thefugitivesaint

Atticus,
The polls taken are still no real reflection of how people would feel if they possessed more information about the hypocrisy exibited by this administration and the ones before this one considering their behaviour towards the Iraqi regime.

Would people be in favor of a war if they had knowledge of the fact that the US intervened on Iraq's behalf during its war with Iran (of course, the US claimed neutrality while running weapons to Iran through Isreal but after the Iran-Contra scandal the US did all it could to retain influence in the region by backing Iraq while ignoring the fact that Iraq continued to escalate hostilities in its war, killing Kurds, and eliminating leftists and "communists.")

(The "Tanker Wars" that began between the two countries DID force international intervention but that was only because of the US and Japanese reliance on that regions oil; They never cared about the people of that region and those people have not forgotten this fact.)

Then, during the Gulf War, after the US troops stopped marching towards Baghdad and then gave Iraqi forces the use of its military equipment to suprress an uprising, by its own people, against the Iraqi regime. The US promised these people that they would be supported by the US military if they rebelled. They did and then they were abandoned to be slaughtered by Iraqi forces.

Also, The decision to seek United Nations involvement in the Guldf War was part of a larger, more cynical strategy of the Bush administration to circumvent Congress, to bypass the constitutional authority of Congress--and only Congress--to declare war.

You also have to keep in mind that much of the information given to the public then as it is now is coming from the very same people who ran the Office of Public Diplomacy run by the State Department in the 1980s. (Using staff detailed from US military "psychological operations" units, it fanned fears about Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista regime with false "intelligence" leaks. For example, they placed a number of proContra, antiSandinista stories in the national US media as part of a "White Propaganda" campaign, that office fed the Miami Herald a make-believe story that the Soviet Union had given chemical weapons to the Sandinistas. Another tale � which happened to emerge the night of President Ronald Reagan's reelection victory � held that Soviet MiG fighters were on their way to Nicaragua.)

The office was shut down in 1987, after a report by the US Comptroller-General found that some of their efforts were "prohibited, covert propaganda activities." But, much like the FBI's COINTELPRO operations the activities of the "shut down office" have continued on under a different name. (a good article, even if a bit dated can be foundhere ).

The people of any country but especially those of so-called "democratic" nations can only make informed decisions if they have all the available evidence. In these cases (and in many others like it) the American public does not have all the needed information out there for them to weigh the variables and reach an informed decision. Unfortantely, most US citizens gain their information from the mass media and this media is controlled and is biased (we don't have to be a Noam Chomsky to know this for ourselves).

The justification for the US to go into Vietnam was based on the "official story" that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 -- and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later. By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War. President Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to "retaliate" for a North Vietnamese torpedo attack that never happened and the US war in Vietnam began based on a lie.

I don't trust the reports i am given by the media nor do i believe what the current Administration has to say about the Middle East. This does not mean i support the Iraqi regime but i do support its people who are very much like me, who want to live their lives as they see fit but are caught up in the power plays of the worlds superpowers simply because their land possess oil.

Cite all the Polls you want but they mean nothing to me. My personal experience refutes the 64% # claimed by the polls as no one i've talked to or who has heard me talk has claimed to support the war effort (although many have said they support the troops being forced to fight but this is a completely different subject than support for the war itself).

gotta go.
-theSaint

Jesse

thefugitivesaint:
The polls taken are still no real reflection of how people would feel if they possessed more information about the hypocrisy exibited by this administration and the ones before this one considering their behaviour towards the Iraqi regime.

I've never understood the attitude that our decision about the war should somehow be affected by how complicit the U.S. in causing the situation in the first place. In my mind war is justified basically on utilitarian grounds--ie we should decide based on our judgement of the risks vs. the possible benefits that would flow from the decision. The past only matters in terms of how it affects our predictions about the future (like how it might lead us to predict the U.S. won't do a very good job with the postwar situation), but it doesn't matter if the U.S. is "hypocritical" or not, that has no bearing on pragmatic questions like how likely it is that Saddam will obtain and use WMDs, how likely it is that a war will destabilize the politics of the region, etc. I think most people share this practical view of war and wouldn't see it in moralistic terms like "the U.S. helped create this situation, therefore as penance we should not intervene even if the cost of non-intervention might be a higher security risk for our country and our allies."

Nozferatu

No I cannot see a parallel. Those corporations you speak of exist because they were and still are part of a country's economic strength. I wouldn't expect VW or any other German company NOT to help in their war cause when they are in war. That would be an absurd demand.

