THIS OUGHT TO SHUT YOU UP!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. If we allow countries to violate security council resolutions with no threat of force to back us up, whats the point of even having resolutions? (The standard answer is that we are hypocritical in forcing only Iraq to comply with security council resolutions, however, since we signed a cease-fire agreement with iraq, we are still technically at war, and in that sense the Gulf War has never ended. Therefore, because we are still at war with Iraq, appropriate steps need to be taken in order to finally end the war by forcing Iraq to disarm).

2. When is violence justified? If North Korea begins to develop in array of nuclear weapons, in violation of international law, and threatens the world with them, don't we have an obligation to disarm them. What kind of message would we be conveying if we let the be.

3. If Iraq were to use weapons of mass destruction against coalition soldiers, would you then support the war?

4. If the war was truly about oil, why wouldn't the U.S. just lift the sanctions and do business with Saddam. We could get all the oil we needed without any protest from the Iraqi regime.

FIRST OF ALL: What the heck is a leftist? I hate those labels, they are beginning to be truly meaningless. For me, there are those who know the history and know the facts about what’s happening currently and those who don’t. For me, peace is not my first response for everything. When necessary, I am willing to stand up and fight. Therefore the implications linked to the word “pacifist” make the word inapplicable.

1. If we allow countries to violate security council resolutions with no threat of force to back us up, whats the point of even having resolutions? (The standard answer is that we are hypocritical in forcing only Iraq to comply with security council resolutions, however, since we signed a cease-fire agreement with iraq, we are still technically at war, and in that sense the Gulf War has never ended. Therefore, because we are still at war with Iraq, appropriate steps need to be taken in order to finally end the war by forcing Iraq to disarm).

--> At the current point in time, soon after having “dealt retribution for 9/11” in Afghanistan, we are focused on Iraq. This is a very shortsighted view. The key to the current anti-war movement is this: the peace movement or leftists, as you like to call them, are united more than ever because of a clearer understanding of what’s going on: there is a larger plan in mind when it comes to the “War on Terror” or the “liberation” or even “bringing democracy.” This plan and it’s use of pre-emptive attack will spread next to Iran, Syria, and any countries that are either an obstacle to the expansion of American interest or present an opportunity for expanding resources. Think about it this way, if currently you represent 10% of the world’s population and yet you are using 80% of the world’s resources at an amazing rate, you must do one or both of the following: control or restrain other population groups from attacking or repossessing those resources and continue to locate and amass additional resources. And in doing this, the fear and what is slowly beginning to show as a reality, is that this expansion is happening at the cost of others…in terms of the dollars we are being robbed of that are being used on populations who don’t want our “Help” and in terms of lives ended (and this results in what we’re seeing as the growing hate of America and Americans).

2. 2. When is violence justified? If North Korea begins to develop in array of nuclear weapons, in violation of international law, and threatens the world with them, don't we have an obligation to disarm them. What kind of message would we be conveying if we let the be.

--> Violence is justified as a form of defense. If you pay close attention to common war regulations or rules of engagement, it is against international and domestic law to carry out pre-emptive attacks. The term disarmament has been thrown around often recently…which is reminiscent of how often we hear or use the word “terrorism.” America is now in a precarious situation - we have introduced the concept of “pre-emptive” attack, put everyone on the defensive, and now risk the fear, hate, and exclusion of America from the international community. I know many who will say: Well good, we don’t need the stupid French or anyone. The “they’re either with us or against us” concept. However, for the longterm survival and ensuring that the US thrives, foreign policy, and a successful one at that, is critical to creating the relationships between countries so as to deal with crises in the most expedient and efficient (not resulting in dissaproval, economic effects, death) manner.



3. If Iraq were to use weapons of mass destruction against coalition soldiers, would you then support the war?

--> No, No, and NO. First of all, it perturbs me how often I hear people say “what if Iraq does this” or “Iraq said that.” The Iraqi regime is the enemy…when we say “IRAQ” we forget that this can easily be understood (may I add, correctly understood) to mean the regime, the people, the culture. THIS IS DANGEROUS. We must work towards focusing on the problem - the regime.

