WAR! What is it good for?

All things outside of Burning Man.
Post Reply
User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:33 pm

Kinetic II wrote:Ballot boxes. Democracy. Bullshit.

Democracy is printed every couple of weeks at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing when they create wonderful ballots that commonly look like $100 bills. If you don't have pictures of Ben to give away, your voice isn't heard. If you have a few of them to give out as campaign contributions, you suddenly have a voice...and the more money the louder it gets. It's the daily reality that I see and have now since 1997 when I started bitching about political issues. Be it federal, state, or local, money is everything.
HERE YEE!

User avatar
stuart
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Post by stuart » Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:25 am

wait a minute there K!

the first amendment to the constitution gaurantees the right of free speach to every last green dollar! And don't forget that every dollar is created equal like.

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:42 am

stuart wrote:wait a minute there K!

the first amendment to the constitution gaurantees the right of free speach to every last green dollar! And don't forget that every dollar is created equal like.
You know..... you have a point there.
even though...........

User avatar
KellY
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:32 am

Post by KellY » Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:53 pm

Okay, De Facto, instead of wasting time trying to convince you that you've got your head up your ass, let me ask you a few questions. Do you want those disadvantaged kids to not bother voting as well? Do you really think that having all educated, intelligent people (which I assume includes the eplayans reading this) drop out of the sytem will yield positive results? If so, what are those results? If a government by and for the people wherein the population makes it's will known by voting isn't a good idea, what do you recommend?

The reason money is such an important factor is that so many people DO just drop out of the political system, and can't be troubled to be civic-minded. If people bothered to educate themselves and vote accordingly, I don't think all the millions spent campaigning would have much effect.

Remember the words of the great Sage Nambla the Clown: "Vote your reality."

User avatar
KellY
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:32 am

Post by KellY » Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:36 pm

Oh one more thing, DeF. You can say politics is for suckers and feel superior, but politics is literally as pervasive as the air you breathe - ever hear about the plummet in air quality in Texas after Dubya's gubernatorial tenure?

User avatar
herself
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 8:41 am
Burning Since: 2001
Camp Name: Camp Crypto!
Location: Oakland Calif

Post by herself » Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:41 am

I feel that by choosing not to vote, I give my vote to the people around me who know more about the issues than I do. Why vote if you have no fucking clue what's going on? It's just too much trouble. Though I am quite excited about the upcoming presidential campaign because I believe bush has finally motivated me out of 43 years of apathy....

User avatar
KellY
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:32 am

Post by KellY » Sun Oct 26, 2003 8:31 pm

Well Harriet, although I'm glad to hear that Bush's behavior is cracking through your walls of inaction, I feel obligated to point out that you just "gave" your vote to a bunch of numbskulls who elected the Governator. (BTW, I don't automatically think Republicans are numbskulls, but I do think Ahnold was voted in by a bloc of morons who couldn't have cared less about his policies, they just wanted a macho icon to place above them. Mob rule, my friends...)

Somewhere, Susan B. Anthony is crying.

And hey, come on DeFacto, you gonna try and answer my questions? Can you? How about all you other folks who were patting yourselves on the back for not being taken in by foolishness of voting? Personally, I think you're like Herself - apathetic, too much trouble to pay attention to what's actually going on around you- but at least she comes out and admits it.
"Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes

User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

silence speaks volumes

Post by Chimp » Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:21 am

Silence speaks volumes

The British government's failure to condemn a high-ranking American's anti-Islamic outburst is a disgrace

Anas Altikriti
Monday October 27, 2003
The Guardian

In a world that has skewed the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" so that they imply Islam and Muslims respectively, the cheapest shot around is to accuse a Muslim adversary of being a terrorist and to sanctify one's aggression by declaring it a "war on terror".

Britain did it when we assisted the US in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel does it on a daily basis when killing Palestinian civilians, Russia continuously does it in Chechnya, India is at it in Kashmir. Even Abdalla Yones, the Kurdish father who recently killed his daughter in north London, accused Muslim terrorists of committing the crime.

But even more abhorrent are those who attack the fundamental belief and faith of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. So when British officials remained silent following the recent attack on Islam by a senior US defence official, the Muslim community in Britain took note.