Just to let you know, there have been and still are many other cultures around the world that have suffered huge losses...much more so than the jews. You don't here about them at all. No one even cares. No one even knows...why? Because we're being bombarded day in day out about what a sad story it was regarding the jews and their plight.

Essentially what is being said is that the jewish suffering and cause is far more important and prevalent than the suffering of anyone else.

As for it being a separate issue to this war. I disagree. Who's war are we fighting anyway when we go to the middle east? Who's next on the list? Iran? Syria? Libya? The only country I see which will benefit from elimination of these countries in that region is Israel. None of those countries pose any threat whatsoever to the US...and the government officials know perfectly well that is the case. It's funny that a certain American Senator (I believe) happens to believe in the same thing...which he later had to apologize for the next day.

Why is it that anyone (Brando, Wells Fargo) who bad mouths jews or in some way undermines their cause MUST end up apologizing to them? Even when they speak the truth?? I find that truly remarkable.

brighid

Nozferatu,

It�s sad that you cannot see how your ubiquitous demonization of the world population of Jews runs parallel with the thoughts of those who used similar justification to wipe so many of them from the human race.

You are simply directing your anger in the wrong place. Should a person, or in this case people simply shut up and accept the status quo because rest of the world simply doesn�t care about their losses? Should the Jew, or any other ethnic, religious, or other group not speak up and demand some sort of punitive award because rest of the world is callous and indifferent to the devastation they suffered at the hands of corrupt and evil people, and governments? It sad that we care so little about the plight of the Rwandan as millions of those men, women and children are brutally slaughtered, or the suffering of the Indian females murdered every year to preserve the honor of their families, or all of the other human beings that suffer in the world because of the greed and desire for power. This bears absolutely zero relevance as to the validity of a group speaking up and demanding restitution is made for the criminal and immoral actions of people, corporations and governments.

The economic power of a corporation is also irrelevant to any ill-gotten finances they achieved by stealing the wealth of another, particularly the Jews. Furthermore, if they gained some of this economic strength through the genocide of millions of people those corporations should be stripped to the ground and every dime returned to those who survived. Anything less is unconscionable.

What happened to the Jews because of the Holocaust and the restitution owed to individual families (Jewish or otherwise) IS a separate issue from the present Israeli governments activities, even if commonalities can be found. The Israeli government did not exist until many years later and regardless, those people are still owed something for having their homes stolen, burned or destroyed, their hard earned fortunes stolen, and held up for decades (illegally), for the genocide of entire bloodlines � all for what? What crimes had they actually committed? None, except the crime of being born with Jewish blood and because a world believed only slightly differently then you do about the greedy, dirty Jew who should be silenced, or prevented from infecting rest of the world with their lies, etc.

It is unfortunate that others who have suffered equally devastating atrocities accept the status quo. Perhaps if more villainous, evil people, corporations and governments were taken to task and made to pay restitution for their evil less of it would happen in the world.

As Fredrick Douglas said:
Power concedes nothing without a demand.
It never did, and it never will.
Find out just what any people
Will quietly submit to
And you have found the exact measure
Of injustice and wrong
Which will be imposed upon them,
And these will continue till they are resisted. . .

With your reasoning perhaps you should strive for consistency and shut up, accept the status quo and quit bellyaching like you would like the Jew to do. Why should you be allowed a voice to speak out against perceived injustice (which may or may not actually exist) but deny others the voice to speak out against injustice that actually did exist and continues to fatten itself off the blood of others?

The reason those people are made to apologize is because the Jew won't accept the measure of disrespect that other groups allow, and because others become morally outraged. It is unfortunate that our society doesn't apply equal outrage when others are equally harmed, even if I feel people should be a little thicker skinned.

Brighid

Ion

I second this:
The government official Jim Moran (Democrate) from Virginia stated this also, then a few days later he had to resign due to political pressure for his comments.

brighid

I hope it is understood that this has nothing to do with the collective Jewish people?

The same reasoning can be applied to Trent Lott and the consequence he faced.

I don't entirely disagree that Jewish lobbyists play an important role in this war, and that Jim Moran should not have faced that pressure. But who put the political pressure on him? Do we know that information to a degree of certainty that we can blame all Jewish people everywhere? Or should we be a bit more cautious and place the blame on those that actually are responsible, who may or may not be Jewish?

I do not support this war and I am squarely against it, but to support a position that "Jews" are responsible for this is patently absurd. I don't know if anyone is going to benefit from this war, and it certainly seems more likely that no one, including the US and Israel won't benefit from the present course of our administration and this war.