No, this war is not to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, it is to expand American rule of the world. Yes it is…if you don’t believe me, it will only be a matter of time before you see the irrefutable evidence of America’s plan to wage eternal war in pursuit of not “liberation” (and who ever though liberation came in the form of 2,000 lb. bombs) but resources, and more importantly, POWER.

Also to answer the question…I turn to another question, “How come the American government and we Americans are so surprised that the people are fighting?” HELLO, they are facing the likely occupation by another regime uninterested in their welfare or their ownership of resources. Therefore, they are stuck between a vicious dictator and an occupier disinterested in those who are being occupied.

4. If the war was truly about oil, why wouldn't the U.S. just lift the sanctions and do business with Saddam. We could get all the oil we needed without any protest from the Iraqi regime.

--> Not too long ago, Saddam was a friend of the U.S.. However, as of late, the U.S. has realized the risk he poses to our best friends and ally, Israel. Saddam is one of the dictators (and there are many that have been put in place by the US or the former great empire, Britain) who are unpredictable…and now it’s time to get rid of him.

"Not too long ago, Saddam was a friend of the U.S.. However, as of late, the U.S. has realized the risk he poses to our best friends and ally, Israel. Saddam is one of the dictators (and there are many that have been put in place by the US or the former great empire, Britain) who are unpredictable…and now it’s time to get rid of him. "

Well there you go. Reason enough. So what's all the whining about? You've just given a perfectly acceptable reason for this war.

How superficial of you…lol. NO, that is not “the answer.” This war is an act of aggression and occupation…not a removal of a dictator. If that were the case (the removal of a dictator) it would open up a different discussion. If America was acting as “liberator” (and since when did we take this role? Whole other discussion) they would help the resistance establish a parliament, and thus a democracy. But that is exactly what the US does not want, they want a puppet government, that will easily succumb to Israeli and US demands.

"Israeli and US demands."

Well if by "Isreali demands" you mean Israels' silly desire to have arab monsters like Sadam quit paying palestinian monsters to kill Jews then I guess maybe you're right. Stupid Israeli's.

Every heard of this: "THE ISRAELI STATE FROM THE NILE TO THE EUPHRATES" Yes, that is the Israeli state planned and hoped for. The US facilitates this expansion in the name of Israel. Why do you think Israel currently occupies Palestinian territories (YES, listen to this: Israel is OCCUPYING PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES). And why the he** aren't they remotely planning to go back to 1976 borders: obviously...cause they don't have to. They do not answer to the UN, the international community, and soon enough, not even the US. Saddam is a dictator, but honestly, Israel wishes unrest in the arab world, and Saddam was a proponent of arab unity against the occupation...duh, stupid arabs for not wanting to be occupied

Could you be any more stupid. You might try, but I fear you would fail. You betray yourself. First of all, you meant to say the 1967 borders, which was the year Isreal gained the Gaza Strip, Golen Heights and The Left Bank after being attacked by Egypt, Syria and Jordan. You know this right? I guess not. There is no PALESTINIAN terroritory. Your precious murderous arabs who have decided to go under the banner of "palestinian" were all egyptians, Jordainians and Syrians 36 years ago. So enough with this "palestinian territory" bullshit. Israel will be happy to have just the land it has now, in fact, sooner than later it'll even give the arabs a gift of Gaza and TLB so they can form YET ANOTHER ARAB DESPOTIC SHITHOLE. They just think it would be cool if maybe, just maybe, the subhuman arabs would refrain from blowing up around them. I say let Palestine come into existence FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER and let it slide back into the stoneage like EVERY other arab state before it.

