MERGED: Talking about a revolution + London says NO!

[hiphop]

verte76

 

[verte76]

verte76

Damn. How'd I screw up this time?? Sorry.

 

[verte76]

Let me try that one again, maybe this one will make some sense. The Swiss business community is home to alot of talk of cutting a deal with Saddam to leave Iraq, with a democratic form of government installed in Iraq. This idea also has alot of support in the Middle East, far more than the U.S. war idea does. This way the Middle East won't get blown up and they'll get rid of Saddam to boot. I'm no lover of Saddam Hussein. The guy is a . He's treated the Kurds and other Iraqui minorities like . This is not cool. The Swiss business community is hardly noted for any sort of radical political leanings. If you hate taxes and a strong centralized government, you'll love Switzerland. They only pay 10% of their taxes to a centralized government. They also have a damn good idea for solving the crisis in Iraq if you ask me.

 

[hiphop]

You actually meant that serious! Wow.

Never heard of the Swiss business community. What about a website to provide more info on this exile option?

Plus, would a majority of Iraqis agree (I think maybe yes)?

Plus, how should the operation be planned and executed?

 

[verte76]

You actually meant that serious! Wow.

Never heard of the Swiss business community. What about a website to provide more info on this exile option?

Plus, would a majority of Iraqis agree (I think maybe yes)?

Plus, how should the operation be planned and executed?

I read about it in the news. Sorry, don't remember the source. For shame. The report mentioned business people in Geneva, Zurich, and Zug, the canton that's home to the richest man in Switzerland. This was after they won a petition for tax cuts. For more information ask the Swiss.
*need to research the damn thing, right??*
*now you know why I belong in PLEBA*

 

[hiphop]

Maybe you belong in PLEBA too (unlike me) but you belong in FYM as well, imo. Stay with us! We got a lot of good stuff going on

 

[verte76]

Maybe you belong in PLEBA too (unlike me) but you belong in FYM as well, imo. Stay with us! We got a lot of good stuff going on

Thanks! I'm starting my research. Good grief, there must be a hundred political parties in Switzerland. Their names are in four languages, too, none of which I speak. Seriously there are at least twenty parties! Good grief! Democracy is alive and well in this country!!

 

[verte76]

I should mention that I'm currently taking killer cold pills for a flu attack. Flu is an occupational hazard for a library worker. It's probably causing brain damage. I haven't mentioned that I do hate Saddam as much as anybody, think he's a and needs to get his kicked.

 

[hiphop]

The fun thing about Switzerland is that, like you say, they got one of the most democratic systems in the world. Which means that they have got a civil society which really takes part in politics. Many many issues are decided upon voting, its not only the government they vote on, and then (like in very many systems) this government does what it wants throughout all the election period. No, for nearly every important issue politicians have to ask all the country! This is expensive, but the Swiss society can afford this organization, and its well worth it.

 

[verte76]

The fun thing about Switzerland is that, like you say, they got one of the most democratic systems in the world. Which means that they have got a civil society which really takes part in politics. Many many issues are decided upon voting, its not only the government they vote on, and then (like in very many systems) this government does what it wants throughout all the election period. No, for nearly every important issue politicians have to ask all the country! This is expensive, but the Swiss society can afford this organization, and its well worth it.

It is cool. The thing that makes researching Switzerland so darn hard is the fact that it has 24 educational systems, one for each canton, and they're all in a language I don't read!! Each canton sort of has its own spin on the country's history. A friend of my dad's is from Switzerland. He knows everything there is to know about the place. He's the one who told me about the tax cut petition in Zug. They got enough signatures, and by God, they got a huge cut in their taxes. I was a history major in school, and Switzerland was one tough place to research for a linguistic klutz.