I am also NOT a supporter of the Israeli government and it's actions against the Palestinians, but I refuse to sit by and watch any diverse group of people disparaged in such a dangerous way as has been done by Nozferatu. My outrage would be equal if one replaced Jew for black, gay, atheist, female, etc.

The "Jews" are no more responsible for this war then abortionists, gays, atheists and pagans were responsible for the "veil of protection" God allegedly lifted from America when the Twin Towers were attacked and destroyed.

Blame those ACTUALLY responsible and don't allow anger, hatred, propaganda and prejudice to cloud your ability to separate actual people from ideologies because SOME who share their heritage, faith, gender etc. happen to espouse and practice dispicable thoughts and actions ... Lest you become a victim of this reasoning someday. To those people who see all Jews as dirty, greedy and responsible for the worlds ills atheists are lumped as part of the same, rotten bunch. These sentiments are no different spewed from a different mouth.

Brighid

Ion

I don't put responsability on an ethnicity.

I put responsability on individuals and their coallitions.

Jim Moran was criticizing Jewish lobbyists like Wolfowitz, Perle, and Liebermann, and he was sacked for his criticism by Democrate Nancy Pelosi.

So I am against the individuals Wolfowitz, Perle, Liebermann, Pelosi, and I am against their coallitions for interests.

Atticus_Finch

Unless you have some special access this "information" is available to the U.S. public. No one has kept it from you or from me.

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of polls either. I merely posted it in response to a comment that the American people are against this war. By the way, I don't know what circles you move in, but, I know many people who are in favor of this war.

I am not a fan of polls because I don't think that our elected officials should base their decisions on polls or even upon what they perceive us, the American people, to want. I endeavor to elect capable people of good character who will make decisions based on what they believe is in the best interest of this country. As they make their decisions I believe we should all vigorously debate them and let the leaders know our views. But in the end, I don't want any leader to make a decision based on what he or she perceives is wanted if it goes against the leader's judgment. This is especially true on issues where the bulk of the American people do not know all the facts and have NO desire to do the work necessary to know facts sufficient to make a good decision.

If we do not like their decisions then we vote them out. In the mean time, I say, Mr. President and others do what you think is right.

Regards,

Finch

brighid

Ion,

I am glad to hear that, but it doesn't thus far appear that Nozferatsu agrees with that line of thinking. I have been hearing his/her sort of reasoning a lot lately, and I think it's dangerous and should be confronted just as I feel the Bush Administrations reasoning is dangerous and deserves equal confrontation.

I have not paid as much attention to the Moran matter, but I do find it dispicable that dissent is treated in such hostile ways. I think Mr. Moran, just as Mr. Lott had a right to say what each said. Unfortunately there are consequences, some just and some unjust. I would like to read more about the Moran incident so if anyone has relevant links if they could provide them I would be very appreciative.

Brighid

Pomp

Jesse,

In my mind war is justified basically on utilitarian grounds...it doesn't matter if the U.S. is "hypocritical" or not, that has no bearing on pragmatic questions like how likely it is that Saddam will obtain and use WMDs, how likely it is that a war will destabilize the politics of the region, etc.

I agree that war can only be justified on utilitarian grounds, but I think that there are several compelling reasons to find the administration's hypocrisy repugnant:

1) Many, many people in the voting public support wars for emotional, rather than pragmatic reasons. Emotional support for wars is created, largely, through telling an "us vs. them" story in which "we" are made out to represent the forces of good and "they" are presented as evil incarnate. It's not as emotionally appealing to remove a "genocidal regime" that "gassed its own people" when confronted with the realization that we had a big hand in installing that government and providing it with that gas. Allowing this emotional manipulation to proceed without insisting on a more balanced view is, in my mind, dishonest and irresponsible. I think that removing the black and white, good vs. evil aspect of war propaganda forces us to consider the issues more pragmatically and helps us make a more informed decision regarding whether or not a war is justified.

2) To use the jargon of game theory, we are playing an iterated game. It's not just about this war, it's about what happens five, ten, or twenty years from now. People, and nations, remember our past actions and judge us appropriately. If we want trust and support in the future, we had best play honestly.

3) Pointing out that the current "crisis" in Iraq is largely the outcome of US war-by-proxy is not simple moralizing over past sins, but sober reflection that our clumsy attempts at self-interested intervention in the ME have a history of coming back to haunt us. Why do we suppose, with no evidence, that this time around will be any different? I don't want to be fighting the aftermath of this in twenty years as we're now fighting the aftermath of our crusade against Iran.