GAINED...wow, typical bs. Just like "Liberated." And the bulldozer that ran over Rachel Corrie, yes, that was not terrorism (the IDF ran over her once and then backed up over her). And checkpoints, that's definitely being respectful of Palestinians. Please do not make the Israeli regime look saintly...like Sharon is the face of peace and justice...give me a break. Israelis are as despotic and murderous as any Arabs...please don't understimate. Land does not belong to anyone...if so, America belongs to the indigenous and we have no right here. Israel does not OWN the land, thus it does not belong to Israelies. And as far as suicide bombings resulting in civilian deaths- totally wrong... just as Israeli removal of Palestinian (and others) homeowners resulting in many deaths is IMMORAL. It is a marvelous talent to debate using a logic based entirely on untruth. I give you a lot of credit ;)

Read this: Diaries of Theodor Herzl

C'mon simpleton. I've read and forgotten more on the subject then you'll ever know. Nothing changes the fact that there is no such place as "palestine".

End the arab occupation of Israel!

"Read and forgotten"...that sounds very intelligent.

She walks around with the Torah

She uses it as a tampon

It makes her cum and cum and cum

Fat assed bitch!!!!

""Read and forgotten"...that sounds very intelligent. "

Exactly! Thank you for proving my point as to how militantly stupid and dimwitted you are.

I pose a question to Fresca...Zove has made predictions of what will happen when the war is over and you have not. What are your predictions? Understanding that both of you are well read on the subject (I will give credit where credit is do-you just read different books) the winner of the debate will go to the one that is closest to the truth of the post war situation.

No matter who wins the debate, people have been killed, murdered, attacked, injured, and tromatized.

Peace.

Since both of you are "well read" can both of you list the books you have read? Along with the authors?

Zove wrote:

“FIRST OF ALL: What the heck is a leftist? I hate those labels, they are beginning to be truly meaningless.”

In the US, a leftist is anyone on the political left, whether liberal or radical. The left in this country includes everyone from Democratic politicians to the 57 varieties of anarchists, communists, and socialists. Also many in the “new social movements” have a leftist political orientation such as Greens and feminists. A caveat, in many other countries, liberals are not considered leftists.

Unfortunately you display a typical activist snobbery when you write, “For me, there are those who know the history and know the facts about what’s happening currently and those who don’t.”

And what are the “facts”? That this war will end with Saddam being replaced by another dictator? I disagree. Your “facts” are based on an inaccurate and outdated model of political economy and international relations.

A democracy will be installed in Iraq. A democracy that represents elite interests at the expense of the popular classes, a polyarchy. William I Robinson (Promoting Polyarchy: 1996) states that "polyarchy or 'low-intensity democracy' is a structural feature of the new world order: it is a global political system corresponding to a global economy under the hegemony of a transnational elite which is the agent of transnational capital." The promotion of these "low-intensity" democracies are aimed not only at mitigating social and political tensions produced by elite based ad undemocratic status quos, but also at supressing popular and mass aspirations for more thoroughgoing democratization of social life in the 21st century international order.

The emergence of a global economy in the past few decades presupposes, and provided material basis for, the emergence of a truly global civil and political society. He suggests that "the Gramscian concept of hegemony as "consenual domination" exercised in civil and political society at the level of the individual nation (or national society)may be applied/extended to the emergent global civil and political society."

In the context of asymmetries in the international political economy, the United States has exercised its domination in the periphery in the post-World War II years chiefly through coercive domination, or the promotion of authoritarian arrangements in the Third World. The emergence of "democracy promotion" as a new instrument and orientation in US foreign policy in the 1980s represented the beginning of a shift--still underway--in the method through which the core regions of the capitalist world system exercise their domination over peripheral and semi-peripheral regions, from coercive to consenual mechanisms, in the context of emergent transnational configurations. As Robinson writes, "What is emerging is a new political model of North-South relations for the twenty-first century."

The extremely tasteless post by “pimpdaddy” hardly deserves a comment. However, when my fellow leftists claim there are not anti-semites in our various movements we need to seriously check ourselves. They do exist even if we choose to ignore them.