 

[us3]

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/

For a brief period in the 80s there were 2743 Benetton stores per block in most big cities; then they all went away. Before the tide receded I bought one jacket with big pointy 80s shoulders - very Jetsonesque. It was the only item they ever sold I liked. I didn?t miss them when they went away. Few did. Whatever ache their departure created was filled by the Gap, which provided plain simple American clothes more suited to our national temperment - jeans, white shirts, sturdy sweaters. Benetton?s ?controversial? ads came later, and for most of us in flyoverland they seemed like tourism brochures from a country that didn?t exist anymore.

The other day I saw some Benetton ads featuring liberated Afghanis - one showed a young woman who, according to the copy, could now go to school. I was curious if Benetton had put out ads protesting the Afghan war, and was now piggybacking on the fall of the Taliban to sell some sweaters. I didn?t find anything, but Google spat up a profile in the Grauniad about Berlusconi. It made me grin:


Oliviero Toscani, former creative director of Benetton, first met the new prime minister in the 1960s, when Berlusconi was starting in the construction business. "The key to him is that he's a guy of the 1950s," Toscani says. "The 1960s went over his head. Tony Blair and even George Bush are hippies compared with him. His big dream is Frank Sinatra in Pal Joey: the lover, the yachts, the songs, the white silk scarf, the hat tilted back, the jokes. He is very charismatic, but that kind of person can be dangerous for a democracy.?

Yeah, whatever. Democracies are ever in peril from guys who like jokes, songs and Sinatra, because that?s just the sort of thing that leads to death camps and suspension of elections. Start gassin? the Jews / I?m leader today / I?ll make a brand new Reich of it / in old New York. The key lines are: ?he?s a guy of the 1950s. The 1960s went over his head.?

Over his head. The complex, subtle nature of ?68, with its riots and tear gas and sit-ins and rain of paving stones escaped him. Unlike the rest of the European leaders who came of age in that spasm of adolescent pique, he takes his cues from the post-war / pre-68 idea of manhood: boozy charm and finger-snapping cool, coat draped over the shoulder. Hey, pally.

Of course he sides with America.

Caveats: I don?t like Sinatra much; I think he?s overrated. I like his earlier material, when he was Frankie, not Frank. (I really don?t have much time for Liza, but her version of ?New York New York? taken from Scorcese?s movie of the same name, is the version of the song, period, end of discussion; Sinatra just walks through it.) The Rat Pack holds no particular charm for me either - they were smirky overgrown boys, selfish, drunken, casually cruel. That?s what we know now, anyway. But at the time they summed up the post-war, post-Ike, pre-hippie male Id - they were cynical but romantic (meaning, they knew how to get dames like Angie Dickinson into the hay), they were loose and playful without being silly and ridiculous. They looked as sharp as sharks and drank like fishes. They had steak for breakfast and lobster for supper, and when the dessert came it was on a silver cart, brother, and it had better be on fire. If you couldn?t light your Winston from your peaches flamb?, well, what was the point of being an American, anyway?

If this is your model, of course the 60s will go ?over your head.? The appeal of sitting around in a garrett printing up Che posters and listening to the Byrds will not be immediately apparent.

It reminds you that there are several concepts of America to which people respond - the classical Founding-Father model, with the sour-faced guys in white stockings proclaiming universal rights; the unapologetic post-war era of boozy alpha-male swank; and the modern youth & consumerism model that appalls the anti-globos and transfixes those who live under punitive regimes. We?re all these things at once. We?re the Axis of Elvis.

I didn?t write anything about the weekend rallies because - well - what is there to say, really? There are people out there who think the US is equivalent to Nazi Germany, and have the placards to prove it. What a shock. I did write something about a sad photo that showed a young kid with a placard reminding us that ?Israel has weapons of mass destruction too? but the fact that some people twist their kids to believe this swinish drivel isn?t a surprise, either. More to the point - If Israel did not have nukes, and the Arab states were building up armies right now and threatening a war, you wouldn?t see millions in the street protesting; many of those people capering about for ?peace? would feel a red trill of glee in their hearts if Syrian forces crashed into Tel Aviv.

