Why War?

[Lysergic]

So what has the anti-war movement done since then? Why aren't there protests every week, weekend, weekday???

Are you ignorant or just plain stupid? There are tons and tons of ways to affect the current situation we are all facing with the middle east. Who knows if any of it does a god damn good but there are many protests and forms of action every week in many cities across the world. They're not all organized together but nonetheless they exist. Hell supposedly writing your congress does a god damn good, but any of my attempts were responded with a template letter that basically said, thanks for your concern but we believe what we're doing is right so fuck off.

The most recent world wide protest were rallies being held around the world Saturday March 20th, the day after protests in Baghdad marked the anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

I use to attend weekly protests in Fort Collins, as well as other planned protests there. One time the cops forced everyone to leave or they were gonna start arresting and macing people. Since then I moved to a more conservative town where people like yourself don't give a shit about activism. There are also many online sites trying to organize an effective approach to many problems, not just the war on terrorism, but drugs, etc. If you can't find them, then you haven't done your homework, .

http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/
http://www.internationalanswer.org/
http://www.votenowar.org/

Refer to my question above... maybe he, Dick and Carl figured out that the anti-war movement had/has no teeth...

Yes, the reason is because there is no money in Peace.
PEACE IS NOT COST EFFECTIVE

No, not yet... so where did all those chemicals we sold them many years ago... go to? Hmmm? and if you believe we were wrong for selling them in the first place... take it a step further... don't we have a responsibility to clean up our own dirty laundry, so to speak?

First off all those chemicals we sold them long ago were suppose to eliminated, and there were inspectors making sure of this until Saddam told the UN to go fuck themselves and we put sanctions on the country killing millions of children. Furthermore I'm sure if he had any weapons, that he had plenty of time to disperse them to terrorist factions around the world, which doesnt help our situation out much now does it?
There is no way to clean our dirty laundry anymore, the whole fucking washer is broken, can't you see this?

Oh, I believe the USA will have a footprint in the middle east for the entire unforseeable future... but if we aren't there... someone less friendly than us would be there... maybe the Russians (and we all know they are kindly humanitarians)?

Um yea, like Americans are any better? Plenty of atrocities to go around!

Oh, you might be surprised how easily a full mobilization could be done... yup, every swinging richard and pair of breasts... DRAFTED! It could happen.

Yea everyone can be drafted to their death, but I'll tell you now I would never fight or die for something I didn't believe in. So I'll be one of the first to jump ship in that event.

I don't believe there were any appropriations refused due to the war... do you have cites?

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/ns03252003.cfm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... May26.html
etc, etc, etc

Got a solution in mind, or what?

Sure, a very easy one, a proactive not reactive involvement. Cut the military spending, audit the government, purge the fucking system, we need a revolution!

So politicians and the president aren't people... and corporations (properly spelled) are not comprised of people as your statement asserts?

God seriously, do I need to spell this shit out for you? OF COURSE they are comprised of people, but they are no longer acting in the interest of the people, the common people, the vast majority of people in this country! Its is no longer a government for the people by the people, its more like a government for the rich by the rich.

Well, I am glad to see you are taking a very mature approach to this issue.

Hell do you have any solutions? The current state of affairs is not unlike a snowball affect that will soon turn into an avalanche, if you wanna stand in front of it, so be it. I'd rather enjoy whatever precious amount of time living I have.

[cowboyangel]

Why war? Dick Cheney needs something to do (and Haliburton too)

[Simply Joel]

Are you ignorant or just plain stupid?

I am not ignorant, plain or stupid.

and as for replying to your post, I have ascertained, you don't merit another response from me on any subject... in fact I wouldn't relieve my bladder for your benefit if your guts were on fire.

Have a nice day.

[Simply Joel]

Who knows if any of it does a god damn good but there are many protests and forms of action every week in many cities across the world. They're not all organized together but nonetheless they exist. Hell supposedly writing your congress does a god damn good, but any of my attempts were responded with a template letter that basically said, thanks for your concern but we believe what we're doing is right so fuck off.

Did you begin your letters by saying...

"Are you ignorant or just plain stupid? "

Hardly a method by which to get your point across.

The most recent world wide protest were rallies being held around the world Saturday March 20th, the day after protests in Baghdad marked the anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Wow, over 90 days ago... that really makes me sit up and think.

I use to attend weekly protests in Fort Collins, as well as other planned protests there. One time the cops forced everyone to leave or they were gonna start arresting and macing people.

So, you move on in an orderly manner... planning the next march right?

or do you just accept it as defeat and go get a cold beer and think it better to relax?

Since then I moved to a more conservative town where people like yourself don't give a shit about activism.

Does this mean you think in terms of a herd mentality? "Gee no one around supports what I think... maybe i'll go get a beer."

There are also many online sites trying to organize an effective approach to many problems, not just the war on terrorism, but drugs, etc. If you can't find them, then you haven't done your homework, .

http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/
http://www.internationalanswer.org/
http://www.votenowar.org/

I am not looking outward for the solution.

Yes, the reason is because there is no money in Peace.
PEACE IS NOT COST EFFECTIVE

Capitulation is not cost effective either.

First off all those chemicals we sold them long ago were suppose to eliminated, and there were inspectors making sure of this until Saddam told the UN to go fuck themselves and we put sanctions on the country killing millions of children. Furthermore I'm sure if he had any weapons, that he had plenty of time to disperse them to terrorist factions around the world, which doesnt help our situation out much now does it?

So, you agree... Saddam Hussien was a threat to world peace?
Actually, I was thinking your actions (actually "in-action"), attitudes (negative by what i have read) and efforts are as much to blame for the current situation as anything I have stated.

There is no way to clean our dirty laundry anymore, the whole fucking washer is broken, can't you see this?

No, I don't see it from your perspective.