Earlier this month, investigative reporters from the Los Angeles Times and NBC television published a number of ferocious comments made by Lieutenant-General William (Gerry) Boykin, the newly promoted under-secretary of defence for intelligence. Boykin has publicly declared that Muslims followed a god that was no more than an "idol"; he has said that whenever he came across a Muslim or read about Islam, he was further moved to believe that "his god" was bigger and greater than any god Muslims adhered to; and he believes that, in order "to defeat our spiritual enemy", Christians must fight it "in the name of Jesus".

Muslims everywhere were stunned. Had such an attack been against any other religious or ethnic group, there would have been an uproar. Indeed, we witnessed just such a reaction when Malaysia's prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, spoke of a world governed by the Jewish people and called on Muslims to use brain as well as brawn in order to assume their rights throughout the world. Everyone was understandably up in arms, and the British government demanded that the Malaysian ambassador issue a retraction of words that "incited racial and religious hatred". Even Muslims came out and spoke of Islam's obligation upon its followers to deal fairly and justly with all people, and even more so with followers of world religions, such as Judaism and Christianity.

Why then did Boykin's remarks fail to stir any official reaction outside the US (and only lukewarm rebuttals inside)? Perhaps because such Islamophobic remarks are increasingly common and widely regarded as acceptable.

When Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, stated his conviction that Islam was inferior to western civilisation a few months ago, little happened in terms of an official reaction. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham, among other prominent American men of the cloth, have attacked Islam as an "evil religion" and accused its followers of being "grossly misguided".

Surely in a world preoccupied by the "war on terror" - which targets Muslim countries, organisations and individuals - such remarks must be seen as a blatant incitement of racial and religious hatred, and a disgraceful offence to Muslims around the world. Some - the British government among them - may choose to disregard such "small matters", but they do so at their peril. Boykin has caused untold harm to any attempt to convince the Arab and Muslim worlds that the west, and particularly the US, approaches them with sincerity or goodwill. His remarks also fuel already strong feelings that "war on terror" is merely code for war on Islam.

Attempts to belittle the importance of such comments will undermine the efforts by the mainstream moderate Muslims around the world, and particularly in the west, to bring a sense of sanity to a world in the grip of war and unprecedented terror. They will confirm the US and its supporters as arch-enemies of Islam and thus endanger American and allied interests, personnel and installations around the world.

Boykin has already caused tremendous damage, but more carnage will follow if we choose to be selective about what we get angry about and what we disregard. Muslims in Britain will have noted the reaction to this incident. In a year which has seen relations between the generally Labour-voting Muslims and Tony Blair's government deteriorate, culminating in a shift of votes which contributed towards the recent Liberal Democrat win in Brent East, this was a golden opportunity for Downing Street to put things right. Unfortunately, it was an opportunity wasted.

Labour's decision to expel George Galloway, a figure who has been instrumental in promoting forgotten issues that are of great concern to Muslims and a champion of the British anti-war movement, was another blow to these relations. The government must realise that its failure to swiftly condemn an attack on the very essence of Islam effectively condones it.

· Anas Altikriti is director of media and public relations for the Muslim Association of Britain

User avatar
TestesInSac
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:04 pm

Post by TestesInSac » Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:16 am

Starting to tire of watching you pat yourself on the back while flaming people. Here's a little taste back.
KellY wrote:Well Harriet, although I'm glad to hear that Bush's behavior is cracking through your walls of inaction, I feel obligated to point out that you just "gave" your vote to a bunch of numbskulls who elected the Governator. (BTW, I don't automatically think Republicans are numbskulls, but I do think Ahnold was voted in by a bloc of morons who couldn't have cared less about his policies, they just wanted a macho icon to place above them. Mob rule, my friends...)
Here you demonstrate that you're *exactly* the kind of extremist partisan that mirrors the extremists that would never vote Democratic. Character assassination politics aside (which you apparently bought into lock, stock and barrel), Ahh-nold is still considered a moderate, to the distaste of extremists in the GOP, like McClintock. Your apparent inability to understand that makes your vote as much a mistake as the bible-thumpers.

