japan
attempted to spread anthrax and plague among the Chinese, a feat the US
also attempted in North Korea some years later.

The US has a long history of using biochemical weapons. As early as the
18th century, European immigrants deliberately spread smallpox among
the indigenous peoples of North America. The US sprayed Vietnam
copiously with dioxin containing agent orange, poisoning the land, the
people, the food and water supply, and its own soldiers. The US is now
using a toxic fumigant in its war against Columbia, again poisoning the
land, the people, and the food and water supply. In each case, the
victims are mostly civilians.


MYTH: No other country would use biochemical weapons on its own people,
like Saddam did.

FACT: The US has also used biochemical agents against its own people.
During the early decades of the cold war, the US Army routinely used
unsuspecting US citizens as human guinea pigs to test nuclear and
biochemical weapons. On many occasions, the US Army released the toxic
heavy metal compound, zinc cadmium sulfate, which causes birth defects
and developmental retardation, in US and Canadian cities, sometimes in
close proximity to schools. This heinous and unpunished crime took
place at a time of (relative) peace.


MYTH: If Saddam stopped building palaces, he could provide for his
people. Sanctions have nothing to do with the excessive childhood
mortality in Iraq.

FACT: During the 1980's Saddam built an educational and health care
system in Iraq that was the envy of the Arab world. Childhood mortality
in Iraq fell by an astounding 38% in a decade. By 1990, Iraq was well
on its way to achieving a level of education and health care comparable
to the industrialized world.

This changed dramatically with the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the
ensuing sanctions. UNICEF has blamed sanctions for an excess of 500,000
child deaths over an 8 year period.

Iraq gets no cash through the oil for foods program, so virtually all
cash, including the palace-building fund, comes through the black
market trade, which is estimated at less than $1 billion per year. Even
if the black market trade is as much as $8 billion, it would provide
each Iraqi with only $1 per day. Try providing for your child on $1 a
day.


MYTH: Saddam is a threat to global peace.

FACT: What global peace? The world has been at war for most, if not
all, of my 60 years.

Interestingly, in a recent UK Mirror poll, 75% identified Saddam
Hussein as a threat to world peace, second only to the ubiquitous Osama
bin Laden, whereas George W. Bush finished third at 51%. After Israel,
Britain is the staunchest ally of the US, yet over half of the British
people think that Bush is a threat to world peace, and 22% identify him
as the greatest threat to world peace. What would the results be in a
worldwide poll?


MYTH: We must invade Iraq now. If Saddam gets weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs), he'll use them or give them to terrorists.

FACT: There is only one nation that has irrevocably demonstrated to the
world its willingness to use nuclear weapons, and it's not Iraq.
Further, the US routinely threatens to use nuclear weapons, even
against non-nuclear states. Saddam's use of biochemical weapons pales
in comparison.

The US demonstrated in the 1980's its desire to not only arm terrorist
groups, but to create them, specifically the Afghan Mujaheddin and the
Nicaraguan Contras. The US continues to train Latin American terrorists
at the School of the Americas and continues to arm terrorist death
squads in Columbia and Guatemala. No connection between Saddam and
Al-Qaeda or any other armed group has ever been substantiated.

Israel is a thermo-nuclear power and one of the world's most
aggressive, expansionist countries. Few in the US propose disarming
Israel or even cutting off the over $3 billion of aid the US has given
Israel every year since 1967. India and Pakistan were within a hair's
breadth of nuking each other. Few propose disarming India and Pakistan.
With the breakdown to Russian society, Russia is by far the world's
most likely source of nuclear proliferation. Few propose taking
measures to secure Russia's nuclear arsenal.

With all these aggressive irresponsible nuclear powers about, why
invade Iraq because it might have stashed away a few biochemical
weapons or might acquire some nuclear weapons in the future?


MYTH: Iraq must be invaded because Saddam is in violation of UN
resolution 687, calling on him to destroy all WMDs and submit to UN
inspections.

FACT: UN inspections have in the pass been used for espionage. Iraq
would probably allow UN inspectors to return, if given assurances that
they would not be used again for espionage.

Other countries flout the UN with impunity. Israel is in violation of
dozens of UN resolutions. Israel, India and Pakistan are in violation
of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US doesn't even pay its
dues to the UN.