Um yea, like Americans are any better? Plenty of atrocities to go around!

Yes, I must concur... sometimes attrocities do happen... and then corrective action is taken...

Yea everyone can be drafted to their death, but I'll tell you now I would never fight or die for something I didn't believe in. So I'll be one of the first to jump ship in that event.

I can honestly say, I don't think you would fight and die for antyhing, whether you believe in it or not... I don't believe you are of the character of which "fighters for a cause" come from.

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/ns03252003.cfm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... May26.html
etc, etc, etc

Checked your cites... <yawn>

Sure, a very easy one, a proactive not reactive involvement. Cut the military spending, audit the government, purge the fucking system, we need a revolution!

But, what if people flock to the street against your revolution? Will there be helicopters, soldiers and police? What if conservatives move to a liberal town and feel they can't say anything because "the cops forced everyone to leave or they were gonna start arresting and macing people."

and by the way, those folks at the AFL-CIO won't take kindly to having their jobs taken away by the revolution. (reference to the cite above)

God seriously, do I need to spell this shit out for you? OF COURSE they are comprised of people, but they are no longer acting in the interest of the people, the common people, the vast majority of people in this country! Its is no longer a government for the people by the people, its more like a government for the rich by the rich.

I don't accept your observations as reality, of which I am entitled to... in a free society like this one.

Hell do you have any solutions?

Yes... quit whining and do something constructive.
Regarding Iraq... escalation is my answer.
Regarding whining 18-36 year olds... National Service Corps on the scale of the WPA and a mandatory tour of the third world.

The current state of affairs is not unlike a snowball affect that will soon turn into an avalanche, if you wanna stand in front of it, so be it.

I actually see the (current state of affairs) human experience, of which i am part, as that... human with all its problems. Not ice crystals moved by gravity down a slope.

I'd rather enjoy whatever precious amount of time living I have.

So, cold beer and inaction are the call of the day. best wishes... watch out for avalanches.

[Simply Joel]

Why war? Dick Cheney needs something to do (and Haliburton too)

An answer closer to the truth than you and I would like to think.

Of course, I am not putting words into your mouth.

[DVD Burner]

Why war?

Because idiots like war and
Because there are more idiots than there are smart people.

[Lysergic]

Idiots that like war:
Lysergic:0
Joel:1

Idiots that hate war:
Lysergic:1
Joel:0

Case in point.

[Simply Joel]

Please provide a cite or reference where I actually siad I supported war?

Does an example of your assertions exist?

[Rob the Wop]

Why war?

All the taste of your regular undeclared armed conflict with only half the calories!!

Because Mikey liked it!

It's the warfare of champions!

War! What's in your tank?



Could it be because governments tend to have the rich and powerful provide the greatest influence, and in a capitalistic society this represents corporate interests and shareholder profits? And that the transition of influence from the original 'well-intentioned' forefathers of governments to the rich and powerful has occured throughout history? And that 'resource allocation'- be it oil, agriculturally rich lands, water, precious metals, peasant labor, or just plain land- tends to become a major part of the rich and powerful's agenda?

Nnnnaaaaahhhhh, that's too easy.

I blame it on Clinton. That rat bastard!
(Oh, he's not in office anymore?)
I blame it on Bush. That rat bastard!
(Oh, he'll probably lose to Kerry come November?)
I blame it on Kerry. That rat bastard!

[cowboyangel]

wars of today are started by cowards, fought by the young and the brave maintained by corporations and finished by whenever.....

[Simply Joel]

wars of today are started by cowards, fought by the young and the brave maintained by corporations and finished by whenever.....

and it appears if you are one of the above identified, you must be a spectator.

please check your answer and re-submit.

[Simply Joel]

wars of today are started by cowards, fought by the young and the brave maintained by corporations and finished by whenever.....

and it appears if you are not one of the above identified, you must be a spectator.

please check your answer and re-submit.

is was supposed to read as corrected here.

[cowboyangel]

please send me some of your corn derived spirits

[Simply Joel]

please send me some of your corn derived spirits

I will see what i can do.

[Simply Joel]

THE WAR WE ARE IN

Fri Aug 20,11:23 PM ET
By William F. Buckley Jr.

Back home in Commentary magazine, Norman Podhoretz has written a mighty essay, descriptively titled "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win." Podhoretz is careful in his use of language, so that when he writes of World War IV he isn't just using a racy metaphor. We are at war, nothing less -- with radical Islamic individuals and aggregations.

We are contending with them most forthrightly in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they fester everywhere in the Islamic world, and we have, Podhoretz warns, no alternative but to persevere in the war. Wage it we must, but there is always the possibility of losing it. If we do, Commentary magazine will have a lot to say about it all, if it still exists.

Podhoretz gives us, in this long and ambitious essay, the history of the world wars we have engaged in. He doesn't linger for very long on World War II, since its causes were, finally, as plain as the dawn light over Pearl Harbor. He does linger over the near-immediate conversion to the cause of war of the isolationist right after Dec. 7, 1941.

His focus moves then to the next great political consolidation, which came with the defeat of the capitulationist Henry Wallace movement in 1948 and the consolidation in support of the Truman Doctrine. That was World War III, which ended four decades later with the implosion of the Soviet system beginning in 1989. There had been weaknesses and there had been faltering, even during the stewardship of Ronald Reagan, he reminds us. But we made it, and waited happily around a few years for the beginning of World War IV, which was ignited on Sept. 11, 2001.

Podhoretz examines trenchantly and with concern the subsequent movement of the dissidents. At first, the national unity was galvanizing. Doubts about our raw military prowess were speedily dismissed with the stunning victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, giving us the conquest of Baghdad and the dissolution of Saddam's army at (in military terms) minimal cost.