KellY wrote:And hey, come on DeFacto, you gonna try and answer my questions? Can you? How about all you other folks who were patting yourselves on the back for not being taken in by foolishness of voting? Personally, I think you're like Herself - apathetic, too much trouble to pay attention to what's actually going on around you- but at least she comes out and admits it.
Herself is obviously far and away more observant than yourself, as she clearly sees just how confusing and often purposefully misleading the game of politics is. She is also clearly wise enough not to try and exercise power over stuff she has no understanding of.

I don't dispute that folks should educate themselves and vote on the basis of that education. But those that run on pure emotion, like yourself, do more harm than good because they radicalize the process. Maybe you should take a break from politics and get a few more years under your belt, for the sake of perspective.
I am my own sock puppet.

User avatar
tzimisce1313
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: san francisco bay area
Contact:

Post by tzimisce1313 » Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:26 am

when you vote for a man/woman, you're voting for a party platform. that's the way it works. no matter what the man/woman promises, they're still going to run on off the basic tenants set out by their own parties. so, the best way to be educated is to read up on each parties platform and vote that way.

User avatar
TestesInSac
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:04 pm

Post by TestesInSac » Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:40 am

tzimisce1313 wrote:when you vote for a man/woman, you're voting for a party platform. that's the way it works. no matter what the man/woman promises, they're still going to run on off the basic tenants set out by their own parties. so, the best way to be educated is to read up on each parties platform and vote that way.
That would be an oversimplification at best. Politicians regularly act contrary to their party's platform so long as it's to their personal benefit. One example is in legislative processes, where "logrolling" commonly crosses party lines.

Party platforms are also subject to change, particularly as the electorate changes. In CA, the GOP platform is now in flux, as (finally!) they're starting to catch on that by hewing to the wishes of religious extremists, they've been forsaking any chance of holding high office in CA.

Bottom line: individuals, not party platforms, make choices.
I am my own sock puppet.

User avatar
tzimisce1313
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: san francisco bay area
Contact:

Post by tzimisce1313 » Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:41 am

(meant for something else... can't delete)
Last edited by tzimisce1313 on Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tzimisce1313
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: san francisco bay area
Contact:

Post by tzimisce1313 » Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:45 am

TestesInSac wrote:
Bottom line: individuals, not party platforms, make choices.
however, there are also the politcal actio commitees who also help form individual decisions in the form of kick backs. a majority of the times the pacs work off of party platforms. so, then it goes back to the party platform issue.

you are correct the decision is unltimately up to the individual. which is why i think that there needs to be some concious minded individuals in politics. not ones that are willing to give the tax breaks to big business. they already know how to find the loopholes, they don't need anymore of a break.what really needs to stop in politics are the political action commitees.

User avatar
TestesInSac
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:04 pm

Post by TestesInSac » Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:54 am

tzimisce1313 wrote:what really needs to stop in politics are the political action commitees.
PACs, like lobbying in general, aren't inherently bad, IMO. They do tend to be driven, however, by some pretty myopic extremists that simply don't bother to consider what effect their advocacies will have on the rest of society. But it's the myopic extremism, rather than the existence of the PAC itself, that's the problem.
I am my own sock puppet.

User avatar
tzimisce1313
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: san francisco bay area
Contact:

Post by tzimisce1313 » Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:40 am

TestesInSac wrote: But it's the myopic extremism, rather than the existence of the PAC itself, that's the problem.
i totally agree with you on that. but then that begs the question, how to stop the extremists.

User avatar
TestesInSac
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:04 pm

Post by TestesInSac » Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:56 am

tzimisce1313 wrote:i totally agree with you on that. but then that begs the question, how to stop the extremists.
I think it's a choice the individual has to make. It's easy for most folks to get into a knee-jerk habit, especially via pet concerns, like the environment, abortion (pro or con), war, etc. And people have the annoying tendency to be pretty one dimensional, so a single hot-button issue can dominate their entire outlook.

For me, a good way of preventing that was to (rationally!) argue one side with someone, then switch sides in the argument. It can be tough, at first, but you do tend towards the center as you practice it.
I am my own sock puppet.

blyslv
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:22 pm
Location: Fanta Se NM

Post by blyslv » Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:57 pm

stuart wrote:wait a minute there K!

the first amendment to the constitution gaurantees the right of free speach to every last green dollar! And don't forget that every dollar is created equal like.
I feel a quibble coming on!