No surprise: there are lots of people out there whose viewpoint I find contemptible. The West is the problem, they insist. The US is the locus of perfidy. A mad cabal of oilmen and Jews jerk the string of a jug-eared dullard so they can kill Iraqi babies. And so forth. I know, I know, not everyone in the rally believes this, perhaps not even most. Just because the Spartacists march in your rally and hold up signs supporting North Korea doesn?t mean anyone else believes in their twisted cause. But mass movements have a way of being hijacked by the ardent few, the ones who are damned dead serious about overturning the established order and oiling up the guillotine to deal with the undecided. Their work is made easier by comfortable dilettantes who think it?s funny to call Bush a Nazi - or who march without comment beside someone who does.

The Spartacists won?t prevail; I?m not suggesting that we saw Western liberal democracies dissolving before our eyes. There are millions in Europe who hate the US - oh, stop the presses. There are millions of people who believe that tyrants should always be handled with the delicate tongs of democracy - well, blow me down. ?It is time to think about human rights, not money? I heard one French protester say on the news. ?War is not the answer to war.? If it weren?t for the autonomous nervous system, some of these people would die because they?re too stupid to remember to breathe. War is always the answer to war if war is brought down upon you. Evil requires resistance. If a man in a crowd grabs your child from your arms, you do not wonder what brought him to this moment, or petition the city council for a resolution requiring him to hand over the skeletons of his previous victims. You stab him in the eyeball with your car keys.

No, no, no, NO; I?m not saying all antiwar voices are vile or imbecilic. As I keep saying over and over and over again there are sensible arguments against the war, and while I don?t agree with them I understand how smart, reasonable people believe that war is not the proper course. To be honest, though: lately I say this more out of habit than conviction. It?s become something I feel obligated to say, because I do want to make a distinction between the sensible dissenters and the moral cripples who superimpose Bush?s face on bin Laden?s head and proclaim the president the real terrorist. But the dissenters? arguments grow thinner every day. No amount of Iraqi intransigence will dissuade the antiwar crowd from their belief that inspections will find everything eventually. They seem to think the US will apply the requisite military pressure for however many years it takes to disarm Iraq. Even if we find all the bugs, all the poison juice and nuke fuel, their best-case scenario still leaves Saddam and his sons in power. Yes, I?ve heard the argument that lifting the sanctions will lead to a prosperous society that will rise up and overthrow Saddam. Someday.

It'll be on page A8 of your paper: Iraqi unrest underscores Uday's difficulty in asserting his authority. Six years later in the New Yorker we'll read an account of the uprising, complete with smuggled photos of a chemical attack on a rebellious Shiite city.

There was an editorial in the Strib last Saturday that summed it up for me - it stated with perfect clarity the mindset I cannot share. It concerned Powell?s impassioned remarks at the UN, and concluded with these words:

In effect, Powell should challenge the Security Council to call Saddam?s bluff. If unity can?t be achieved around such an approach, the United States and its coalition partners might have no choice but to strike at Iraq.

So far so good. No argument from me. But now comes the stunner:

But the dangers of doing so without UN approval are so grave and real that they approach in seriousness the possibility that Saddam is still in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

This. Makes. No. Sense. It?s not even apples and oranges; it?s apples and grenades. Do any of us doubt that Saddam has weapons capable of making thousands of human beings double over, geyser blood from their mouths and die in asphyxiated agony? No? Well, consider this: deposing this dead-eyed sociopath and his thuggish clan of rape-happy killers might be right, but doing so without a grudging thumbs-up from his European trading partners approaches in seriousness the possibility that Saddam is still in possession of WMD.

If you believe this, you see two visions of the future: in one, Saddam is defeated, his weapons destroyed, his people freed. In the other, you see the UN reduced to irrelevance.

And you can?t quite decide which one is worse.

 

[hiphop]

Nice peace of propaganda, us3. Good to know you didn?t write that yourself. Typical journalist stuff, like

"Start gassin? the Jews / I?m leader today / I?ll make a brand new Reich of it / in old New York. The key lines are: ?he?s a guy of the 1950s. The 1960s went over his head.?"