But our undertaking, as outlined by President Bush in his Sept. 20, 2001, speech to a joint session of Congress and elucidated in following months in three major speeches, including the State of the Union address, confronted more than the orthodox and relatively simple military challenge. Wars have a more contracted shelf life in the public patience than was so in years gone by. Nobody expected that the war against Hitler would quickly be over, and there was no lesion of public support for it. Podhoretz reminds us that even the Vietnam War met with overwhelming approval for three years. But this time the twitchiness began less than a year or so after our offensive launch in Iraq. The critics began not merely to carp, but to question the legitimacy of our aims -- and, even, the motives of the president.

The opposition broadened its base rapidly. "What we saw developing," Podhoretz writes, "was a broader coalition than the anti-war movement spawned by Vietnam had managed." It was seconded "by all the Democratic candidates in the presidential primaries, except for Joseph Lieberman." Giving quotations, Podhoretz marvels at the temperament of the opposition. "I never imagined that the new anti-war movement would so rapidly arrive at the stage of virulence it had taken years for its ancestors of the Vietnam era to reach."

Such sharp shifts in sentiment here might have been anticipated by considering sentiment in the area of the world in which we were making our stand. A poll published in Kuwait more than two months before 9/11 suggested that "69 percent of Kuwaitis, Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians think bin Laden is an Arab hero and an Islamic jihad warrior."

Where do we go from here? Podhoretz tells why the re-election of Bush is enduringly important if we are to persevere in the war that has been declared against ideals with which we were associated in the three preceding world wars. Podhoretz himself has had profound insights in the past 30 years, speaking wisely and prophetically. He has grounds now to sound the tocsin, but also to express hope.

Radical Islam is not going to renounce what we take to be its ways. But there is, says Podhoretz, a "very good chance that a clearing of the ground, and a sowing of the seeds out of which new political, economic and social conditions could grow (in the Mideast), would gradually give rise to correlative religious pressures from within. Such pressures would take the form of an ultimately irresistible demand on theologians and clerics to find warrants in the Quran and the sharia under which it would be possible to remain a good Muslim while enjoying the blessings of decent government, and even of political and economic liberty."

The alternative in November is the election of an ambiguist as president, who would weaken our purpose while enlivening the combative resources of a radical Islamic community that never rose up against the savagery of a great despot, and that now celebrates not those who put him away, but those who seek to emulate him.

more on podhoretz

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conver ... -con0.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml? ... _Podhoretz

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm

[Simply Joel]

August 31, 2004
THE AIRWAVES
Long Stifled, Iraqis Make Most of Chance to Vent on Talk Radio
By SABRINA TAVERNISE

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 26 - A housewife calls to talk about a broken sewer pipe. A student calls to talk about a lost love. A shopkeeper calls to say what he thinks of the violent insurgency that has swept his country.

The callers have reached Iraq's first talk radio station, Radio Dijla, which opened in April and has been putting Iraqis' opinions directly on the air, mainlining democracy from a two-story villa in central Baghdad for 19 hours a day.

In all, about 15 private radio stations have sprung up since the American occupation began, but Dijla, Arabic for Tigris, is the first to serve only talk. The station is one of the most listened-to in Baghdad, according to its employees, a claim that appears to have merit, judging by its broad following among the city's taxi drivers, housewives, students and late-night listeners, who tune in to a night talk show about relationships.

The station receives an average of 185 calls an hour, far more than it can handle, according to its owner, Ahmed al-Rakabi, who said he planned to purchase more telephone lines to accommodate callers.

Most calls are about the nuts and bolts of life. Many public services have not recovered since the American occupation began more than a year ago. Daily power failures persist. Piles of trash are heaped on city streets. In poorer areas, leaky sewage pipes taint water supplies.

"Iraqi citizens have big problems, but nobody listens to them," said Haidar al-Ameen, 34, a businessman, who listens to Dijla while driving. "If I have no gun, there is no one who is going to listen to me. The government has no time to listen."

The station forces the government to make time. Local and federal officials come as guests and are grilled by listeners. The talk shows result in uncomfortable situations, which would have been unheard of in the time of Saddam Hussein, when government officials were royalty and ordinary citizens were mere supplicants who were easily ignored.

On a recent Thursday, callers from the Mansour neighborhood here questioned its local government leader, Ali Laaibi, about one of life's basic necessities.

"Why aren't there any garbage trucks?" a woman asked in an urgent voice. "It's been so long since anyone came to take out the garbage."

Another woman added, "Please, I don't know where to throw the garbage," and said she had even followed someone she had mistakenly thought was a garbage collector.

Mr. Laaibi squirmed, trying to reassure the callers that he did in fact have a plan. "We've got 13 million garbage bags and we're going to give them out to people," he said.

Beyond easing the frustrations of daily life, the station provides a real chance for Iraqis to talk publicly about politics for the first time in decades. Listeners' calls open a window onto the lives of Iraqis, whose opinions often go unheard in the frantic pace of bombings, kidnappings and armed uprisings.

"After 35 years of people not being able to say what they wanted, we need something that can translate our feelings," said Imad al-Sharaa, a news editor at the station.

One such program was broadcast June 30, the day before Mr. Hussein first appeared in court. The program director and host, Majid Salim, asked listeners what they wanted to see happen to him. The answer was something of a surprise for Mr. Salim.

"Most people wanted him executed," Mr. Salim said.

Another time, he asked listeners what they thought about the insurgency that has roiled Iraq, claiming most of the energies of the new interim government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and putting the American occupation in danger of failure.

"We asked them, is it terrorism or is it resistance," he said. "A very large proportion, almost 100 percent, said terrorism. They did not like it."

In the time of Mr. Hussein, Iraqi stations other than the official state station were forbidden. Even so, dedicated listeners like Mr. Ameen secretly tuned in to the Voice of America and the BBC. Those days are still fresh for Mr. Salim, who was a host at a station called Youth Radio run by one of Mr. Hussein's sons. Callers were prerecorded, and content was censored.