Case law divides speech into various content catagories, herein is a rough list, ordered according to the amount of protection they get --

Political speech and some conduct (broadly defined)

Commercial Speech (gets some protection, but can be curtailed or eliminated to advance a compelling government interest)

Fighting words (the famous ditum 'you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre).

This is an incomplete and un-nuanced list,but it gives you an idea of the analytic framework courts will use when deciding first amendment cases.
Fight for the fifth freedom!

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:59 pm

:roll:
even though...........

blyslv
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:22 pm
Location: Fanta Se NM

Post by blyslv » Mon Oct 27, 2003 2:01 pm

>>how to stop the extremists.

Often, the only recourse is a sound, bare bottom, over the knee spanking. Repeat as necessary.
Fight for the fifth freedom!

User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

Wake Up

Post by Chimp » Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:02 am

All this talk about voting will soon be irrelevant. If the people don't take a stand then Bush has already won the next election - What happened in Florida is going to go national and even if your name hasn't been purged from the electronic voting lists for jaywalking, you will basically be pushing a button on a screen that reads 'This machine is owned by a company that funds the republican party, you have just voted republican' - its meaningless, dangerous, corrupt and the possibly the final nail in the coffin of democracy.

I am not kidding. The new Help America Vote Act (HAVA) demands that every state replicate Florida's system of centralized, computerized voter files before the 2004 election. An even more serious problem lies inside the voting machines themselves. While representatives of Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia herald the benefits of their systems the truth is that any programmer can write code that displays one thing on a screen, records something else, and prints yet another. There is no known way to ensure that this is not happening inside of a voting system. Companies such as Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia, which manufacture the machines and provide the code that runs them, simply take a "trust us" approach. Using these machines is tantamount to handing complete control of vote counting to a private company, with no independent checks or audits.

Not only that but the people who run these compnies are far right christian freaks - Bob and Todd Urosevich founded American Information Systems. Bob is currently president of Diebold and Todd Urosevich is Vice President, AIS) was primarily funded with money from Ahmanson brothers, William and Robert, of the Howard F. Ahmanson Co. Howard Ahmanson belongs to Council for National Policy, a hard right wing organization and also helps finance The Chalcedon Institute. As the institute's own site reports, Chalcedon is a "Christian educational organization devoted to research, publishing, and promoting Christian reconstruction in all areas of life... Our emphasis on the Cultural or Dominion Mandate - 'Genesis 1.28'. If you value seperation of church & state this is scary stuff, these guys want to impose an Old Testemant society on the world - Diebold aside it is worth noting that ES&S has a connection to the Bush family. Jeb Bush's first choice as running mate in 1998 was Sandra Mortham who was a paid lobbyist for ES&S and received a commission for every county that bought its touch-screen machines.

I realise most of you guys realise the dangers of electronic voting and I have paraphrased a little here from a longer piece - but if you weren't aware, then you are now

"It's not the voting that's democracy, it's the counting."
Tom Stoppard

"If you want to win the election, just control the machines."
Charlie Matulka, Nebraska Senatorial Candidate

User avatar
PJ
Posts: 859
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:00 pm
Location: Colorado, The Other Rectangular State

Post by PJ » Tue Oct 28, 2003 7:17 am

Florida's Democratic party voters have proven themselves too stupid to vote using punch cards, and the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy controls the electronic voting machines' software.

Sometimes you just can't win.

User avatar
TestesInSac
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:04 pm

Post by TestesInSac » Tue Oct 28, 2003 9:12 am

Electronic vote counting and electronic money are the work of the right wing hegemony! End electronics now!
I am my own sock puppet.

User avatar
PJ
Posts: 859
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:00 pm
Location: Colorado, The Other Rectangular State

Post by PJ » Tue Oct 28, 2003 10:15 am

TestesInSac wrote:Electronic vote counting and electronic money are the work of the right wing hegemony! End electronics now!
Hey, waitaminute...wasn't Al Gore the master of all things high-tech and information-superhighway and, um, high-tech? So how come he's not the one controlling the voting machine software?