I've read my ABC's. However, I seem to have forgotten them. I read "Politics for Dummies," but I seem to have forgotten it. Can anyone help me?

left curve...you speak of democracy. That word brings many many bad feelings. First, we do not have a "democracy" here in the US, it is only the most democratic place on earth. Second, I have a major problem envisioning the liberation of a people via the use of 2000 lb bombs. Third, when was the last democracy the US has put in place. They are much more infamous for ensuring the removal of democracies or the ensuring that they do not come into power. Look at Venezuela: http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0204a/venezuelademocracy.html

If Iraq were to emerge a democratic country...then the over 60% shi'ites in the country would have a voice. Saddam was put in place in 79 and he is a Sunni. Even in a low-intensity democracy putting in a Kurd, or a US General is not going to work. Look at the Afghanistan model...Hamid Karzai and Former king Mohammad Zaher Shah have had numerous assassination attempts. There is not a remote scent of democracy in any "democratic endeavours" that have happened as of late (if not for all time). Therefore, I find it impossible to think that a democracy will be placed in Iraq. Because if it were put in, the shi'ites would have huge say, and as is commonly known, they are anti-US foreign policy. So, unfortunately, there will be no democracy for the remaining Iraqis (not counting those bombed, of course). Almost my entire family is in Iraq, and belive me, this is not a LIBERATION.

[I already posted this elsewhere, but I think it's relevant to this thread -- m.]

I oppose what the US is doing in Iraq. But I think the pro-war argument goes something like this:

1. Since the end of the Cold War, the primary threat to the US and its interests has consisted of small, unfriendly authoritarian states. After the WTC attack, it was abundantly clear that terrorists could also attack us on our own soil (keeping in mind earlier, smaller attacks like the first WTC bombing). If terrorists were to team up with such regimes, and those regimes controlled WMD's, the US would be in serious danger of a WMD attack. Now, if you believe that Iraq has ties to Al Quaeda or similar organizations (which has not been shown to be the case), then by attacking Iraq pre-emptively we protect the US from those potential attacks. This is the public argument the Administration has focused on.

2. Neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz believe that the US has a sort of mandate or responsibility to reshape the world in its image: capitalist, and just democratic and pluralistic enough to allow the penetration of western culture and markets. However, they do not want third world countries to become too democratic, because that could result in large industries being nationalized (i.e., taken out of the control of the US or its client government, or client corporations). Iraq is seen as the test case, the place where the foundation of a radically different world order led uncompromisingly by the US can be laid.

Chomsky might argue that the neocons do not want there to be a successful example of a social democracy in the third world, because other impoverished nations might look to that example and choose that route rather than accomodating the US. I think this is probably true. I also think that the neocons probably engage in doublethink, sometimes believing they really are "liberating" the Iraqi people, while at other times knowing that they really are interested primarily in securing US interests. Finally, I believe that reason 2 is really the underlying one why our young people are dying there, although I can't prove it to you.

The problem with arguing with people on the extreme right is that they seem to be able to turn off the logic centers in their brains, and have this considered patriotic. Now, I've talked with many socialists and other lefties who are just as nuts, but their ideas are already marginized by the media so much that no one takes them seriously from the outset. The danger of the conservatives these days is that with a radical in the White House, not even fascism seems radical anymore to your average Joe who watches CNN and Fox News.

Anyway, that's my (considerable) two cents. Let's all vote Democrat in 2004, get Dubya out, and then really start building from the grassroots.

Peace

To Fresca,

I believe we have had this argument before.

I have not seen any evidence that corroborates your statement that "Palesitians" never existed as a nation.

I, however, will take your word that that statement is true.

Assuming all Palestinians were Egyptian and Jordanian... is it not still true that the homes and farms that they owned in Palestine were theirs? Do you still think it was right for them to have been forcibly expelled from the homes and farms that they owned? What does religion and national identity have to do with it? Even if the "Palestinians" (as you say) and the Israelis were of the same race, nationality, religion etc... wouldn't it have been wrong if some were forcibly expelled from their homes by others?