"Now I'm free to say anything I want," Mr. Salim said.

The radio's staff is overwhelmingly young, which Mr. Salim said was a policy of the station from its inception in April. Women in hejabs, the Islamic headdress, and high heels click around the office. Sound engineers move mice at computers.

Employees like Mr. Sharaa, who is 26, bring a fresh sense of optimism to the station. He also writes for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting in London. He said he had been interested in politics from the age of 12, but was not able to apply any of that knowledge until now.

"Saddam Hussein wanted to destroy educated people," he said over a bowl of soup in the radio station's kitchen. "I wanted people to be able to hear voices. We wanted to show people that Iraqis are able to learn languages and work on the Internet."

The station was started with seed money from the Swedish government. Its founder, Ahmed al-Rakabi, the former chief of the American-financed Iraqi Media Network, was born in Prague in 1969, after his family was forced to leave Iraq to escape repression under Mr. Hussein.

On the station's first day, Mr. Salim simply sat at the microphone and asked listeners what they wanted to talk about. Now, in addition to the government official call-in shows, the station has programs in which lawyers answer questions. It also has a program led by clerics, both Sunni and Shiite, which invites callers to discuss religious differences.

The late-night show in which people call in to dedicate songs and discuss their relationships is particularly popular. The topic is a racy one in Iraq, which has become more conservative since the 1980's, when Mr. Hussein, in an effort to appease religious leaders here, required stricter adherence to religious rules.

One night a few weeks ago, a woman called to confess that her boyfriend of four years had just married her closest friend, after she introduced them several weeks before, Mr. Salim said. Listeners called to offer sympathy for the betrayal.

Mr. Ameen welcomes such public heart-to-hearts.

"Let everyone talk," he said. "All of Iraqis in different lines must talk, must talk under sun, not in secret."

Zainab Hussein contributed reporting for this article.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Simply Joel]

September 14, 2004

Hawk vs. Hawk
By DAVID BROOKS

The debate on how to proceed in Iraq is not between the hawks and the doves: it's within the hawk community, and it's between the gradualists and the confrontationalists.

The gradualists argue that it would be crazy to rush into terrorist-controlled cities and try to clean them out with massive force because the initial attack would be so bloody there'd be a debilitating political backlash.

The terrorists would fight as long as there were heart-wrenching scenes of dead children on satellite TV, then would melt away to fight another day. And if the U.S. did take control of, say, a newly destroyed Falluja, we would find that we didn't have enough troops to control the city and still hunt down terrorists elsewhere. We'd end up abandoning the city (as we have other places), and the terrorists would just take control again. We'd be back where we started.

There is a reason, the gradualists point out, that counterinsurgency wars have tended to take a decade or more. They can be won only with slow, steady pressure. The better course, they continue, is to allow some time to train and build up Iraq's own security forces, and allow some time for the interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, to build up a base of anti-insurgent political support. The lesson of Vietnam is that you can't win these wars via military means. You have to build a political structure that organizes public support and mix it with military might.

The gradualists point to what just happened in Najaf as their model for how the Iraq war should proceed. First, Allawi laid down tough conditions: that Moktada al-Sadr's militia had to go. Then he convinced many of the locals that their lives would be better without lawless thugs in their midst. Then the U.S. attacked and weakened the terrorists. Then Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani brokered an agreement that led to the re-establishment of government control. Now development aid can flow to Najaf again. Aid projects worth roughly $6 million are resuming, and $37 million more is on the way.

Najaf, the gradualists argue, showed it's possible to marginalize the extremists and rally the decent majority. Now the task is to build on that success in other towns, and slowly rob the terrorists of sanctuaries.

The confrontationalists can't believe the Bush folks, of all people, are waging a sensitive war on terror. By moving so slowly, the U.S. is allowing terror armies to thrive and grow. With U.S. acquiescence, fascists are allowed to preen, terrorize and entrench themselves.

Moreover, they continue, there's no reason to think the Najaf model will work in Sunni cities, where we don't understand and can't exploit the local rifts, where there is no Sistani figure to come in at crucial moments.

In Sunni cities, the so-called moderates may make deals with Allawi, but they break them just as quickly - or else are beheaded by the terrorists. Members of the Falluja Brigade, who were supposed to take the city from the terrorists, switched over and joined the other side.

The gradualist approach, the confrontationalists conclude, has allowed terror to thrive. Now there are about 100 attacks a day. U.S. troops find themselves engaged in a modulated half-war in which they engage the enemy enough to suffer casualties, but not enough to win. The Iraqis are demoralized because it doesn't look as if the country will be pacified in time for full national elections, and because without security there can be no economic development - only more misery and more terror. U.S. troops are demoralized because if they are going to hit the enemy, they want to hit the enemy hard.

The gradualists clearly have the upper hand within the Bush administration. When administration officials talk about Iraq, they emphasize that this is a deliberate process, leading to elections in January but continuing long after. But when pressed, they tend to search for some compromise approach, emphasizing political solutions in places like Sadr City and the military approach in Falluja.

It's depressing to realize how strong the case against each option is. But the weight of the argument is on the gradualist side. That's mostly because people like Ayad Allawi deserve a chance to succeed. These people in the interim government are scorned as stooges and U.S. puppets, but they're risking and sometimes giving their lives for their country. Let's take the time to give them a shot.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[samtzu]

Joel wrote:

We'd end up abandoning the city (as we have other places), and the terrorists would just take control again. We'd be back where we started.

Hey! I remember that policy. One of my favorites in Vietnam. We'd 'work' the area during the day, when the 'insurgents' were sleeping snugly in their tunnels (we'd try to be quite and not disturb them). Then they would come out at night after we left and party down. The policy was called Containment. Ah... Vietnam...

Hey! Didn't we lose that one?

[Simply Joel]

Joel wrote:

We'd end up abandoning the city (as we have other places), and the terrorists would just take control again. We'd be back where we started.

Hey! I remember that policy. One of my favorites in Vietnam. We'd 'work' the area during the day, when the 'insurgents' were sleeping snugly in their tunnels (we'd try to be quite and not disturb them). Then they would come out at night after we left and party down. The policy was called Containment. Ah... Vietnam...

Hey! Didn't we lose that one?

It was a lose-lose situation... they lost militarily, we lost politically...

[samtzu]

A friend of mine had a great tee-shirt that read:

South East Asia War Games
1954-1974
Second Place

I loved that shirt...

[Simply Joel]

September 21, 2004

Following is a transcript of President Bush's speech at the United Nations today, as recorded by Federal News Service Inc.

Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Thank you for the honor of addressing this General Assembly. The American people respect the idealism that gave life to this organization. And we respect the men and women of the U.N., who stand for peace and human rights in every part of the world.

Welcome to New York City. And welcome to the United States of America. During the past three years, I've addressed this General Assembly in a time of tragedy for our country, and in times of decision for all of us. Now we gather at a time of tremendous opportunity for the U.N., and for all peaceful nations. For decades the circle of liberty and security and development has been expanding in our world. This progress has brought unity to Europe, self-government to Latin America and Asia and new hope to Africa. Now we have the historic chance to widen the circle even further, to fight radicalism and terror with justice and dignity, to achieve a true peace, founded on human freedom.

The United Nations and my country share the deepest commitments. Both the American Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaim the equal value and dignity of every human life. That dignity is honored by the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, protection of private property, free speech, equal justice and religious tolerance. That dignity is dishonored by oppression, corruption, tyranny, bigotry, terrorism and all violence against the innocent. And both of our founding documents affirm that this bright line between justice and injustice, between right and wrong, is the same in every age and every culture and every nation.

Wise governments also stand for these principles for very practical and realistic reasons. We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace. We know that oppressive governments support terror, while free governments fight the terrorists in their midst. We know that free peoples embrace progress and life instead of becoming the recruits for murderous ideologies.

Every nation that wants peace will share the benefits of a freer world. And every nation that seeks peace has an obligation to help build that world. Eventually there is no safe isolation from terror networks or failed states that shelter them or outlaw regimes or weapons of mass destruction. Eventually there is no safety in looking away, seeking the quiet life by ignoring the struggles and oppression of others. In this young century, our world needs a new definition of security. Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence or some balance of power, the security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind.

These rights are advancing across the world. And across the world, the enemies of human rights are responding with violence. Terrorists and their allies believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Bill of Rights and every charter of liberty ever written are lies to be burned and destroyed and forgotten. They believe the dictators should control every mind and tongue in the Middle East and beyond.

They believe that suicide and torture and murder are fully justified to serve any goal they declare. And they act on their beliefs. In the last year alone, terrorists have attacked police stations and banks and commuter trains and synagogues and a school filled with children. This month in Beslan, we saw once again how the terrorists measure their success: in the death of the innocent and in the pain of grieving families. Svetlana Deibesov (ph) was held hostage, along with her son and her nephew. Her nephew did not survive. She recently visited the cemetery and saw what she called the little graves. She said, I understand that there is evil in the world, but what have these little creatures done?

Members of the United Nations, the Russian children did nothing to deserve such awful suffering and fright and death. The people of Madrid and Jerusalem and Istanbul and Baghdad have done nothing to deserve sudden and random murder. These acts violate the standards of justice in all cultures and the principles of all religions. All civilized nations are in this struggle together, and all must fight the murderers. We're determined to destroy terror networks wherever they operate, and the United States is grateful to every nation that is helping to seize terrorist assets, track down their operatives and disrupt their plans.

We're determined to end the state sponsorship of terror, and my nation is grateful to all that participated in the liberation of Afghanistan. We're determined to prevent proliferation and to enforce the demands of the world, and my nation is grateful to the soldiers of many nations who have helped to deliver the Iraqi people from an outlaw dictator. The dictator agreed in 1991 as a condition of a cease-fire to fully comply with all Security Council resolutions, then ignored more than a decade of those resolutions.

Finally, the Security Council promised serious consequences for his defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say serious consequences, for the sake of peace there must be serious consequences. And so a coalition of nations enforced the just demands of the world. Defending our ideals is vital, but it is not enough. Our broader mission as U.N. members is to apply these ideals to the great issues of our time.

Our wider goal is to promote hope and progress as the alternatives to hatred and violence. Our great purpose is to build a better world beyond the war on terror. Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have established a global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. In three years, the contributing countries have funded projects in more than 90 countries and pledged a total of $5.6 billion to these efforts. America has undertaken a $15 billion effort to provide prevention and treatment and humane care in nations afflicted by AIDS, placing a special focus on 15 countries where the need is most urgent.

AIDS is the greatest health crisis of our time and our unprecedented commitment will bring new hope to those who have walked too long in the shadow of death. Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have joined together to confront the evil of trafficking in human beings. We're supporting organizations that rescue the victims, passing stronger anti-trafficking laws and warning travelers that they will be held to account for supporting this modern form of slavery. Women and children should never be exploited for pleasure or greed anywhere on Earth. Because we believe in human dignity, we should take seriously the protection life from exploitation under any pretext.

In this session, the U.N. will consider a resolution sponsored by Costa Rica calling for a comprehensive ban on human cloning. I support that resolution, and urge all governments to affirm a basic ethical principle: No human life should ever be produced or destroyed for the benefit of another. Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have changed the way we fight poverty, curb corruption and provide aid.

In 2002, we created the Monterrey Consensus, a bold approach that links new aid from developed nations to real reform in developing ones. And through the Millennium Challenge Account, my nation is increasing our aid to developing nations that expand economic freedom and invest in the education and health of their own people. Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have acted to lift the crushing burden of debt that limits the growth of developing economies and holds millions of people in poverty.

Since these efforts began in 1996, poor countries with the heaviest debt burdens have received more than $30 billion of relief. And to prevent the build-up of future debt, my country and other nations have agreed that international financial institutions should increasingly provide new aid in the forms of grants rather than loans. Because we believe in human dignity, the world must have more effective means to stabilize regions in turmoil and to halt religious violence and ethnic cleansing.

We must create permanent capabilities to respond to future crises. The United States and Italy have proposed a global peace operations initiative. G-8 countries will train 75,000 peacekeepers, initially from Africa, so they can conduct operations on that continent and elsewhere. The countries of the G-8 will help this peacekeeping force with deployment and logistical needs.

At this hour, the world is witnessing terrible suffering and horrible crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan, crimes my government has concluded are genocide. The United States played a key role in efforts to broker a cease- fire, and we're providing humanitarian assistance to the Sudanese people. Rwanda and Nigeria have deployed forces in Sudan to help improve security so aid can be delivered. The Security Council adopted a resolution that supports an expanded African Union force to help prevent further bloodshed and urges the government of Sudan to stop flights by military aircraft in Darfur. We congratulate the members of the council on this timely and necessary action.

I call on the government of Sudan to honor the cease-fire it signed and to stop the killing in Darfur. Because we believe in human dignity, peaceful nations must stand for the advance of democracy. No other system of government has done more to protect minorities, to secure the rights of labor, to raise the status of women or to channel human energy to the pursuits of peace. We've witnessed the rise of democratic governments in predominantly Hindu and Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish and Christian cultures.

Democratic institutions have taken root in modern societies and in traditional societies. When it comes to the desire for liberty and justice, there is no clash of civilizations. People everywhere are capable of freedom and worthy of freedom. Finding the full promise of representative government takes time, as America has found in two centuries of debate and struggle. Nor is there only one form of representative government because democracies, by definition, take on the unique character of the peoples that create them.

Yet this much we know with certainty: The desire for freedom resides in every human heart. And that desire cannot be contained forever by prison walls or martial laws or secret police; over time and across the Earth, freedom will find a way. Freedom is finding a way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we must continue show our commitment to democracies in those nations. The liberty that many have won at a cost must be secured.

As members of the United Nations, we all have a stake in the success of the world's newest democracies. Not long ago, outlaw regimes in Baghdad and Kabul threatened the peace and sponsored terrorists. These regimes destabilized one of the world's most vital and most volatile regions. They brutalized their peoples in defiance of all civilized norms.

Today the Iraqi and Afghan people are on the path to democracy and freedom. The governments that are rising will pose no threat to others. Instead of harboring terrorists, they're fighting terrorist groups. And this progress is good for the long-term security of all of us. The Afghan people are showing extraordinary courage under difficult conditions.

They're fighting to defend their nation from Taliban holdouts and helping to strike against the terrorist killers. They're reviving they're economy. They've adopted a constitution that protects the rights of all, while honoring their nation's most cherished traditions. More than 10 million Afghan citizens, over 4 million of them women, are now registered to vote in next month's presidential election. To any who still would question whether Muslim societies can be democratic societies, the Afghan people are giving their answer.

Since the last meeting of this General Assembly, the people of Iraq have regained sovereignty. Today in this hall, the prime minister of Iraq and his delegation represent a country that has rejoined the community of nations. The government of Prime Minister Allawi has earned the support of every nation that believes in self-determination and desires peace. And under Security Council Resolutions 1511 and 1546, the world is providing that support.

The U.N. and its member nations must respond to Prime Minister Allawi's request and do more to help build an Iraq that is secure, democratic, federal and free. A democratic Iraq has ruthless enemies because terrorists know the stakes in that country. They know that a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a decisive blow against their ambitions for that region.

So a terrorist group associated with Al Qaida is now one of the main groups killing the innocent in Iraq today, conducting a campaign of bombings against civilians and the beheadings of bound men. Coalition forces now serving in Iraq are confronting the terrorists and foreign fighters so peaceful nations around the world will never have to face them within our own borders. Our coalition is standing beside a growing Iraqi security force.

The NATO alliance is providing vital training to that force. More than 35 nations have contributed money and expertise to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. And as the Iraqi interim government moves toward national elections, officials from the United Nations are helping Iraqis build the infrastructure of democracy.

These selfless people are doing heroic work and are carrying on the great legacy of Sergio de Mello. As we've seen in other countries, one of the main terrorist goals is to undermine, disrupt and influence election outcomes. We can expect terrorist attacks to escalate as Afghanistan and Iraq approach national elections.

The work ahead is demanding, but these difficulties will not shake our conviction that the future of Afghanistan and Iraq is a future of liberty. The proper response to difficulty is not to retreat; it is to prevail. The advance of freedom always carries a cost paid by the bravest among us. America mourns the losses to our nation and to many others.

And today I assure every friend of Afghanistan and Iraq and every enemy of liberty, we will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled. These two nations will be a model for the broader Middle East, a region where millions have been denied basic human rights and simple justice.

For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. The oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations.

This commitment to democratic reform is essential to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, tolerate corruption and maintain ties to terrorist groups.

The long-suffering Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve true leaders capable of creating and governing a free and peaceful Palestinian state. Goodwill and hard effort can achieve the promise of the road map to peace. Those who would lead a new Palestinian state should adopt peaceful means to achieve the rights of their people and create the reformed institutions of a stable democracy.

Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel. Israel should impose a settlement freeze, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people and avoid any actions that prejudice final negotiations. And world leaders should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause.