User avatar
stuart
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Post by stuart » Tue Oct 28, 2003 10:35 am

PJ wrote:
TestesInSac wrote:Electronic vote counting and electronic money are the work of the right wing hegemony! End electronics now!
Hey, waitaminute...wasn't Al Gore the master of all things high-tech and information-superhighway and, um, high-tech? So how come he's not the one controlling the voting machine software?
actually, that story was cooked up and disseminated by big Jim B.

User avatar
TestesInSac
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:04 pm

Post by TestesInSac » Tue Oct 28, 2003 11:22 am

PJ wrote:
TestesInSac wrote:Electronic vote counting and electronic money are the work of the right wing hegemony! End electronics now!
Hey, waitaminute...wasn't Al Gore the master of all things high-tech and information-superhighway and, um, high-tech? So how come he's not the one controlling the voting machine software?
Al Gore is a GOP <i>agent provocateur</i>. That's why Bush is pres. The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is even vaster than anyone thought.
I am my own sock puppet.

lurker
Posts: 607
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 12:23 pm

Post by lurker » Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:40 pm

Listen to yourselves--'if the elections don't go our way, what's the point of voting?' If you don't vote an election CAN'T go your way.

Of course, a lot of you who DO vote seem to think that if an election doesn't go your way there has to be some outside reason for it--vote fraud--the people are stupid--the people were duped--no one showed up

Never, not once, do you stop and consider that things didn't go your way because the majority of people reject your policies and the politicians who support them. Never do you take the time to reconsider your positions.

It's always someone else doing something...

And a fine example is citing Florida as an example of Republican vote fraud.

Read Dave Barry. Dave Barry. Not a political pundit. A humorist. He writes about vote fraud in Florida. Read his piece on the Miami mayoral race and maybe you'll begin to understand why the country doesn't feel that W 'stole' the election.

Here's a tip--the world isn't always like the media portray it--ALL the media. This includes things like indymedia and the international press--why accept the Guardian at face value and disparage the Washington Post? As far as I can tell the lunatic level at DU is about the same as with the freepers.

They ALL spin. All of them. Especially little partisan sites that desperately want to swing you away from 'big media'.

Don't vote. But remember that silence equals consent. Every time you fail to cast a ballot means one less vote for or against something that will affect you.

Voter apathy is the extremists best friend
"Life is like a box of razor blades. Sharp, shiny, and good for removing unwanted body hair"

User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

Post by Chimp » Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:03 am

As many as 15,000 Iraqis were killed in the first days of America's invasion and occupation of Iraq, a study produced by an independent US thinktank said yesterday. Up to 4,300 of the dead were civilian noncombatants.
The report, by Project on Defence Alternatives offers the most comprehensive account so far of how many Iraqis died.

The toll of Iraq's war dead covered by the report is limited to the early stages of the war, from March 19 when American tanks crossed the Kuwaiti border, to April 20, when US troops had consolidated their hold on Baghdad. Researchers drew on hospital records, official US military statistics, news reports, and survey methodology to arrive at their figures.

The new report, which estimates Iraq's war dead at between 10,800 and 15,100, uses a far more rigorous definition of civilian than the other studies to arrive at a figure of between 3,200 and 4,300 civilian noncombatants. It breaks down the combat deaths of up to 10,800 Iraqis who fought the American invasion. The figures include regular Iraqi troops, as well as members of the Ba'ath party and other militias. The killing was concentrated - with heavy casualties at the southern entrances of Baghdad - but as many as 80% of the Iraqi army units survived the war relatively unscathed, in part because troops deserted.

As many as 5,726 Iraqis were killed in the US assault on Baghdad, when the streets of the Iraqi capital were strewn with the bodies of people trying to flee the fighting. As many as 3,531 - more than half - of the dead in the assault on the capital were noncombatant civilians, according to the report.

The findings defy the reasoning that precision-guided weapons spare civilian lives. According to the author of the study, Carol Conetta, 68% of the munitions used in this war were precision-guided, compared with 6.5 % in 1991. However, he argued yesterday that his report demonstrated that sophisticated weaponry did not necessarily offer protection to civilians in war zones.