Taking into account your statement that Palestinians aren't "Palestinians", what would we find out of we did not talk about the conflict in terms of national identity and religion?

People X from Land A but living in Land Y all their lives owned homes and farms in Land Y. People Z from Land B, but living in Land Y all their lives and owning a few homes and farms forcibly expelled People X from their homes and farms.

Who can say that People Z were justified in their actions?

Yours truly,

The New X

Blow me, you head queen.

I saw a friend today who is like a white Mo Sanford & runs a flea market. The guy is an unrefined genious of sorts. He can do these old 1920's Houdini chain link tricks with great ease so there is a great IQ there.

His theory holds alot of juice. Saddam is at the Atomic energy reactor plant since its the last place US might bomb

I saw a friend today who is like a white Mo Sanford & runs a flea market. The guy is an unrefined genious of sorts. He can do these old 1920's Houdini chain link tricks with great ease so there is a great IQ there.

His theory holds alot of juice. Saddam is at the Atomic energy reactor plant since its the last place US might bomb

Now Hopefully, the land will be clear of land mines and there will be new John Deer tractors with tommy guns for all to farm and protect the land(will they have the right to bear arms still). And for what the war costs every family could just about own a new condo with a golf course & a swimming pool

1. If we allow countries to violate security council resolutions with no threat of force to back us up, what's the point of ever having resolutions?

Resolutions are part of our natural way of being. For everything you do, you make a resolution to do it. If you run to catch the bus, it's because you made a resolution. A decision. If you wake up to go to work. It was your resolution. Where you chose to go to college. You debated it, and made a resolution. A decision.

A large organization such as the UN cannot make mental resolutions like a person can. Its members do not share a common consciousness. Therefore, to make manifest the resolution, the decision, they create a ritual: the roll call vote. Then they make a physical document of the resolution, a symbol. To not have resolutions is contrary to our inborn logic. It would be like tying your shoe before you put it on. Putting on your underwear before your pants.

Yes, not enforcing resolutions does undermine their purpose, but it doesn't negate it.

Additionally, what your question implies has happened, is a manipulative prevaracation. That's not what happened. The main problem with Iraq has been disarmament. When someone says, "Iraq has had 12 years to disarm and hasn't," he's taking a relative situation and expressing it in absolutist terms. There were inspectors in Iraq for nearly a decade, and then recently for a few months. What the hell were they doing? You must admit that a certain amount of disarmament took place. Was it 10%, 50%, 90%? Maybe that's a question you should ask one of those television anchors. It's important to know. Its part of your cost/benefit analysis. Possible positives/possible negatives. John Ritter who was in Iraq for years as an inspector, says that Iraq was disarmed to a percentage in the 90's, I don't remember exactly, of their weaponry that the inspectors had knowledge of. Since he is a person who has lived this whole thing and he has provided me with the most open, clear, comprehensive explanation of the situation, I'm gonna choose to believe what he's saying as the true version.

Your question also assumes that force was necessary. The vast majority of the countries of the world beg to differ with you. Some of these countries went as far as to turn down lucrative bribes. Or tips. Whatever you call them. Have you ever thought that perhaps they have information that perhaps you don't. That they got a better picture of the situation?

2. When is violence justified?

Does God exist?

People say there will always be wars. They're wrong. There's always been wars. In the future, wars will threaten the very existence of humanity. This may be one of those wars.

The time has come to take the concept of war, and place it alongside the concept of slavery. The specter of nuclear war seems not to be part of the decision making process of people who support the war.

3. No.

4. If the war is truly about oil, why wouldn't we just lift the sanctions and buy all the oil we want from Saddam? (Something along those lines)

Yeah, I don't think this war is about oil. It's also about control of the oil, and the impact oil has on the economies of the world. I like your question though. You should ask your congress person. Why didn't we lift the sanctions in the nineties, so we can buy oil from Saddam, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis wouldn't have died because of those sanctions?

Ever thought that the percieved threat, just, isn't, there? Or it's getting blown way out of proportion?