The democratic hopes we see growing in the Middle East are growing everywhere. In the words of the Burmese democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi, We do not accept the notion that democracy is a Western value. To the contrary, democracy simply means good government rooted in responsibility, transparency and accountability.

Here at the United Nations, you know this to be true. In recent years, this organization has helped to create a new democracy in East Timor and the U.N. has aided other nations in making the transition to self-rule.

Because I believe the advance of liberty is the path to both a safer and better world, today I propose establishing a democracy fund within the United Nations. This is a great calling for this great organization. The fund would help countries lay the foundations of democracy by instituting the rule of law and independent courts, a free press, political parties and trade unions.

Money from the fund would also help set up voter precincts in polling places and support the work of election monitors. To show our commitment to the new democracy fund, the United States will make an initial contribution. I urge all other nations to contribute as well.

I have outlined a broad agenda to advance human dignity and enhance the security of all of us. The defeat of terror, the protection of human rights, the spread of prosperity, the advance of democracy: These causes, these ideals call us to great work in the world. Each of us alone can only do so much. Together we can accomplish so much more.

History will honor the high ideals of this organization. The Charter states them with clarity: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, to promote social progress and better standards of life and larger freedom. Let history also record that our generation of leaders followed through on these ideals, even in adversity. Let history show that in a decisive decade, members of the United Nations did not grow weary in our duties or waver in meeting them.

I'm confident that this young century will be liberty's century. I believe we will rise to this moment because I know the character of so many nations and leaders represented here today, and I have faith in the transforming power of freedom. May God bless you.

[Lysergic]

Bush is satan, 666!
You're a sheep, baahah!

[Simply Joel]

Bush is satan, 666!
You're a sheep, baahah!

cites?

[samtzu]

Joel wrote:

Lysergic wrote:

Bush is satan, 666!
You're a sheep, baahah!

cites?

Revelations Chap. 7?

[Simply Joel]

Joel wrote:

Lysergic wrote:

Bush is satan, 666!
You're a sheep, baahah!

cites?

Revelations Chap. 7?

http://www.awitness.org/biblehtm/re/re7.htm

THE BIBLE
Revelations
Chapter 7

7:1 After this, I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth, or on the sea, or on any tree.

7:2 I saw another angel ascend from the sunrise, having the seal of the living God. He cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was given to harm the earth and the sea,

7:3 saying, "Don't harm the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, until we have sealed the bondservants of our God on their foreheads!"

7:4 I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred forty-four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the children of Israel:

7:5 Of the tribe of Judah were sealed twelve thousand, Of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand, Of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand,

7:6 Of the tribe of Asher twelve thousand, Of the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand, Of the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand,

7:7 Of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand, Of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand, Of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand,

7:8 Of the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand, Of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand, Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes, peoples, and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands.

7:10 They cried with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation be to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"

7:11 All the angels were standing around the throne, the elders, and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before his throne, and worshiped God,

7:12 saying, "Amen! Blessing, glory, wisdom, thanksgiving, honor, power, and might, be to our God forever and ever! Amen."

7:13 One of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are arrayed in white robes, who are they, and from where did they come?"

7:14 I told him, "My lord, you know." He said to me, "These are those who came out of the great tribulation. They washed their robes, and made them white in the Lamb's blood.

7:15 Therefore they are before the throne of God, they serve him day and night in his temple. He who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them.

7:16 They will never be hungry, neither thirsty any more; neither will the sun beat on them, nor any heat;

7:17 for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne shepherds them, and leads them to springs of waters of life. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."

[Lysergic]

Actually I was referencing revelations chapter 13
Chapter 13

13:1 Then I stood on the sand of the sea. I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads. On his horns were ten crowns, and on his heads, blasphemous names.

13:2 The beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority.

13:3 One of his heads looked like it had been wounded fatally. His fatal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled at the beast.

13:4 They worshiped the dragon, because he gave his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"

13:5 A mouth speaking great things and blasphemy was given to him. Authority to make war for forty-two months was given to him.

13:6 He opened his mouth for blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his dwelling, those who dwell in heaven.

13:7 It was given to him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. Authority over every tribe, people, language, and nation was given to him.

13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been killed.

[Simply Joel]

Joel wrote:

Lysergic wrote:

Bush is satan, 666!
You're a sheep, baahah!

cites?

Revelations Chap. 7?

Actually I was referencing revelations chapter 13

so which one is applicable to those of us that are non-Christian?

[samtzu]

Well, I bow to Lysergic on that... I was drawing from a rather leaky memory and it looks like I had slipped down about six chapters... sorry.

Joel wrote:

so which one is applicable to those of us that are non-Christian?

Both are... if you're a Christian... neither one, if you're not.

[Simply Joel]

September 28, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Insurgency Buster
By DAVID BROOKS

Conditions were horrible when Salvadorans went to the polls on March 28, 1982. The country was in the midst of a civil war that would take 75,000 lives. An insurgent army controlled about a third of the nation's territory. Just before election day, the insurgents stepped up their terror campaign. They attacked the National Palace, staged highway assaults that cut the nation in two and blew up schools that were to be polling places.

Yet voters came out in the hundreds of thousands. In some towns, they had to duck beneath sniper fire to get to the polls. In San Salvador, a bomb went off near a line of people waiting outside a polling station. The people scattered, then the line reformed. "This nation may be falling apart," one voter told The Christian Science Monitor, "but by voting we may help to hold it together."

Conditions were scarcely better in 1984, when Salvadorans got to vote again. Nearly a fifth of the municipalities were not able to participate in the elections because they were under guerrilla control. The insurgents mined the roads to cut off bus service to 40 percent of the country. Twenty bombs were planted around the town of San Miguel. Once again, people voted with the sound of howitzers in the background.

Yet these elections proved how resilient democracy is, how even in the most chaotic circumstances, meaningful elections can be held.

They produced a National Assembly, and a president, José Napoleón Duarte. They gave the decent majority a chance to display their own courage and dignity. War, tyranny and occupation sap dignity, but voting restores it.

The elections achieved something else: They undermined the insurgency. El Salvador wasn't transformed overnight. But with each succeeding election into the early 90's, the rebels on the left and the death squads on the right grew weaker, and finally peace was achieved, and the entire hemisphere felt the effects.

I mention this case study because we are approaching election day in Afghanistan on Oct. 9. Six days later, voter registration begins in Iraq. Conditions in both places will be tense and chaotic. And in Washington, a mood of bogus tough-mindedness has swept the political class. As William Raspberry wrote yesterday in The Washington Post, "the new consensus seems to be that bringing American-style democracy to Iraq is no longer an achievable goal." We should just settle for what John Kerry calls "stability." We should be satisfied if some strongman comes in who can restore order.

The people who make this argument pat themselves on the back for being hard-headed, but the fact is they are naïve. They've got things exactly backward. The reason we should work for full democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is not just because it's noble, but because it's practical. It is easier to defeat an insurgency and restore order with elections than without.

As we saw in El Salvador and as Iraqi insurgents understand, elections suck the oxygen from a rebel army. They refute the claim that violence is the best way to change things. Moreover, they produce democratic leaders who are much better equipped to win an insurgency war.

It's hard to beat an illegitimate insurgency with an illegitimate dictatorship. Strongmen have to whip up ethnic nationalism to lure soldiers to their side. They end up inciting blood feuds and reaping the whirlwind.

A democratically elected leader, on the other hand, can do what Duarte did. He can negotiate with rebels, invite them into the political process and co-opt any legitimate grievances. He can rally people on all sides of the political spectrum, who are united by their attachment to the democratic idea. In Iraq, he can exploit the insurgents' greatest weakness: they have no positive agenda.

Of course the situation in El Salvador is not easily comparable to the situations in Afghanistan or Iraq. On the other hand, over the past 30-odd years, democracy has spread at the rate of one and a half nations per year. It has spread among violence-racked nations and to 18 that are desperately poor. And it has spread not only because it inspires, but also because it works.

It's simply astounding that in the United States, the home of the greatest and most effective democratic revolution, so many people have come to regard democracy as a luxury-brand vehicle, suited only for the culturally upscale, when it's really a sturdy truck, effective in conditions both rough and smooth.


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Simply Joel]

DEMOCRACY AHEAD?

Mon Sep 27,12:48 AM ET
By William F. Buckley Jr.

Prime Minister Allawi of Iraq has entered a huge theoretical question into the picture. What, he asked, in visiting with President Bush, would happen if indeed there was not full participation in the elections scheduled for January? So it's an imperfect world. One has to get on with what one has.

The generality is easily communicable. Everything of this world is worldly. Still, a democratic exercise presupposes comprehensiveness in at least one dimension. It may be that, as within the United States for about 100 years, the black vote was undercounted. But there was never an election in which specified geographic areas were disfranchised. If you insist that the validation of democracy requires a vote by the entire community of voters, you run into an immediate problem, inasmuch as less than one-half the eligible voters -- in the United States -- actually vote; so that the political exercise isn't a clinically established confirmation of the people's will.

But Dr. Allawi is venturing very far from that kind of cavil. When the Constitution of the United States was up for ratification, the language specified that when nine of the states had signed on, the government of the United States would be promulgated -- never mind those states that had not ratified. Thus, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Vermont were left free, in 1789, to make their own arrangements, while the new constitution had sway over its constituent members.

It sounds, in theory, perfectly reasonable. Dr. Allawi enumerated: There are 18 provinces in Iraq, and "14 to 15 are completely safe." Three are "pockets of terrorists." And they, of course, seek to subvert Islamic self-rule elsewhere.

The analysis ran head-on into political criticism from Senator Kerry. His point being in two parts, the first that the situation is so fluid, it can't be predicted what would be the affirmative provincial constituency of the new Iraqi government. The second, that the insurgents are growing in power and authority and that neither Dr. Allawi, nor his sponsor the United States, has devised reliable means of stopping this. President Bush took the occasion to repeat that if in the estimate of commanders on the scene more troops were needed to maintain order, more troops would be dispatched.

Meanwhile, the internal political scene is agitated. The ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who is the unchallenged leader of the Shiite community, professes a general dissatisfaction with electoral arrangements, but is interpreted as saying in effect that any election that fails to return a Shiite majority can't faithfully reflect reality, inasmuch as the Shiites now constitute 60 percent of the population. But Shiite ascendancy is done at the cost of the Sunni, who, through the Baath Saddamite wing, exercised power for so many years.

The quarrel is over the electoral ballot, with precedence being given to those names that appear higher on the list of candidates. But in order to influence or effect any redesign, political power must be exercised, and the betting is that al-Sistani will not boycott the election, since that would result in eliminating, or reducing, Shiite influence on the outcome.

The whole thing does appear a bit like a mock convention. At Washington and Lee University, every four years, students devote themselves almost full-time to a convention that will nominate the Democratic and Republican "candidates." There is lobbying, there are votes on political alternatives -- and its entrepreneurs reflect with satisfaction that in most years, the students correctly anticipate what in due course happens in the real election.

It pays to remind ourselves that working democracies depend for their existence on one thing, one thing alone. It is the submission of the minority. When that isn't forthcoming, as in the United States in 1860, confederations break apart.

Dr. Allawi eloquently described the historical narrative. "I stand here today as the prime minister of a country emerging finally from dark ages of violence, aggression, corruption and greed."

His devout hope is that Iraq can move forward from its past, but to succeed, the insurgents need to be discredited and neutered, and the great surviving units must ratify a constitution from which no province can abstain, and which, above all, divides church and state.