"A mad cabal of oilmen and Jews jerk the string of a jug-eared dullard so they can kill Iraqi babies."

"If it weren?t for the autonomous nervous system, some of these people would die because they?re too stupid to remember to breathe."

?Israel has weapons of mass destruction too? but the fact that some people twist their kids to believe this swinish drivel isn?t a surprise, either."

"a distinction between the sensible dissenters and the moral cripples"

This journalist knows very well how to manipulate his readers.

The first effect of this article is that you feel coooool, because with all those 50s remarks, hey we are the boys, oh and the Benetton stuff, he neither knows 68, like

1) I don?t like Sinatra much, I think he?s overrated (wow! I am cooler than Sinatra!),

2) the classical Founding-Father model, with the sour-faced guys in white stockings ?(we all know they?re outdated, thats history, innit, but we are cooler than sour faces and white stockings, after all we?re modern)

and so on, blargh blargh.

It gives you the general impression: yeah, yeah... those words are so well written in their cynicism, I am as cooool as this journalist, so I agree with what he says.

The second manipulation is the aggressivity in the words, I have posted some examples above. This aggressivity makes you angry, somewhere, inside. Angry on Saddam. Angry on Iraq. Angry with the peaceniks who don?t know what they?re talking about, bc after all the journalist and me are the cool ones, we know the ways this world is turning, we know what its about.

Congratulations, us3, for eating that piece of shit.

The author has surely read a lot by Goebbels.

I got another scene: The UN not being reduced to irrelevance, and Saddam attacked by Iraqis, not by the US.

 

[hiphop]

And another question, us3:

James Lileks? Never heard of that guy, but he really pisses me off. Which hole did he creep out? Didn?t know MPLS had shit like that.

 

[U2Bama]

Whoa, whenhiphopdrovethebigcars! I'm not a moderator or anything, so I am not trying to scold you, but isn't that a bit harsh to accuse us3 of "eating shit" for merely posting, or even potentially agreeing with, an article that you do NOT agree with? To me that article is no different that the satirically offensive Michael Moore columns that liberal Americans post and conservative Americans cringe at, or the Marxist-inspired Arundhati Roy coumns that international leftists post that even strike a disaffectionate chord with American liberals.

I've been reading this page as I can lately, but not posting much. I can fully understand the anti-war sentiment that is prevalent around here; in fact, I expect it. But I find the trend of encouraging a suppression of "pro-war" or "pro-military action" or "pro-U.S." thoughts to be a bit disturbing and disappointing. It is not coming from the moderators or administrators and fortunately I do not see them following through on it. But quite often, left-leaning members will post something and attempt to LIMIT what kind of responses someone can counter it with.

Too often I have seen people post something and go ahead and single sting2 out and tell him, in other words, not to post his usual rationale (violation of UN resolutions). I admit we are all familiar with sting2's reasons for supporting a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, but those ARE his reasons for it. Yes, it is only ONE SET of reasons, but it has consistenly been his reasoning and he feels that it justifies military action. He has not changed it nor come up with anything new, and I do not see any need to for this reason:

Sting2 may have only ONE single reason to support action against Iraq (I have other, completely different reasons than sting2 & President Bush), but there are usually MANY risks to taking an action, so all of you who disagree with him will undoubtedly have a laundry list of reasons, all of which I consider valid and worthy of consideration and debate.

Why don't you just ask sting2 to leave the web-based community known as www.interference.com? or seek to have him banned? Oh, I forgot, he hasn't committed any violation aside from remaining consistent with his opinion, thus, "repeating the same old propaganda" in every thread about Iraq.

Some of you have been "pre-emptively" telling conservatives not to post in your threads and what-not; you can say what you want in your threads and attempt to fashion them as you wish (I guess), but maybe you shouldn't post such threads in a forum called "Free Your Mind." Maybe we should set up a forum called "Brain Fart" or something, I don't know.