"Many of the recent wars have been fought with the notion of a new type of warfare that produce very low civilian casualties. What we see here is that in fact we don't have that magic bullet," he said.

"In this war in particular we see that improved capabilities in precision attacks have been used to pursue more ambitious objectives rather than achieve lower numbers of civilian dead."

· Source: Project on Defence Alternatives research / Story Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington, Wednesday October 29, 2003 The Guardian

User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

Post by Chimp » Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:26 am

A Press Review

Daily Telegraph
Editorial, October 28

"The rockets fired on Sunday at the hotel where Paul Wolfowitz, the US deputy defence secretary, was staying, and the attacks [on Monday] on the International Committee of the Red Cross and three police stations are graphic evidence of the allies' continuing failure to provide a secure environment in the country they have liberated ... Nearly six months after the ending of the second Gulf war, the occupying powers have yet to create conditions in which international aid agencies, let alone foreign investors, can have any confidence ...

"It can reasonably be argued that the attacks are the final convulsions of a Ba'athist remnant aided by foreign jihadis. The problem for the coalition is the negative impression which those convulsions give to foreigners who could help Iraq."

Los Angeles Times
Editorial, October 28

"President George Bush pledged on Monday that the US would 'stay the course' in Iraq. But his claim that the more progress the US makes, the more desperate the killers become, is far-fetched. US progress in turning lights back on, purifying water and opening schools will win support from most Iraqis and turn them against guerrillas who jeopardise the gain ... The guerrillas and the US agree on one thing: Iraqis must rule Iraq, and as soon as possible. But the rulers should not be Islamic radicals or [Saddam] Hussein thugs. They must be elected men and women leading a peaceful, stable country."

Die Welt
Editorial, Germany, October 28

"Saddam is probably controlling the underground with money ... infrastructure and weapons. But it is improbable that Saddam's partisans will succeed in preventing the reconstruction of Iraq. In reality, the good news, which mostly goes unheard, outweighs the bad. For example, the pipelines now transport twice as much oil as before the war. Iraq is once again on the economic map ...

"Giving up is not American ... The bigger the challenge, the stronger the response. In large parts of the world people know that Iraq is too important to leave it to face its own demons. Only the [German] chancellory, where a know-all attitude is worth more than statesmanship, looks on with its arms folded."

Toronto Star
Editorial, October 28

"With every passing day, Iraq becomes a bigger challenge than many Americans imagined ... Rather than deny that a problem exists, Mr Bush should invite the UN to assume political responsibility for restoring Iraqi sovereignty as quickly as possible, backed up by US firepower. The world should then provide the moral support, additional troops and resources needed to ... secure democratic self-rule."

Patrick Sabatier
Libération, France, October 28

"Vietnam! The word awakens the worst nightmares for Americans and is today being heard loudly in Washington ... [That] is chiefly because the US army seems, with each passing day, to be more firmly stuck on the banks of the Tigris, just as it was stuck on the banks of the Mekong, suffering the attacks of a guerrilla army that is becoming stronger and better organised. It is also because Mr Bush is obstinately pretending that everything is going, if not perfectly, then at least in the right direction, [which means he is] as blind or as deceitful as his predecessors during the Vietnam era ... Apocalypse Now is not yet being played out in Baghdad. But maybe tomorrow?"

Riyadh Daily
Editorial, Saudi Arabia, October 28

"The stark reality on the ground is that, at this stage, the coalition forces are needed in Iraq to prevent the country from sliding into total chaos. The majority of Iraqis are aware of this fact. While the occupation itself is not popular, the emphasis for the Iraqis, as of now, is more on getting their daily needs of water and electricity rather than on winning back their sovereignty. In fact, they may well be aware that with every blast, their goal of freedom is only pushed back further. This surely is the aim of the terror elements - to hamper all efforts to restore normalcy in Iraq. Their self-serving objective would need to be foiled by the Iraqis themselves."

Fouad Mardoud
Teshreen, Syria, October 28

"Today [Iraq] has no security, no democracy and the search for mass-destruction weapons has failed to find any of those alleged weapons. The country lives now in total chaos. US soldiers' main mission has been confined to protecting themselves. That is the bottom line of Mr Bush's record in Iraq ...

"It is urgently necessary for him now to re-examine why he has failed, and see how that failure provided [Israeli prime minister] Ariel Sharon ... with the opportunity to implement his aggressive policy in the occupied Palestinian territories and to escalate threats against other Arab countries - mainly Syria ... Does anyone believe that this trend will be reversed by more US measures? [The] message ... Mr Wolfowitz should be taking to Mr Bush [is]: there can be no security with occupation."

El Mundo
Editorial, Spain, October 28

"If the violence and the chaos continues, the occupying forces will have no alternative but to recognise that the struggle for Iraq is not over, that they are fighting a postwar war, a war of guerrilla tactics that is increasingly difficult to win ... The US would do well to think about whether now is the ... time to strengthen international support ... and the time to earn the wholehearted support of the Iraqi people with clear signs that its intention is not to appropriate its country's resources but to facilitate the path towards democracy and prosperity."

Jordan Times
Editorial, October 28

"That the attacks coincided with the first day of Ramadan might indicate the work of a self-proclaimed Islamist militant group, one of the many organisations smearing the name of religion to justify their terrorist actions ... Obviously, it will be difficult to establish who is responsible for the now almost daily attacks ... But this is going to be a long war, and the US is getting only a taste of the quagmire into which it plunged itself when it decided to bypass the UN and go to war without a shred of international legitimacy."

Gulf Times
Editorial, Qatar, October 28

"To attack a body that ... bears the holy symbols of the crescent and the cross - and to do it on the first day of the holy month of Ramadan - is an abomination. This crime has done more to legitimise the US occupation than anything that has happened in the last six months ... It was wrong of the US to attack Iraq. The consequence of that has been to create such instability that a forced allied withdrawal now could lead to the Afghanistanisation of Iraq, which would be a disaster for the region. Unpalatable though it is to contemplate foreign occupation of an Arab country, for the time being it seems to be the only possible alternative to chaos."

New York Post
Editorial, October 28

"As New Yorkers have particular reason to understand, the blood-drenched, radical-Islamic psychopaths who carried out [Monday's] atrocity have no regard whatsoever for human life - let alone 'humanitarian work' ...

"Clearly, the Red Cross has long been a target for the terrorists. How disgusting. Even the Nazis never stooped that low ... America and its allies cannot pull any punches. They must not shy away from action for fear of inciting Arabs and Muslims ... It was a major blow to the civilised world. But by no means was it fatal. The war on terror is, first and last, a high-stakes struggle of will. America didn't start it. But America has no choice but to win it."

Daily News
Editorial, New York, October 28

"We've been playing a little too nice in Iraq. We've been pacifying more than we've been taking care of business. We've been more culturally sensitive than is entirely a good thing for the safety of our troops ... Our aggression is insufficient. We're not punching hard enough ... It has now been nearly six months since [Mr Bush] declared major combat operations to have concluded. It's time to declare them resumed."

Daily Mirror
Editorial, October 28

"There are ways in which life is now better for the people of Iraq. But a country in which the people live in terror is a long way from being a country at peace. This situation has been created by the Americans - aided, sadly, by the British government. They rushed into war without thinking of the consequences. Only the fanatics ... want Saddam back. But something much better has to be put in place of his regime. Until it is, the bloody slaughter will go on."

The Guardian
Editorial, October 29

The scale of the bombings in Iraq in the past two days, the casualties they inflicted and their locations, should finally put an end to the coalition provisional authority's oft repeated mantra that things are getting better, despite much evidence to the contrary. The increasing tide of politically motivated violence should act as a wake-up call. It has been fuelled by a series of mistakes the occupiers have made since they symbolically toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein in Fardus Square on April 9.
The solution to the growing anarchy now threatening to engulf Iraq is political not military. For US forces to stop the growing momentum of the insurgency, they must convince the wider population that the occupation is temporary and that real power is being devolved to real Iraqis across the country.

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Wed Oct 29, 2003 4:33 am

Subject: Fw: Reelection Resume for George Bush
>Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:18:37 -0500
>
>
>Subject: Reelection Resume
>
> > RESUME
> > George W. Bush The White House USA
> >
> > EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE LAW ENFORCEMENT:
> > I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine in 1976 for
> > driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled
> > guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license
> > suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has
> > been "lost" and is not available.
> >
> > MILITARY:
> > I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL.
> > I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions
> > about my drug use.
> > By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to
> > avoid combat duty in Vietnam.
> >
> > COLLEGE:
> > I graduated from Yale University. I was a
> > cheerleader.
> >
> > PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
> > I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
> > I began my career in the oil business in Midland,
> > Texas in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't
> > find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt
> > shortly after I sold all my stock.
> > I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a
> > sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
> > With the help of my father and our right-wing friends
> > in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I
> > was elected Governor of Texas.
> >
> > ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR:
> > I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil
> > companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the
> > Union.
> > During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the
> > most smog-ridden city in America.
> > I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the
> > tune of billions in borrowed money.
> > I set the record for the most executions by any
> > Governor in American history.
> > With the help of my brother, the Governor of Florida,
> > and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I
> > became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.
> >
> > ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
> > I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing
> > cost of over one billion dollars per week.
> > I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted
> > the U.S. Treasury.
> > I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit
> > in U.S. history.
> > I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies
> > filed in any
> > 12-month period.
> > I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the
> > history of the
> > U.S.stock market.
> > I am the first president in U.S. history to enter
> > office with a criminal record.
> > I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in
> > any one year period.
> > After taking-off the entire month of August, I
> > presided over the worst security failure in
> > U.S.history.
> > I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical
> > Bunker Buster," a WMD.
> > In my State Of The Union Address, I lied about our
> > reasons for attacking
> > Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.
> > I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips
> > by a U.S. president.
> > In my first year in office over 2-million Americans
> > lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
> > I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a
> > 12-month period.
> > I appointed more convicted criminals to administration
> > than any president in U.S. history.
> > I set the record for least amount of press conferences
> > than any president since the advent of television.
> > I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S.
> > history and refused to intervene when corruption
> > involving the oil industry was revealed.
> > I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S.
> > history.
> > I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and
> > support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops
> > and their families -- in war time.
> > I have set the all-time record for most people
> > worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public
> > venues (15 million people) shattering the record for
> > protest against any person in the history of mankind.
> > I've broken more international treaties than any
> > president in U.S.history.
> > I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the
> > richest of any
> > Administration in U.S. history. My "poorest
> > millionaire," Condoles Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker
> > named after her.
> > I am the first president in U.S. history to order an
> > unprovoked,
> > pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a
> > sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the
> > United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the
> > world community.
> > I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the
> > largest bureaucracy in the history of the United
> > States government.
> > I am the first president in U.S. history to have the
> > United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights
> > Commission.
> > I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
> > I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S.
> > prisoners of war
> > detainees) and thereby have refused to abide by the
> > Geneva Convention.
> > I am the first president in history to refuse United
> > Nations election
> > inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
> > I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for
> > receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
> > My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of
> > my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the
> > largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S.history.
> > My political party used the Enron private jets and
> > corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S.
> > Supreme Court during my election decision.
> > I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton
> > against investigation or prosecution. More time and
> > money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky
> > affair than has been spent investigating one of the
> > biggest corporate rip-offs in history.
> >
> > I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the
> > World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later
> > made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the
> > largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
> > I am first president in history to have a majority of
> > Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest
> > threat to world peace and security.
> > I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals
> > to be awarded government contracts.
> > I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring
> > Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to justice.
> >
> > RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
> > All records of my tenure as Governor of Texas are now
> > in my father's library, sealed, and unavailable for
> > public view.
> > All records of SEC investigations into my insider
> > trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in
> > secrecy and unavailable for public view.
> > All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my
> > Vice-President, attended regarding public energy
> > policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for
> > public review.
> >
> > Please consider my experience when voting in 2004 -
> > Send this to every voter you know.
even though...........

User avatar
DE FACTO
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:02 am

Post by DE FACTO » Wed Oct 29, 2003 4:34 am

:roll:
even though...........

Post Reply

Return to “Open Discussion”