Weapons of mass destruction...Weapons of mass destruction...Weapons of mass destruction...Weapons of mass destraction...Weapons of mass destraction...Weapons of mass destraction...Weapons of mass destraction...Weapons of destraction...

Holy shit! Somebody got my wallet! Somebody got my wallet!

My points seem to have gone over your head. I agree that the our own country has problems. I said nothing about Iraqi "liberation." What do you think I am some kind of right-wing Bushite?

Did you not read that I wrote a new goverment in Iraq will "suppress popular aspirations" in my orginal comment?

I'm talking about a regime being installed that represents the interests of capitalist elites but is not a dictatorship. I totally agree that the US has installed dictators in the past but dictators are an impediment to markets in the new world order. The US has recently engaged in wars and covert actions to esatablish "free and fair elections" and low-intensity democracies in Haiti, Pananma, Nicaragua, Kosovo, the Phillipines, and Chile. We say we care abut the process, but what we care about is the outcome. Open, transparent markets willing to play by the games (we make) at the WTO.

A sea-change has taken place in foreign relations based on changes in politcal-economy that have occured at a global level (i.e. "globalization"). You see, Robinson and myself are both leftists but we do not view the new world order with as simplistic a lens as youself. I stronngly suggest you take a look at Robinson's book, "Promoting Polyarchy." It will open your mind to a much more complex view of politcal economy and international relations than the view of hegemony you seem to have.

I guess all I can say to you is time will tell but I predict the following. 1) implementation of a polyarchy in Iraq that represents elite interests at the expense of the popular classes 2) the form will be a federative system that allows for majority rule and minority rights, along the lines of the US. 3) intensive development of the organs of "civil society" in Iraq including trade unions, professional organizations, and the like 4) food aid and reconstruction under the auspices of transnational corporations and NGOs, not the Iraqi State.

Time will tell which one of us is correct but I sincerely suggest you take a look at what Robinson is writing about. You might learn something. Neither of us are saying that the US is fighting for "lofty concepts." They are implementing a system of governance that is conducive to rule by (elected) elites but elites nonetheless.

So essentially: The polyarchic concept of democracy is an effective arrangement for legitimating and sustaining inequalities within and between nation (deepening in a global economy) far more effectively than authoritarian solutions....very interesting, but where does that leave us? a pseudo-democracy? and isn't that what we have here? what do you think? (btw thanks for recommending my reading this)

Francisco: "John Ritter who was in Iraq for years as an inspector, says that Iraq was disarmed to a percentage in the 90's, I don't remember exactly, of their weaponry that the inspectors had knowledge of. "

Unless the percentage was 100% of all the weapons Saddam has, including those the inspectors didn't know about, Saddam is in violation of the cease-fire agreement. and the US is perfectly justified in taking action.

You have no problem leaving, say 10% of the WMDs in the hands of a genocidal madman? I do.

"Why didn't we lift the sanctions in the nineties, so we can buy oil from Saddam, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis wouldn't have died because of those sanctions? "

We could have. The fact we didn't is proof this is not about the oil. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died; not because of the sanctions, but because Saddam didn't use the oil-for-food money to suppport his people. It's not the sanctions' fault, it's Saddam's. Place the blame where it belongs. Blaming the sanctions is like blaming the SEC for the Enron mess.

"Ever thought that the percieved threat, just, isn't, there? Or it's getting blown way out of proportion? " It's there, and it's not out of proportion. How many thousands of new chem suits & masks, atropine injectors, and Cipro have been found? Ask yourself: Why is that stuff there? The Coalition doesn't have chem/bio weapons, and Saddam knows it. Are they afraid of WMD attack by Iran? Nope. Who's that leave? Iraq. Do the math.

Dave

I just love trying to rationalize an illegal an immoral war. Nuke Iraq! I've got that blood lust in my heart!

I just love trying to rationalize an illegal and immoral war. Nuke Iraq! I've got that blood lust in my heart!