I admit - I have seen many of my conservative brethren "misbehave" as well over the 2.5 years I have been around here. Some left, some were banned, some are still around and I even lose my edge sometimes and get pissed off. Some pop in at the most random times (whatever happened to Lemonite anyway?). I cannot make excuses for such behavior nor will attempt to "spin" it. That is not my art. My art is playing the guitar and I cannot do that right now because I have 6 stitches in my left hand and that is the hand with which I form chords; all I can form is an E minor.

I recall a day when a potpourri of interferencers such as 80sU2IsBest, bonovista, Crzy4bono, melon, trash can, and numerous, numerous others - all of whom had different views - could discuss divisive issues in a classy manner because they all considered each other to be friends. Today, I see people pointing out that they are NOT friends in here. I miss the spirit of friendship in this place. I sould also like to state that it sickens met to see someone whom I have always respected and enjoyed attack a banned interferencer behind their back. But I think this was addressed by an excellent administrator in another forum.

I have no anger or hatred or vengeance towards any of you. I love this place and I love everyone in this forum and do not wish harm on anyone in the world. We just have different opinions on solutions to world crises, and I think it would be much better to civilly debate issues and allow ALL sides to present their cases (there are never TWO sides to a story - there are usually MANY sides). Anything else is a personal form of censorship.

Let me quote with one of my favorite quotes from a modern-day politician, spoken at a climax of bitter partisanship in the halls of the U.S. Senate:

What is sorely needed around here is much more getting along and much less getting even. The poisonous partisanship that has pervaded this place on both sides of the aisle must end.

-Senator Zell Miller, Democrat from Georgia, May 23, 2001

~U2Alabama

 

[gvox]

 

[Kieran McConville]

If I had to take a wild punt I'd say the left-right divide here is about even. I recall plenty of nastiness now and in the past, started by both sides. If I were to take another wild punt I'd say that the right has drifted further to the right, thus making a number of frankly middle-of-the-road posters appear left-wing. Which, really they aren't.

 

[verte76]

There are some really good posts! It really isn't true that anti-war people are pro-Saddam. God forbid. I support the about like I supported Slobodan Milosevic. We had an insufferable Serbian troll on one of my Eastern European history listservers. Ugh. We banned the . During the war in Kosovo some idiot shot a woman who was nursing a baby. The whole thing was one big nightmare for me. I kept hoping the troops would take Milosevic out and stop the atrocities, but it didn't happen. I couldn't imagine white-washing the Greater Serbia Atrocity Campaign From Hell. But some people did. Ugh.

 

[Dreadsox]

Nice post Bama.

 

[anitram]

Too often I have seen people post something and go ahead and single sting2 out and tell him, in other words, not to post his usual rationale (violation of UN resolutions). I admit we are all familiar with sting2's reasons for supporting a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, but those ARE his reasons for it. Yes, it is only ONE SET of reasons, but it has consistenly been his reasoning and he feels that it justifies military action. He has not changed it nor come up with anything new, and I do not see any need to for this reason:

Some of you have been "pre-emptively" telling conservatives not to post in your threads and what-not; you can say what you want in your threads and attempt to fashion them as you wish (I guess), but maybe you shouldn't post such threads in a forum called "Free Your Mind." Maybe we should set up a forum called "Brain Fart" or something, I don't know.

I'm assuming you're talking in general terms, because I started this thread, and at no time did I ask anybody, on this thread nor any other of mine to not post a response or to only post responses that are to my liking.

I agree with your points, but I'd expand to say that there has also been a tendency recently to hijack threads to one own's liking. Sometimes not all roads lead to UN resolutions or to pacifism, right?

 

[verte76]

Nice post Bama.

Yes indeed. Excellent.

 

[STING2]

Great Post BAMA! Thank You!

 

[deep]

Bama,

I wish a speedy and full recovery to your injured hand.

 

[diamond]

Bama
great articulation,
great form,
grand message..

diamond
imnotbanned
bruno

 

[U2Bama]

Thanks, y'all, but it's really just what has been on my mind lately. And anitram, it was very much a general observation and I have never seen you employing the tactic of response control. I think you post your opinions as you feel lead to, and although I do not always agree with you, your perspective is valuable to this forum.

And I see your point about hijacking threads, and we should all try to draw the line somewhere. The problem is, most of the "anti-war" commentaries and such theat people paste or link in here inevitably make some mention of Mr. Hussein and Iraq and all too often lead to those ol' UN resolutions which we should all know by memory now.

And deep, I went to get my stiches removed on Tuesday (the scheduled day) and after removing 3 of the 6 stitches, they determined them to not yet be healed and they superglued the wound. It is a very flexible and motive part of my hand, the stretchy flap between the thumb and index finger, and it is thus difficult to keep it stable. The remaining stitches and glue are to be removed Sunday.

~U2Alabama

 

[hiphop]

Excuse me U2 Bama, but I didn?t accuse us3 of posting this article, I just wondered about how anyone can find the above-mentioned article a well-written piece, when Lileks obviously uses the rhetoric techniques mentioned above to make people believe in what he says.

So, "congratulations for eating that shit" wasn?t meant to sound like "how come you take the right to post shit like that" (anyone has the right to post what he wants) but more meant like "how can you think this is a great article with all this (in my eyes, primitive) propaganda inside".

I surely wouldn?t compare Lileks to A. Roy, given that A. Roy has expressed a lot of worthwile facts in his speech (even though I agree there was some rhetorics too, but they didn?t seem hateful to me) whereas Lileks just seems to have a will to manipulate readers by using his techniques. This means, I didn?t learn anything new by the Lileks article, no new arguments, no new facts - whereas A. Roy has mentioned very interesting facts, f.e. the situation in India, upcoming privatization of natural resources like water, etc.

Just my opinion.

I?m not in any way "encouraging a suppression of "pro-war" or "pro-military action" or "pro-U.S." thoughts". I have never recieved any warning from moderators, and I have never reported anything to moderators, I think thats childish and therefore I avoid it. I think mods and admins spend enough of their time on interference doing more useful things than having to react to insults of FYM posters.

"Some of you have been "pre-emptively" telling conservatives not to post in your threads" - did I ever do that? Surely not.

If you were referring to me - because you were starting your post with my name - I remember that one time, in one thread, I said something like "Please not the usual comments that have nothing to do with what this thread is about" (like against "hijacking" the thread, which I may be guilty of too, by posting this answer as a reaction to your thoughts) but at the same time I was telling everyone , including "conservative" members like STING2, to go ahead and post whatever they want if they really feel the need to do so. So, this may be a suggestion and a will of what I would like to see, but its not censorship, because everyone is free to post what he wants in FYM anyway, in my understanding.

I would like to conclude that by any means, I respect the "conservative" members of this board just like the "not-so-conservative" ones. There are numerous examples you can find in my FYM history that I don?t base my opinions on assumptions whether someone seems "conservative" or not.

 

[hiphop]

Let me add that I?m very sorry for the pain you must have with your hand. I had a wound sometime at the same part of my hand, but was lucky to not be injured severly. I hope you will feel fine soon.

 

[us3]

Whenhiphopdrovethebigcars,

It was not my intent to post something incendiary and offensive, I am sorry.

As for myself, I am not angry with the anti-war protestors, (nor Iraq for that matter).
However, some protestors trouble me with their signs comparing Bush, Blair et al, to Hitler. When in reality the only one who has gassed anybody is Saddam. I am troubled by the fact that nowhere (that I have seen) they?re any voices, or signs, speaking out against Saddam.

I find it disturbing that leaders from one of the main organizers ANSWER have a consistent history of supporting oppression by regimes of tyranny, China and Tiananmen, Kim IL in North Korea (to name a few), and that they would censor someone like Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun for merely publicly expressing some opposing views to ANSWER.