MYTH: Saddam has twice attacked his neighbors. Unless disarmed now, he
will do so again.

FACT: Both attacks were with the apparent blessings of the US. The
Iran-Iraq war was a proxy war which Saddam fought with material and
intelligence from the US. With Iraqi troops amassed on the border of
Kuwait, US ambassador April Glaspie virtually invited invasion by
saying to Saddam, "But, we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts,
like your border disagreement with Kuwait." If the US had unequivocally
opposed these acts of aggression, it is unlikely that either of them
would have occurred.

Meanwhile, it is conveniently ignored that Israel has attacked all its
neighbors: Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. It is
unlikely that these acts of aggression could continue if the US cut off
the over $3 billion it gives to Israel every year.


MYTH: Saddam must be taken out because he is a brutal dictator who
oppresses his own people.

FACT: The world is full of brutal dictators. The world is full of
oppressors and abusers of human rights. Many dictators such as
Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf are good friends of the US. Many of the
world's most heinous human rights abusers like Ariel Sharon are good
friends of the US.

The US could oppose dictators by supporting democracy. Yet the US
opposes Iran's Mohammad Khatami and Palestine's Yassir Arafat, both
democratically elected heads of state in a region with very little
democracy. The US could strike a fierce blow against human rights
abusers by supporting the International Criminal Court (ICC). The US
opposed the ICC.

-----------------

So, instead of repeating the litany, "Saddam is a brutal dictator who
gassed his own people," perhaps, we should ask why the United States is
so bent upon destroying Iraq? Clearly it has nothing to do with weapons
of mass destruction, threats to neighbors, dictatorships, human rights
violations, or any other reason put forward by the US.

Some answers I have heard are oil, revenge, and stupidity. All three
make some sense, but don't fit the facts completely.

Here is an hypothesis which does fits the facts. The US is bent on
destroying Iraq for the same reason it destroyed Nicaragua and has been
trying to destroy Cuba for 43 years. It cannot tolerate that a third
world country should follow an independent course and place the health
and education of its citizens before the profits of US based
multi-national corporations.

No other explanation I've heard fits the facts so well. Every third
world country that has placed the health and education of its citizens
before the profits of the multi-nationals has earned the enmity of the
US. It doesn't matter whether the country has oil. It doesn't matter
whether they have done anything aggressive toward the US. It doesn't
matter whether the US president is a clever Clinton or a bungling Bush.

Whenever possible the US has crushed these upstarts and dismantled
their health and education infrastructures. The Mossadegh government in
Iran, Sukarno in Indonesia, Allende in Chili, and the Sandinistas in
Nicaragua are some of the better known examples.

While Iraq was fighting a proxy war against Iran for the US, it was far
too valuable an ally to crush. But, that changed in 1990. Iraq was
enticed into Kuwait, and then crushed in the Persian Gulf War. Iraq's
health and education infrastructure were destroyed, but Saddam remained
in power. And this has continued through 12 years of murderous
sanctions.

Now sanctions are unraveling. Little by little the world is calling for
their end or quietly ignoring them. So the US now contemplates open war
and invasion.

But, again, Saddam is just an excuse. The real war is, and always has
been, against education and health care. The goal is to keep the
children poor, sick, and illiterate, the resources in the hands of the
multi-nationals, and to let Iraq serve as an example to any other
country that might contemplate pulling itself up from third world
status.

This, indeed, is the important truth hidden by the demonization of
Saddam Hussein.

-Tom Sager

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace Porridge is published occasionally and sent out as blind copies.


I welcome comments on these mailings. Where appropriate, I respond as
time permits. I hope you find Peace Porridge a nourishing alternative
to the glut of junk news which we are constantly fed by government and
corporate controlled media.

Not copyrotten. Reproduction and redistribution encouraged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NIGHT TRIPPER Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. GREAT post!!
love it !!
This is an inspirational thread.
This is what D U is all about !
I like seeing the variety of views and gaining so much info and insight as to how we all think!!

Thanks


by the way today is my Birthday !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
53. I don't really think anyone
would truely advocate pulling out and leaving the mess. I would imagine I would not be alone in demanding that the administration crawl back to the un and get a new mandate that will be respected by the world, and do it quickly. The longer they jack around and refuse to say "hey we f***** up, we repent" Please help our young men and women. I am all for that! I hate feeling powerless!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC