War wih Iraq?

[traveler]

No evidence has been provided. AND the reason for war keeps changing. We're going to war for one of these reasons, says GWB:

1) Iraq has illegal arms
2) Iraq is undemocratic
3) Iraq is involved in terrorism

I think there have been a couple of other reasons, but my reasoning:

1) So do another 15 countries
2) So are another 200 or 300 countries
3) Where's the proof

[traveler]

"President Bush's urgent phone campaign to world leaders, seeking their support for a tough deadline on Iraq, came up short Monday — forcing a delay of the Security Council's vote and opening the doors to a possible compromise to give Saddam Hussein more time. The United States had hoped to present the resolution to the council on Tuesday, setting a March 17 deadline for Iraqi disarmament or war. But the vote was put on hold when it became evident that America and its allies had not yet won the nine votes they needed for a majority."
-- excerpted from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._diplomacy_143

Does anybody besides me think Bush won't wait for UN approval?

[Firefly]

Originally posted by traveler

Does anybody besides me think Bush won't wait for UN approval?

I think Kofi is getting irritated. Today, Shrub again said that he didn't need permission and Kofi said that if they attack Iraq without a resolution, the US would be in violation of the UN charter.

Hopefully, even Shrub and the puppeters know that the UN does more good than harm globally, even when it is opposed to his actions. I think the UN would break down if the US got kicked out-- and then all kinds of hell'd break loose...

The US would have no justifiable reason to be the world hall monitor any longer.

Fly

[Firefly]

March 10, 2003

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...605441,00.html

From Roland Watson in Washington

THE first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity. Drawing on his own experiences before and after the 1991 Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr said that the brief flowering of hope for Arab-Israeli relations a decade ago would never have happened if America had ignored the will of the United Nations.

He also urged the President to resist his tendency to bear grudges, advising his son to bridge the rift between the United States, France and Germany.

“You’ve got to reach out to the other person. You’ve got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity,” he said.

The former President’s comments reflect unease among the Bush family and its entourage at the way that George W. Bush is ignoring international opinion and overriding the institutions that his father sought to uphold. Mr Bush Sr is a former US Ambassador to the UN and comes from a family steeped in multi-lateralist traditions.

Although not addressed to his son in person, the message, in a speech at Tufts University in Massachusetts, was unmistakeable. Mr Bush Sr even came close to conceding that opponents of his son’s case against President Saddam Hussein, who he himself is on record as loathing, have legitimate cause for concern.

He said that the key question of how many weapons of mass destruction Iraq held “could be debated”. The case against Saddam was “less clear” than in 1991, when Mr Bush Sr led an international coalition to expel invading Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Objectives were “a little fuzzier today”, he added.

After the Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr steered Israel and its Arab neighbours to the Madrid conference, a stepping stone to the historic Israeli-Palestinian Oslo accords, in much the same way that the present President has talked about the removal of Saddam as opening the way to a wider peace in the region.

In an ominous warning for his son, Mr Bush Sr said that he would have been able to achieve nothing if he had jeopardised future relations by ignoring the UN. “The Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had exceeded the UN mandate and gone on its own into
Baghdad after Saddam and his forces.”

Also drawing on the lessons of 1991, he said that it was imperative to mend fences with allies immediately, rather than waiting until after a war. He had been infuriated with the decision of King Hussein of Jordan to side with Saddam rather than the US, but while criticising the Jordanian leader in public and freezing $41 million in US aid, he also passed word to King Hussein that he understood his domestic tensions.

Mr Bush Jr, who is said never to forget even relatively minor slights, has alarmed analysts with the way in which he has allowed senior Administration figures such as Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, aggressively to criticise France and Germany.

There are, however, signs that Mr Bush Sr’s message may be getting through.

Father and son talk regularly and it was, in part, pressure from Mr Bush Sr’s foreign policy coterie, that helped to persuade the President to go to the UN last September.

[tattooedturtle]

A Crime, Not a War
by Marc Ash
Sunday 12 January 2003

War is borne of irreconcilable differences between nations. Brazen military aggression is a crime against humanity.

Every crime relies on three primary elements; Means, Motive and Opportunity.

Motive: Oil, money, power beyond comprehension. Plans for an Iraqi "Regime Change" are not at all -- as the administration would have us believe -- a result of the attacks of September 11th. In fact, plans for an Iraqi regime change, at the behest of Mr. Bush were scripted into the GOP's published platform statement for 2000.

Why? There are heavy connections between the Bush Administration and US oil corporations. The interests of those oil giants are the cornerstone of this Administration's policy. Control of Iraqi oil fields would be worth incalculable profits the very corporations whose former executives permeate the ranks of the Bush Administration. Oil is the Bush family business -- politics is the shield that protects it.

In addition to the oil, the business of militarism itself promises a mountain of gold for those who promote this act of military aggression. At the center of all spending for the administration's "war on terrorism" is the Carlyle Group. Contracts for the construction of military aircraft, artillery, vaccines for small pox, transportation infrastructure - everything a war on terrorism needs - are awarded to companies connected to the Carlyle Group. Who is the Carlyle group? Essentially they are defense industry investment brokers. The management team includes none other than former US President George Bush Sr., James Baker and Frank Carlucci to name a few. If you want to invest your millions in the defense industry, the smart money goes to the Carlyle Group.

In fact, that is precisely what the family of Osama bin Laden did. They were Carlyle clients in good standing at the time of the attacks, having invested two million dollars through Carlyle in the US defense industry. After the attacks, Carlyle severed relations with the bin Ladens, but not before the family of the worlds most notorious killer pocketed a tidy profit from their dealings. It should be noted that the bin Laden family investment was well timed to capitalize on the wave of US defense spending that would be generated by Oasma's attacks. Carlyle stood ready to assist them. I wonder how FOX News missed that.

Means: The most powerful military the world has ever known, assembled expressly for the purpose of defending the United States of America, has been commandeered by Bush & Co. for personal equity enhancement.