It is evident to me that the Iraqi people will never be able to rid themselves of Saddam given his internal security forces and their ability to inflict terror and torture on anybody who might oppose him.

In the past I have been encouraged by some to provide my own thoughts when posting, or in lieu of, articles that I find surfing the Internet. Sharing your perspective has helped me to understand that haphazard postings do not elevate the discussion. Thank you. Take care.

-us3

 

[hiphop]

Sure enough, it is ridiculous to compare Bush or Blair or even Saddam to Hitler.

I do think that there are lots of people who speak out against Saddam, not only the Bush administation or Blair or journalists or Iraqi opposition and numerous other politicians.

Whenever the protestors are asked for their views concerning Saddam, they tell "Yeah, we think he?s a bad dictator". The main goals of the protests, though, is to avoid war. Given the fact that you can?t write a novel on a piece of paper, I do understand that there are no "Anti-saddam" signs.

Plus, I have heard this argument so often, that I think it is another rhetorical trick, to influence the public opinion, like "Look, the protestors support Saddam". They don?t. Its not either for or against, like the current US administration implies.

I don?t know about Answer or about the organizers of the protest. I think it depends on the cause. When I went to protest against our government, I knew there were around a hundred platforms who organized the protest, amongst them some groups who still believe communism was a great thing. And so? Doesn?t disturb me. I am not their opinion, but you know, we are pretty pluralistic. I wouldn?t stay away from a protest which I think is worth the cause, also if I don?t agree with all of the groups who organize it. Why should I? Its about the protest, not about them. Just my two cents.

And go ahead, post anything you like, you know, just be ready for reactions

Thank you too. Take care.

 

[pub crawler]

As for myself, I am not angry with the anti-war protestors, (nor Iraq for that matter).
However, some protestors trouble me with their signs comparing Bush, Blair et al, to Hitler. When in reality the only one who has gassed anybody is Saddam. I am troubled by the fact that nowhere (that I have seen) they?re any voices, or signs, speaking out against Saddam.

Nobody's denying that there are some fringe elements at these protests, but the vast majority of prostesters are average citizens, no different than most of us.

To the question of why aren't there any anti-Sadaam signs at the protests, I would answer thusly: If I were to attend a peace rally, why would I bring a sign protesting Sadaam when the only reason I'm attending the rally is to support the idea of peace? What I stand against is President Bush's private war against Iraq, a war in which innocents will be killed.

When one considers that the need to stop Sadaam's atrocities against his own people is one of the cornerstones of the argument made by those who support the movement to bomb Iraq, one wonders why those who are in favor of the war, or the bombing of Iraq, or stopping Sadaam, or whatever exactly it is that they're in favor of, aren't themselves out in the streets with signs declaring their disgust with Sadaam and his tyranny.

I have not seen a single "pro-war" person out in the streets protesting Sadaam's behavior. Curious indeed. I would think "pro-war" people should be having huge rallies condemning Sadaam's behavior if it's such a big issue to them. (Or, is it possible that Sadaam's behavior only becomes an issue when a U.S. President decides he needs to bomb Iraq?)

I find it disturbing that leaders from one of the main organizers ANSWER have a consistent history of supporting oppression by regimes of tyranny, China and Tiananmen, Kim IL in North Korea (to name a few), and that they would censor someone like Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun for merely publicly expressing some opposing views to ANSWER.

With respect to the U.S. rallies, I don't know who's sponsoring them and I don't particularly care. I'm not going to a rally to support the organizers. I'm going to support the idea of peace and protest the idea of war. That's the main thrust of these rallies. If it weren't, I wouldn't attend. It's that simple.

 

[verte76]

Hey, U2Bama, sorry about your hand! That sounds nasty! I've only had to get stitches once, after a stupid accident in which I fell down a flight of stairs and got a nasty cut on my forehead. (the accident was really my fault, but let's not get into embarrassing details, OK??)That was not fun. I've done things like get second degree sprains in my ankle.......ouch. It's not fun. I hope the hand heals soon!! I truly hate injuries.