Opportunity: The attacks of September 11th. have provided the perfect opportunity, indeed the perfect catalyst. Those attacks can only be described as crimes against humanity. There can no doubt today whom those crimes have benefited most. "The World Has Spoken With One Voice"

Mr. Bush offers as justification for the coming slaughter unified worldwide opinion. It is true, the world has spoken. The problem is, the Bush Administration refuses to hear what is being said. "The world has said Iraq should not be in possession of weapons of mass destruction; they also said; "Don't launch a full scale military assault aimed at gaining control of the lucrative Iraqi oil fields. And most importantly, work in accordance with the UN Security Council." That last part is routinely omitted by Mr. Bush as he plays the role of war salesman.

At every turn the Bush administration has made false and misleading statements in building their case for war. At every turn the Administration has misstated the support and intentions of our historic allies in a blatant attempt to fan the fires of war. At every turn the Administration undermines attempts by the United Nations Security Council to resolve the issues peacefully.

The continued massing of US assault forces on Iraq's border clearly signals Mr. Bush and his associates have no intention of working with the UN or anyone else. They are men with guns in their hands and gold in their eyes. Mr. Bush and his associates have repeatedly made a point of derailing and obfuscating the International Criminal Prosecution Process. They have berated and bribed nation after nation for assurances of immunity from International War Crimes prosecution.

For these men, immunity from criminal prosecution will be precious indeed.

[tattooedturtle]

unbounded streams

unbounded streams is a blog about unbounded growth and understanding. And kumquats. Lots about kumquats.

October 14, 2002

Carlyle Group set to go on a spending spree
The Carlyle Group, the investment group run by Reagan/Bush folks (including former Secretarty of State James Baker, former Secretarty of Defense Frank Carlucci, former UK Prime Minsister John Major, and George H. W. Bush) which invests in global and domestic "interests," recently announced a $600 million fund. What does this mean?

The Carlyle Group just raised $600 million from pension fund managers, institutional investors, and high-net-worth individuals so they can invest it and return profit for the investors. All this at a time when our economy is in the toilet. During the dot-com boom, you would hear about high-flying Silicon Valley venture capital firms raising that kind of money, but the economy isn't what is was then, and the Carlyle group is much more interested in more conservative ventures. When a country is at war, or about to be at war, what kinds of investments do well? Some domestic investments might do well under those circumstances, but there is far more money to be made from international investments.

Other investors in the Carlyle Group include members of the bin Laden family. They pulled out when things got too hot. See Red Herring article below or do a search for "bin laden carlyle group" on Google.

The Red Herring has a good overview of the Carlyle Group. There are many more articles on the net about the Carlyle Group, and the Bush family's involvement in funding nefarious interests around the globe. In the past couple of years, mainstream media has published articles about this connection, including slate.com and The Boston Globe. It is well documented that our current president's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was investing in, and helped industrialize the Nazi regime. In fact, the federal government had to invoke the "Trading with the Enemy Act" in order to get Prescott Bush to divest from the Nazis.

So where does that leave us? Well, I'm not sure, but there's an awful lot of precedent here for some scary profit-making from the blood of war. Of course, it will be difficult to trace exactly where that $600 million will go, but it looks like there are some time-honored Bush family traditions to be upheld.

For links within the article go to: http://unbounded.org/blog/archives/000011.html

[svairini]

February 27, 2003

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation

The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue.

The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has oderint dum metuant really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.
###

[MsMissy]

It's a shame when we lose people with a conscience. How rare is that these days?

[svairini]

Protesters march on mall where peace tee led to arrest

By DAMITA CHAMBERS, Associated Press

GUILDERLAND, N.Y. (AP) - About 100 anti-war demonstrators marched through a mall Wednesday to protest the arrest of a shopper who wore a T-shirt that read "Peace on Earth" and "Give Peace a Chance."

"We just want to know what the policy is and why it's being randomly enforced," said Erin O'Brien, an organizer of the noontime rally at the Crossgates Mall in suburban Albany. "It's only the people in the recent months who have anti-war or peace T-shirts that are being asked to leave the mall."

Protesters met with a mall manager and said they would stop protesting when charges against the shopper were dropped and when the mall outlined its policy. A mall spokeswoman did not immediately return calls for comment.

On Monday, Stephen Downs, 61, and his son were asked by mall security guards to remove their peace-slogan shirts or leave. Downs' 31-year-old son, Roger, took off his shirt. But Downs, a lawyer with the state Commission on Judicial Conduct and a former Peace Corps volunteer, refused.

The guards called police, and he was charged with trespassing and pleaded innocent.

Police Chief James Murley said: "We don't care what they have on their shirts, but they were asked to leave the property, and it's private property."

The men had had the T-shirts made at a mall store and wore them while they shopped.

Posted: March 5, 2003 @ 12:08:00 PM PST

[Toughy]

I believe this is called fascism.......

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html

[tattooedturtle]

A friend of mine forwarded this article to me: http://www.sierratimes.com/03/03/10/ar1047362976.htm

After reading it, I pondered when does it all stop? It seems to me like Iraq may be the first step in many warring pursuits. How many lives lost and how much damage do we have to do before our government will stop? I pray for peaceful solutions to all of this. And I still abide by the belief that war is not the answer.

[traveler]

Did you see the article linked to that site about the NM House of Resresentatives passing legislation putting the state on record as opposing many provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act? Check it out:

http://santafenewmexican.com/site/ne...&PAG=461&rfi=9

[traveler]

Mos Def, Russell Simmons, Yoko Ono, Beastie Boys, David Byrne, Busta Rhymes, T. Bone Burnett, Ani DiFranco, Missy Elliott , George Clinton, Blu Cantrell, K-Ci & Jo Jo, Suzanne Vega, Jay_ Z, Peter Gabriel, Lou Reed, and Musiq are among the members.


website at: http://www.moveon.org/musiciansunited/

[traveler]

Across the nation, in city after city, ABCNEWS found voices of opposition, and many of them were from military towns.

"I am not convinced President Bush has yet made the case," said Miles Harvey, a San Diego retiree. San Diego is home port to the Navy's Pacific Fleet, which directly employs more than 100,000 people.

"We have to be convinced that there is a credible threat from Iraq and that's what I haven't seen," said Harvey.

Algene Miller, a Vietnam War veteran, said he was worried about potential casualties.

"You can't have a war without them," he said. "I know, I've been there."

On the other side of the country, in Charleston, S.C. — home to The Citadel military college and Charleston Air Force Base — there is also opposition, especially from those who remember U.S. forces becoming bogged down in Vietnam while losing support back home.

"If the president could show a clear and present danger I would support action against Iraq, but I don't support it without any evidence, " said Robert Rhame, a retired businessman who served in Vietnam.

"To me, our economy is far more important than removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/D...ion021014.html

[traveler]

Lots of casualties from the impending war already. So far they're people who have quit due to this conflict. Links to Robin Cook's story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sierra/art...218987,00.html
http://www.observer.co.uk/business/s...914972,00.html
http://in.news.yahoo.com/030314/139/226vz.html

[Rosefemme]

Without UN sanction, this is not war, this is illegal invasion.

[traveler]

...and furthermore, now GWB has changed the requirements again. Saddam and his sons have to leave Iraq.

Do you suppose he made this the new condition because he was afraid Saddam might agree to the old ones??

What a farce this has become. Our president is a jackass!

[hir]

go to www.sherylcrow.com and check out "sheryl's humble opinion and search for the truth". a truly awesome and verah intelligent person she is!

[Rev.Hank]

I have to agree, Traveler.
Our president is a jackass.
I dont ever remeber being so ashamed to be an American.
His crap ass speech tonight just drove it home.
Saying that America is "innocent"? what a joke.
and that WE are a peaceful people?? Yeah. WE are. he isnt.
I also thought it was interesting that when he addressed the Iraqi soldiers that the first thing he told them was not to destroy the oil fields.
that they belong to the Iraqi people.
ha.
blood for oil.
here we go...

Rev. Hank - sickened and sad

[traveler]

Good to see you here.

Hir i read Sheryl Crow's statement and it was dead on! She's right on so many counts, including the one where she says she gets heard more than the average person due to her fame.

That part about America making sure she stays the strongest power in the world really bothers me. Is this what it's all about? Just us trying to be stronger than everyone else? Sounds a little scary to me...

[tattooedturtle]

Thought I'd post pertinent words of peace...

Martin Luther King

In this day of man’s highest technical achievement, in this day of dazzling discovery, of novel opportunities, loftier dignities and fuller freedoms for all, there is no excuse for the kind of blind craving for power and resources that provoked the wars of previous generations. There is no need to fight for food and land. Science has provided us with adequate means of survival and transportation, which make it possible to enjoy the fullness of this great earth. The question now is, do we have the morality and courage required to live together as brothers and not be afraid?

One of the most persistent ambiguities we face is that everybody talks about peace as a goal, but among the wielders of power peace is practically nobody’s business. Many men cry ‘Peace! Peace!’ but they refuse to do the things that make for peace.

The large power blocs talk passionately of pursuing peace while expanding defence budgets that already bulge, enlarging already awesome armies and devising ever more devastating weapons...

Before it is too late, we must narrow the gaping chasm between our proclamations of peace and our lowly deeds which precipitate and perpetuate war. We are called upon to look up from the quagmire of military programmes and defence commitments and read the warnings on history’s signposts.

One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek but a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. How much longer must we play at deadly war games before we heed the plaintive pleas of the unnumbered dead and maimed of past wars?

[TrueBlueButch]

I am suspicious of anything having to do with war...with Iraq...with anyone. There is something so calculated about what is going on with Bush and his war. I agree that I am embarrasses about being represented by Bush...he doesn't listen...and I fear anyone who tells me I am stupid and just don't understand the threat Hussein poses. We are the only country who has used weapons of mass destrustion...ask the Japanese...this may not be about oil...but is about more than we are led to believe. He isn't putting himself or his family on the line...the poor are. I even wonder about 9-11...what better way to bring a nationalist ralley? Sorry, I saw too much growing up with a goverment doing their "police action" in Vietnam. I don't trust our leaders...and I don't like anyone making decisions for me "in my own best interest". This isn't about Bush finishing the job from his father's administration...there is so much more. I don't want easy answers...I want the truth (The truth? You can't handle the truth!) It's become obvious to me that polls are faked and the American people are manipulated beyond belief...and also that what I believe is considered dissedent rather than patriotic...I am a true American...I don't agree with my governemnt and I say so...just because this war is inevitable does not mean that I cannot disagree...and it doesn't make me unpatriotic...I vote, I pay taxes...and I know I am a sheep to the slaughter. And they will not listen...what can I do...but pray?

[MadHatter]

As we move into the next stage of this fiasco, MoveOn.org is making the following suggestion for continued action at home. This is an excerpt from their latest email to me.

>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<

We will continue waging peace, even if war comes. We have
joined together to articulate a vision of how the world should
be -- of how nations should treat each other, of how we can
collectively deal with threats to our security.

One simple way to show your continued commitment to this
vision is to put a light in your window. It could be a Christmas string or candle, a light bulb, or a lantern. It's an easy way to keep the light of reason and hope burning, to let others know that they are not alone, and to show the way home to the young men and women who are on their way to Iraq.

We'd like to keep a list of the places and people who are joining in this simple act. Please sign up now at:

Windowlight

>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<

I for one plan to keep a light alive.

- Mad

[traveler]

The streets of Baghdad captured the moment — panic buying by residents bracing for a fearsome U.S.-led attack, side by side with a government-prompted, mass demonstration in support of Saddam.

"This war, in short, is tantamount to genocide," charged Mohammed AlDouri, Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations (news - web sites), in one of a string of insults the Iraqi high command hurled at Bush.

It was a daylong act of defiance in the face of an invasion force of more than 250,000 troops ringing Iraq, a nation of more than 23 million that Saddam has ruled brutally for nearly a quarter century. -- from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...mi_ea/iraq_rdp

[Firefly]

international community are pretty well summed up in this piece from the guardian...

Earplugs sell out in Iraq

People in Baghdad prepare for war while members of the "coalition of the willing" show their colours, writes Brian Whitaker

Wednesday March 19, 2003

Tony Blair need not go into exile just yet. Last night his government won formal backing for war with Iraq when parliament voted 2-1 in favour.
This was despite the biggest ever revolt by MPs. Among the ruling Labour party, 139 members rebelled, and 16 Conservatives, 53 Liberal Democrats and 11 others joined them. But because of Mr Blair's massive built-in majority, it was still well short of the total that might have forced regime change in Britain.

In other developments overnight, the Turkish government said it will try again to get permission from parliament for US warplanes to fly over its territory, and the White House suddenly changed the terms of its ultimatum to Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi leader had earlier been given 48 hours to avert war by fleeing Iraq along with his two appalling sons, but last night White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said US forces would invade "no matter what". The excuse, apparently, is that they need to hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

The official UN weapons inspectors, meanwhile, have all been evacuated from Iraq - several of them complaining about the curtailment of their work and the aspersions that have been cast on their professional abilities. What chance they'll sue President Bush for constructive dismissal?

Colin Powell claimed last night that 45 countries have now joined the "coalition of the willing" against Iraq. They include such key players as Afghanistan, Latvia, Lithuania, Nicaragua and Uzbekistan, but 15 of them have asked not to be named until they see which way the war is going.

In some cases, calling these countries supporters of the war would be extremely generous with the truth - a bit like describing concrete posts that hold up a football stadium as "supporters" of Manchester United. Spain, whose smiling little prime minister managed to get his photo taken next to George Bush and Mr Blair at the weekend, has confirmed that it won't actually be sending any troops.

Talking of support, an opinion poll this morning by the Washington-based Pew Research Center finds rapidly declining enthusiasm for the United States in Europe. In Italy, only 34% view the US favourably, compared with 70% in 2002. The current figure for Britain is 48%, Spain 14%, France 31% and Germany 25%.

The Iraqi parliament is meeting this morning, probably for the last time under its present management. Don't expect any surprises there - members do exactly what they're told, unlike MPs in Britain. It's just an exercise in spreading responsibility for Iraq's fate beyond Saddam and his immediate circle. The session began with the parliamentary speaker urging Iraqis to rally behind their leader.

At 1500 GMT foreign ministers will get together at the UN Security Council where the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, is due to give a report spelling out what Iraq should do to prove that it has disarmed. This is now totally irrelevant but France, Germany and Russia may seize the opportunity to denounce, once again, the coming invasion.

The American ultimatum to Iraq expires tonight at 0115 GMT (0415 in Baghdad), and war could come any time after that. President Bush might wait another day or two until Turkey sorts its position out or weather conditions are favourable, but it's probably still worth tuning in to CNN or al-Jazeera tonight in case he does launch the most expensive (and lethal) fireworks display the world has ever seen.

An Iraqi correspondent in Baghdad says everyone there is trying to buy earplugs, so as not to lose too much sleep, but the shops have run out. If anyone has ideas for DIY earplugs, let us know and we'll pass the message on.

Weather in Baghdad tonight: passing clouds, wind west-south-west at 11 mph, humidity 45%, visibility 17 miles. Minimum temperature 57 F (14 C), which the Lycos forecast describes as "refreshingly cool".

[Firefly]

Bush is just breaking treaties and laws left and right. First Kyoto... and now...

(Reuters) - President Bush and his allies are unlikely to face trial for war crimes although many nations and legal experts say a strike on Iraq without an explicit U.N. mandate breaches international law. While judicial means to enforce international law are limited, the political costs of a war that is perceived as illegal could be high for all concerned and could set a dangerous precedent for other conflicts, lawyers say...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030319/wl_nm/iraq_law_dc_1]full story[/URL]

[Firefly]

Hmm... for some reason the link didn't work. My efforts to be all cool like Traveler have failed.

I'm just posting the article.

BERLIN (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) and his allies are unlikely to face trial for war crimes although many nations and legal experts say a strike on Iraq (news - web sites) without an explicit U.N. mandate breaches international law.

While judicial means to enforce international law are limited, the political costs of a war that is perceived as illegal could be high for all concerned and could set a dangerous precedent for other conflicts, lawyers say.

The U.N. Charter says: "All members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It says force may only be used in self-defense or if approved by the Security Council.

Many leading legal experts have rejected attempts by Washington and London to justify a war with Iraq without a new resolution explicitly authorizing force.


"There is a danger that the ban on the use of force, which I see as one of the most significant cultural achievements of the last century, will become history again," said Michael Bothe, chairman of the German Society for International Law.


Washington and London have argued that U.N. resolution 1441 passed unanimously last year -- demanding Iraq disarm or face "serious consequences" -- gives sufficient legal cover.


Amid criticism that 1441 does not explicitly authorize war, they have also argued that military action is legitimized by two other resolutions passed before and after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites), although Russia has fiercely rejected this argument.


Bush has also said that a war would be a legitimate "pre-emptive" act of self-defense against any future attack.


The U.N. Charter says self-defense is only justified "if an armed attack occurs." When Israel tried to justify its 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor as an act of pre-emptive self-defense, the Security Council unanimously condemned it.


Bothe said the attempt by Washington and its allies to justify an attack showed the political power of international law despite the paucity of formal legal devices to enforce it.


"There is unlikely to be a court case," he said. "Those responsible won't be jailed but they can be made uncomfortable."


TURNING BACK THE CLOCK


Most experts in international law say they are not convinced either by the argument that military action against Iraq is authorized by earlier U.N. resolutions nor that the U.N. Charter allows self-defense against a perceived future threat.


Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa's Constitutional Court, who was the lead prosecutor in U.N. tribunals on the Rwanda genocide and killings in the former Yugoslavia, said the United States risked undermining international law.


"The implications are serious for the future of international law and the credibility of the U.N., both being ignored by the most powerful nation in the world," he said.


In theory, international law could be upheld in several ways, said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General of the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists.


"Political leaders in due course could be taken to a national court for an act of aggression," Doswald-Beck said.


Lawyers in the United States, Canada and Britain warned their governments in January that they could be prosecuted for war crimes if military tactics violated humanitarian law.

Alternatively, aggrieved states could take the United States and Britain to international courts, complain to the Security Council, or to the U.N. General Assembly, she said.

But Laetia Husson, a researcher at the International Law Center at the Sorbonne university in Paris, said international action to declare a breach of the U.N. Charter was unlikely.

"There is little chance of condemnation by the United Nations (news - web sites) because they will be paralyzed by the U.S. veto in the Security Council," she said.

Washington and Baghdad do not recognize the International Criminal Court inaugurated last week and it has yet to define a crime of aggression. But it could still try Britain and other U.S. allies that recognize it on any war crimes charges.

Other legal experts say international law might have to adapt to take account of new justifications for war such as the humanitarian concerns used to legitimize the Kosovo campaign in 1999 that lacked U.N. support, but is now questioned by few.

Writing in The Sydney Morning Herald, George Williams, an international law expert at the University of New South Wales, and Devika Hovell, director of the International Law Project, said setting a new legal precedent was playing with fire.

"It may be that international law will adapt after the event to provide a retrospective justification for war," they wrote.

"However, to enter a war based on this expectation sees us revert to the 'just war' theory. In doing so, we fall into precisely the trap the United Nations was established to avoid.

"This decision to wage a just war is based upon an appeal to dangerously subjective standards of morality and the belligerents' conviction that their cause is right. After two world wars, the dangers of this approach are obvious." (With additional reporting by reporters in Geneva, Amsterdam, London, Paris, Johannesburg, Dubai, Beijing, Sydney)

[traveler]

Originally posted by Firefly
Hmm... for some reason the link didn't work. My efforts to be all cool like Traveler have failed.

Well, that's just not gonna happen! LOL! Everyone knows my ability to post links is superhuman!

Trust me grrl, you got it going on! Keep posting. Very informative...


A note from Jim Hightower:

"OUR OWN WORST ENEMY"

An ancient aphorism of war declares: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Well, what if you arm your "friend" to fight your enemies, but the "friend" later turns on you, using the weapons you provided – are you then your own enemy? Or are you just bone-deep stupid?

This is no rhetorical question, because, for the past 20 years or so, America has been the biggest arms dealer in the world, supplying weapons to practically anyone and everyone who has the money – or to anyone whose "friendship" is deemed by Washington to be temporarily conveinient. These alliances of convenience often turn around and bite us on the butt.

When our troops went after Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan, for example, they were fired at with made-in-the-USA stinger missiles, supplied to Taliban leaders by Ronald Reagan and Bush the First when the Taliban was our "friend" fighting our enemy, Russia, which is now our "friend."

And what a scream it is to hear Bush the Second wailing that our worst enemy is now Saddam Hussein, the evildoer who is so horrific that he's used chemical weapons. The irony is that it was the US, under Reagan and Daddy Bush, who provided the chemicals back when they considered Saddam our "friend."

Then there's Pakistan, who's our "friend" today, getting more than a billion dollars a year in U.S. military aid, even though its ruler is a vicious military dictator who only a few months
ago was denounced by the White House as an anti-democracy fiend. But, as one expert noted, "In the past 20 years, Pakistan was our friend, then our enemy, friend, enemy, friend." How long before the next flip, turning on us with the weapons we're now shipping to them?

The the U.S. sells more arms than the next nine arms dealers combined, all for the profit a few corporate munitions makers – even though our own troops often end up paying the
price. To help stop this careless proliferation, call Peace Action at 202-862-9740.

Sources: "Arms trades are as fluid as alliances," Austin American-Statesman, December 12, 2002

[DScout]

Let me see if I have this all straight;

1. Bush is a jerk..............agree
(I still can't find too many who admit to voting for him, good job Jeb)

2. War with Iraq is a Bush "Family Tradition".........agree
(Daddy couldn't do it so Junior will)

3. Most of us really know why we are fighting Iraq.......$$$ agree
(duh...oil)

4. Most countries think we are pompous assholes.....agree
(who could blame them with Bush calling the shots)

5. Tom Daschel and the Dixie CHicks have every right to voice their opinions....agree
(hey it's their right as Americans)

6. Even though many disagree with the war, we DO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS THAT HAVE BEEN SENT OVER THERE.......Strongly Agree
(The poor bastards, we HAVE to support them, no matter what)

7. We do not understand why we haven't caught BinLadden yet...agree
(I find it hard to believe we don't have special forces and operatives that know where he is, but it appears that we are going after Sadam because we can't find the other "evil one")

There, I think I'm clear on the primer for tonights fireworks. May God bless us all and keep us safe. I am proud to be an American, to be able to be free to be who I am. I am sick over what is happening. I lived thru VietNam, it was nightmare enough, I just can't believe this. Life will never be the same again, for any of us.

DS

[MsPage2U]

YES DS!

Amen.

[MsMissy]

Can you believe even Burger King is buying into the BS now? They are advertising Freedom Toast. I am angry that major American corporations are sponsoring xenophobia.

[butchbiscuit]

i can't believe it, dreading the 48th hour...

NO! NO! NO!

bb

[tattooedturtle]

A couple of pages back there was a discussion about religion. I just came across this article:

Challenging Ignorance on Islam: A Ten-Point Primer for Americans

by Gary Leupp*

_____________

* "We should invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
Columnist Ann Coulter,
National Review Online, Sept. 13, 2001

* "Just turn [the sheriff] loose and have him arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line."
Rep. C. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA),
chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland security and Senate candidate, to Georgia law officers, November 2001

* "Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith where God sent his Son to die for you."
Attorney General John Ashcroft,
interview on Cal Thomas radio, November 2001

* "(Islam) is a very evil and wicked religion wicked, violent and not of the same god (as Christianity)."
Rev. Franklin Graham, head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, November 2001.

* "Islam is Evil,Christ is King."
Allegedly written in marker by law enforcement agents on a Muslim prayer calendar in the home of a Muslim being investigated by police in Dearborn, Michigan, July 2002.
___________________
People with power and influence in the U.S. have been saying some very stupid things about Islam and about Muslims since September 11. Some of it is rooted in conscious malice, and ethnic prejudice that spills over into religious bigotry. But some is rooted in sheer historical and geographical ignorance. This is a country, after all, in which only a small minority of high school students can readily locate Afghanistan on the map, or are aware that Iranians and Pakistanis are not Arabs. As an educator, in Asian Studies, at a fairly elite university, I am painfully aware of this ignorance. But I realize it serves a purpose. It is highly useful to a power structure that banks on knee-jerk popular support whenever it embarks on a new military venture, at some far-off venue, on false pretexts immediately discernable to the better educated, but lost on the general public. The generally malleable mainstream press takes care of the rest.

I don't mean to suggest that the academic cognosenti, as a "class," habitually counter this ignorance and protest the imperialist interventions that Washington routinely undertakes. Some of them may indeed support the venture, cynically asserting that the advertised pretext fulfills some sort of valid function, regardless of the lies and distortions that surround it. (I think of the depiction in the media of the "Rambouillet Accords" concerning Yugoslavia in 1999 as "the will of the international community," when one Contact Group member, Russia, rejected the U.S.-dictated plan for Kosovo outright, and several European states only signed on after their arms were twisted nearly out of their sockets. I think of the calculated, extreme exaggeration of the number of Kosovar victims of Serbian forces as the bombing of Yugoslavia began. The lies surrounding that bombing were obvious to anyone studying the situation, but even some rather progressive academics were all for "Operation Allied
Force.") American academe is---unfortunately--- whatever its right-wing critics may contend, not particularly left or anti-imperialist. In any case, such ignorance is not just a national embarrassment; it's really dangerous. Raw material for a made-in-USA version of fascism.

To understand the contemporary world, we all need to know something about Islam-beyond the inane contribution of the Attorney General cited above. So I have prepared this little primer on Islam for Americans (suitable for ages 13 and above, so appropriate for high school use), dealing not with its theology so much as its general character as an important force in the world, presently encountering unprecedented, unprincipled attack from various quarters. (Oh, and by the way, I'm not a Muslim, but what those on the Christian right revile as a "secular humanist.")

1. Islam has been around for approximately 1400 years. Established on the west coast of Arabia 900 years before European settlement in America, and spreading rapidly throughout Southwest Asia and North Africa soon thereafter, it was not designed as an anti-U.S. movement!

The basic teachings or requirements of Islam are not difficult to grasp. They constitute the "Five Pillars of Islam": (1) profession that there is no God but God ("Allah," in Arabic), and his Prophet (the last of the prophets, the "seal of the prophets") is Muhammad; (2) daily prayer; (3) fasting during the month of Ramadan; (4) charity; and (5) the pilgrimage to Mecca. Whatever you may think of this package, it's not terribly threatening to the non-Muslim.

2. Islam's teachings are contained in a fairly compact book, the Qur'an, which Muslims believe was dictated to the Prophet Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. They believe of it precisely what Jews and Christians believe of their scriptures: that is, it's the Word of God. This book, like the Bible, demands belief in monotheism; refers to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jesus, etc. (far more space is given to Mary, mother of Jesus, in the Qur'an than in the New Testament); has a substantial legalistic component reminiscent of the Old Testament Book of Leviticus, and poetic content as beautifully uplifting as the Book of Psalms. For religious and secular scholars alike, it is absolutely clear that Islam stems from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Indeed, we should think in terms of the "Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition."

(Some fundamentalist Christians, of course, see Islam as the work of Satan, and medieval Christians in Europe saw it as a heresy rather than as "paganism. The point is---for better or worse---Muslims have a whole lot more in common with the dominant religious trends in the U.S. than do, say, Buddhists or Hindus.)

3. Muslims are about 20% of the world's population; Christians, about 30%. (The U.S. Muslim population is estimated between 5 and 8 million; U.S. Jews between 5 and 6 million). The global Jewish population is statistically quite small, so one can say the Judeo-Christian-Islamic population is roughly half the world's total. The consequences of a protracted religious war, pitting Christians and Jews against Muslims, are highly unpleasant to consider.

4. The Qur'an depicts Jews and Christians as "People of the Book," meaning that they have their own scriptures bestowed upon them by God (Allah is simply the Arabic world for God, related to the Hebrew Elohim; we should see it as analogous to the German word Gott, the French Dieu, or the Spanish Dios. It's not the personal name of a deity within a pantheon, like Thor, Aphrodite or Siva.)

Muslim scripture counsels respect for these communities, and indeed, in the history of Islam, within Islamic societies Jews and Christians have fared FAR better than non-Christians in Christendom. Muslims ruled all or part of Spain from around 800 to the late 15th century, when Columbus' great patrons, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella "drove the Moors (Muslims) out of Spain," forced everybody to embrace Catholic Christianity (or be killed), and promoted the exquisite Christian tortures of the Inquisition. Under Muslim rule, Christian and Jewish communities generally flourished from Spain to Iraq. On the other hand, until recent times, Christian intolerance prevailed throughout Europe.

5. The Qu'ran does NOT call upon Muslims to KILL all non-Muslims. It calls for the destruction of "infidels," meaning principally Arabs who, during the time of Muhammad, practiced idolatry and polytheism. Again: this is a seventh-century book, produced in a specific historical context! It, and the Muslim religion, should be studied and understood objectively, dispassionately. Islam emerged very quickly, and within decades united under its banner-the banner of monotheism---the various tribes of Arabia. Its violent rejection of idolatry, however offensive to the modern, secular, humanist mind, is hardly unique. It can be compared to the ferocious suppression in Christian Europe of paganism (often associated with witchcraft).

And for perspective, while the Qu'ran does call for the extermination of "infidels," the Old Testament is replete with its own exhortations to genocide. According to the Biblical narrative (of dubious historicity, but believed by hundreds of millions), the Hebrews under Joshua's leadership, invading Canaan from Egypt, killed twelve thousand "men and women together" in the town of Ai-because God wanted them to (Joshua 8:25). The Hebrews put all the people of Hazor to the sword (they "wiped them all out; they did not leave one living soul." Judges 11:14). The poetics of hatred are as conspicuous in the Bible as in the Qu'ran. A personal favorite of mine, from Psalm 137, refers to the Babylonians: "A blessing on him who takes and dashes your babies against the rock!" Such references are characteristic of Judeo-Christian-Islamic literature, and are best examined in historical perspective.

6. Islamic "fundamentalism" is not a species apart from other fundamentalisms, including the Christian, Jewish, and Hindu varieties. They are all anti-modern, anti-science, anti-intellectual, rarely harmless and potentially (if not necessarily) fascistic. They demand belief in received dogma, inscribed in texts, rather than open-ended scientific inquiry. They either legitimate the existing order, or call for a return to a past social order in which class and gender relations were properly sorted out in line with the Divine Will.

Some (including non-religious people in or from Muslim countries) criticize Islam (appropriately, in my view) for what they consider backward and reactionary features. This is not the place to deal with such criticisms, nor am I the right person to do it. I will merely observe what many others have observed: Christendom underwent the Enlightenment-an evolution towards secularism, rationalism, and scientific thought in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries-which the Islamic world, in general, has not yet experienced. To become "modern" (more specifically, to become capitalist), the West had to become more ideologically tolerant (i.e., less religious), and allow a freer market in ideas than had been possible when the Church monopolized learning. If mullahs monopolize education in much of the Muslim world, they serve a function identical with that of Europe's medieval Catholic clergy.

But our own Enlightenment is not irreversible. Top U.S. officials reject the theory of evolution in favor of the ludicrous "theory" of "creationism," and seek to criminalize abortion on the grounds that a fetus is a human being created by God. Recent changes in U.S. law (allowing the use of vouchers to support religious schools at taxpayer's expense), and the failure of the courts to prosecute behavior which plainly violates the constitutional separation of church and state, demonstrate that medieval thinking and fundamentalism retain a strong hold in sections of U.S. society, and are well represented in the Bush administration. The American people are, I submit, far more threatened by Christian fundamentalism than its Islamic counterpart. And for a Pentecostalist Christian like John Ashcroft, who believes every word of the Bible literally, to inveigh against Islam (as he has) is (to use the English proverb) the "pot calling the kettle black."

7. Islamic fundamentalism (or what some, including CNN Moneyline's Lou Dobbs calls "Islamism," meaning a specifically political Islam) has NOT, historically, posed a great threat to Western interests (by which I mean corporate, oil, and geopolitical interests) but rather been exploited to SERVE those interests. Remember Lawrence of Arabia? What was his objective other than to forge a British alliance with the Hashemites, who would certainly qualify as "Islamists" by Lou Dobb's standards, during World War I? Later, the British boosted the Saudi royal family (patrons of the Wahhabi school of Islam, usually described as among the most conservative, embraced by Osama bin Laden as well as the Saudis in general) into power. The U.S. inherited Saudi Arabia as a client state after World War II, and we all know how well U.S. oil companies have done there ever since. (Aramco alone, prior to its nationalization in the mid-1980s, yielded some $ 3 trillion from the Arabian reserves.)

The U.S. helped create, recruit, and finance the fundamentalist Mujahadeen, including some 30,000 young volunteers who came from throughout the Muslim world to fight "godless Communism" in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The U.S. encouraged them to view their war as a jihad (in the sense of a "Holy War," a meaning the term usually does NOT carry), and put many in contact with young Osama bin Laden, then an ally. The Reagan administration was in love with fundamentalist Islam, so long as it served its purposes.

The California-based company Unocal was cordially negotiating right up to Sept. 11 with Afghanistan's Taliban for an oil pipeline through Afghan territory, State Department official and oilman Zalmay Khalilzad was arguing up through 1998 that the Taliban were friendly, potential business partners who did "not practice the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced in Iran."

8. Muslims of the world have many thoroughly LEGITIMATE reasons to resent U.S. policy. Nearly absolute support for the settler state of Israel in its relationship with the indigenous Palestinian people. Imposition of brutal sanctions on Iraq, contrary to logic and morality. Maintenance of bases throughout the Persian Gulf, in defiance of local sensibilities and interests. Support for brutal regimes, including that of the Shah of Iran and that of Indonesia's Suharto (who unquestionably has more blood on his hands than even that arch-villain and former U.S. buddy Saddam Hussein).

9. Muslims typically DO NOT hate the U.S. as an abstract concept, reject U.S. culture in toto, or seek the destruction of American civilization. Many are, indeed, uncomfortable with some aspects of American behavior, as are most people in the world, from Central America to Japan. But a Zogby International poll, released June 11 of this year, shows that in nine Muslim countries, including Bangladesh and Malaysia, the most admired foreign country is the U.S.

10. Muslims and Jews in Palestine/Israel have NOT always hated one another, and the current Middle East conflict does NOT go back many centuries. Rather, it began with the influx of foreign Jews into the region after World War I, which became a flood as a result of the Holocaust, and with international support resulted in the formation of Israel as a specifically Jewish state in 1948. Jewish settlement and terrorism (well-documented by the Jewish Israeli historian Ilan Pappe) resulted in the displacement of 750,000 Palestinian Arabs (including both Christians and Muslims). The Arab-Israeli conflict is not, fundamentally, about Islam, or a clash between Islam and other faiths, but about this-worldly land grabbing, settlement, dispossession and oppression that has enraged the Muslim world, as it should enrage any thinking, moral human being. Unfortunately, fundamentalist Christians in this country tend to depict this history of injustice as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, and they will brook no dissent when it comes to the Zionist cause that they have embraced as their own. ("God gave them the land, so don't bother me with historical details. End of discussion.") Hard to imagine a delusion more injurious to world peace and to the cause of justice.

Finally: In understanding Islam, Americans should give some thought to one of the pivotal episodes in world history, the Crusades, or Wars of the Cross, that ripped up the Holy Land between 1096 and 1291. During these two centuries, European Christians seeking to "win back for Christendom" territory that had fallen to the Muslim Turks-territory that had been ruled by Muslims since the early seventh century anyway, on terms generally agreeable to Jews and Christians as well as Muslims-committed unspeakable atrocities. In July 1099 Jerusalem was conquered, the Roman Catholic soldiers massacring all the Muslim and Jewish inhabitants, including women and children. Nor was the Crusaders' zeal exhausted upon non-Christians; frustrated at lack of success in Palestine in 1204, they instead sacked Constantinople (modern Istanbul), then the center of Eastern Orthodoxy. In comparison, the behavior of the Muslim armies was chivalrous, the twelfth-century Kurdish leader Saladin in particular winning high praise from Christians and Muslims alike for his humanity.

The Islamic world remembers the Crusades; George Bush, like many Americans, is clueless about them. Hence his amazingly dim-witted reference to the "War on Terrorism" as a "Crusade" last September 16-a statement that produced immediate, widespread outrage in the Muslim world. No offense intended, no doubt. But such ignorance, in action, in a world where religious prejudice generates idiotic action from Belfast, to the Balkans, to Gujarat, to the Moluccas, is perilous ignorance indeed.
______________________
* Gary Leupp is an an associate professor, Department of History, Tufts University and coordinator, Asian Studies Program
He can be reached at: gleupp@tufts.edu

[FemmeBabyGrrl]

I can't believe Bush is the figure head for America. This is who we having speaking for us. But who the hell is he really speaking for? Sure as hell not a lot of people I know.

Part of me thinks that maybe the US needs a good kick in the ass though. A shot of reality. We think we are the shit. And maybe it's time to see that our's doesn't smell so rosey after all.

I love this country, but our government sucks. And the way apperantly a lot Americans view themselves is being better then everyone else. Could this have a positive ramification and make people see we aren't the sun and all the other countries don't circle around us?

*Trying to see some silver lining*

[FemmeBabyGrrl]

Also wanted to add:

The past 14 or so years have all been leading to this point. It was just a matter of time.
No way can a bunch of politicians back down after saying they're going to do something. And this has been in the works.
All we can pray for is that it ends quickly and with few casualities. Then maybe Bush will be sent to jail or some such wonderful thing.

[Eve]

fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck.

~Eve

[MsMissy]

Well said, Eve.

[KwanYin]

Originally posted by Eve
fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck.

~Eve

no kidding!

I cannot believe/ do not want to believe this is really happening

I feel such a deep saddness... and shame! I am ashamed of this country, this supposed *leader*

[oblivia]

Before I go into my feelings I want to say one thing:

Regardless of my personal opinion of the war itself, I will always support US Troops. They need to be supported and loved and to feel the backing of everyone at home. They are brave and are merely doing what their country has asked them to do and I hope for their sakes that they can believe in it at least a little otherwise I couldn't imagine them having to do it at all. So smooches to all the military folks out there.

Now.... as to how *I* feel about it all?

*sigh* The list is so long it's indescribable.

It has been proven in history (or so I understand) that regardless of motivations or reasons.. war is business. It is good for the economy. As horrific as that fact is, it has been proven in the past (the after war is the profitable part not the during).

By nature, I am a very non-political grrl. But in the months leading up to this, I have participated in petitions and several energy workings for peace. (Including a ritual this Friday dedicated to healing for the earth and all her inhabitants).

But ultimately, in my gut, this feels wrong. I have very little room to stand as far as facts go because I'll admit I've done little to no research and I rarely watch the news.

But I trust my intuition... I have had reason to.

And I know, in my heart, in my intuition, with every fiber of my being, that this War or "conflict" is wrong. That the motivations behind it are not the ones being told to us.

To others it may seem like some hokey BS to state that as the reason I know, but it matters not to me. I just know.

During the Yule/Christmas season 2002 people around the world felt uneasy, had dreams of destruction and fighting and to the depths of my soul, I believe those dreams and visions were warnings of what was to come.

My only hope is that we can recover, and heal from whatever happens in the days, weeks, months to come.

Meanwhile.. I simply feel... rather ill.

Always,
oblivia -hopelessly non-political but scared femme-grrl

[Slater]

How can this even be legal??? There has been no Congressional declaration of war, no UN mandate, not even a foreign country asking for help. Nothing but the whim of an administration that was never legitimately elected in the first place (coupe de'tat, anyone?). How can this not be a violation of international (and probably US too) law?

What is truly shocking to me is not the hypocricy, or the underhandedness, or the shortsightedness, or the arrogance of what the US government is doing (because governments in general, the US most definitely included, have a long history of all of those things) but the shameless way they are doing it, scarcely even bothering to wave a fig leaf in front of their dirty bits, instead counting on knee-jerk "patriotism", a national attention span of approximately 30 seconds, and a media that is more government lapdog than government watchdog to shield them from significant repercussions.

My great fear is that they are right. That they will get away with unscathed while others, both here and abroad, will pay the price for their hubris. Because there will be a price. There has already been a price.