MERGED: Talking about a revolution + London says NO!

[STING2]

This is some information about how Iraqi exiles feel about the situation. I disagree with their assertion that Anti-War protesters are directly supporting Saddam, but I agree with their conclusions on other issues.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,898346,00.html

Liberation plea to UK

Wednesday February 19, 2003
The Guardian

Extracts of a letter sent to Tony Blair from Iraqi exiles in the UK:
On behalf of the 350,000 Iraqi exiles in the UK, we thank you for your honesty and determination at this critical time and urge you to continue to listen to ordinary Iraqi men and women. We pray you will stick to your resolve to liberate our country from a tyranny which over the past 30 years has killed nearly 2 million people.

We have suffered enough. If we had the means to overthrow this tyrant we would not hesitate. However, whenever we have tried, we have suffered a terrible revenge. We cannot take any more mass killings. Nor the execution of thousands of politicians, scientists and army officers. The groundless jailing and torture, which includes cutting out tongues and decapitation of women, is an affront to civilisation.

The anti-war coalition offers no alternative, and can only be construed as supporting Saddam Hussein. The last thing any civilised person would want to see is war. However, we do want Saddam Hussein and his vile regime removed. The people of Iraq should be given a chance to form their own democratic government after the liberation of Iraq.

 

[Klaus]

"The people of Iraq should be given a chance to form their own democratic government after the liberation of Iraq."

As long as somebody calls people and institutions irrelevant if they don't share his point of view he might be the wrong person to bring democracy to a country.

Klaus

 

[U2Bama]

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".

No need to "accuse" us3 of posting the article: he posted it, plain and simple! We can all see that! How can anyone find it well-written? Well, maybe not in the context of a timeless novel, but definitely in the nature of provacative yet satirical journalism that makes people THINK, yes, I DO think it accomplished that goal. Just because you disagree with it or perhaps found it offensive because it criticizes the peace movement does not merit a fact that is worthless or not well-written; such a viewpoint is a mere opinion.

In this instance, I was not implying that you said he had no right to post it, but you DID say "congratulations for eating that shit," and THAT is what I had a problem with; I didn't see anything hidden in what you said.

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 mentioned Arundhati Roy (a FEMALE by the way) merely as an analogy - one from a rather Marxist perspective who, as you agree (but de-emphasize) uses rhetoric. You may not consider her writing style to be "hateful," but I have read much of her commentary over the past few years, and it does come across as harsh and dare I say propagandistic at times, and, dare I say, "Marxist" in nature (even Melon pointed this out awhile back). I agree that, if truly they are facts, Roy pointed out some interesting information in your "Another World" thread awhile back, but I consider things such as "privatization of water supply" to be a manipulation of capitalism. Despite the sources of it, I do NOT consider such idiocy to be one of the "Western values" that I cherish; in fact, my water system is completely public, I get it from the Water & Sewer Board of my small town, who gets it from the much larger City's Water Works Board up the road, who gets it from the Tri-State Water Agreement states (Alabama/Georgia/Florida) who get it from southerly flowing rivers and reservoirs in Lower Appalachia, who get it from God's own raindrops and melting snow. I don't like every single bad international business deal that pops up, and I didn't like it when Burger King stopped selling "small french fries" while they still had the packages available for kids' meals, merely so they could charge me $1.59 for a "medium french fry." I also hate how places push a huge, 32 oz. soft drink as a "medium" and also charge $1.59 for it. They are now charging more for the side orders and drinks than for the entrees (burgers) and it disturbs me. And I hate not being able to choose my cable TV provider, as the first company in town always secures a monopoly with the governing authority. But these things do not compare to water supplies, and as much as I may grip about them, I would be opposed in every way to the privatization of a water supply.

My other analogy was Michael Moore, known best for his satirical attacks on the current administration and conservatives in general. Whenever someone posts his articles in here, people strongly agree with it and say "that's exactly what I think" despite the shocking nature of his writing style. Well, Lileks did the same from the other side of the fence. If activists for any cause are willing to put themselves in the public square to make their statement, they must be prepared to face an opposing viewpoint.

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 was speaking in general to everyone, but I was specifically thinking of your "Please not the usual comments that have nothing to do with what this thread is about" request in the Arundhati Roy thread. If I recall, her article addressed the Iraqi conflict, and, obviously, sting2 has a viewpoint that relates directly to that situation. I am glad that you and I are on the same page regarding everyone being free to post what they want in FYM, but my first perception on reading that thread weeks ago was that you only wanted to hear from people who agreed with Arundhati Roy. I stand corrected.

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.

I am glad that you respect those with different viewpoints, and speaking for myself, I can assure you that the feeling is mutual. I merely posted an aggregate response to several trends I had observed in the forum recently, and it was secifically propmpted by the shit-eating comment. I was quite surprised to see that comment coming from you.

And my hand is still healing; I had the final stitches removed yesteray, and the whole ordeal was unpleasant. I may be able to play my guitar again one day.

~U2Alabama

 

[Scarletwine]

I would like to insist that any thoughtful American see the documentary that was just showed on US TV, Hidden Wars of Desert Storm". It shows that Bush pulled out to keep a fly in the ointment so to speak to keep our forces active in the Persian Guld in Saudia Arabia. We could have enforced tha rebels from 1992 to 1994 but the Pentagon choose not to. Now we have a mostly permanent presence there. How better to keep oil prices steady.

 

[deep]

Scarlet,

It has not aired in L.A. marketplace, a public radio station is playing excerpts from it though.


Here is an article that says momentum is shifting from war.

Momentum in war debate is on Chirac's side
By R.C. Longworth
Tribune senior correspondent

February 25, 2003

In the high-stakes diplomatic game over Iraq, French President Jacques Chirac is showing a surprisingly strong hand.

Betting that UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix will continue to report, as he did Feb. 14, that his mission in Iraq is making progress, Chirac on Monday countered a U.S.-British draft of a war resolution with a proposal calling for four more months of inspections.

If Chirac plays it right, the Security Council might deny Bush the second resolution he needs to win broad support for a war on Saddam Hussein.

There are several reasons for Chirac's strength.

One is the most recent report by Blix, saying Iraq is beginning to cooperate and criticizing U.S. intelligence on Iraq as faulty. Another is growing anti-war sentiment, as shown by mass street rallies around the world, especially in Europe. A third is the fear among European Union members that the Iraq issue could shatter European unity.

If war in Iraq is not a foregone conclusion, it is partly because Western leaders know how to count votes.

Throughout the Iraq debate, most Americans consistently have said they do not want to go to war alone and would be much more supportive of any war backed by the UN.

A recent poll by the Pew Research Center, in association with the New York Council on Foreign Relations, found 66 percent of Americans favor military force against Iraq if backed by the allies and the UN. But only 34 percent felt that the U.S. has this backing, a drop from 41 percent before the Blix report Feb. 14.

Re-election risk a key factor

Gareth Evans, president of the International Crisis Group in Brussels, says the most important block to war may be "Karl Rove's wet weather finger," a reference to the White House's chief political adviser. By this reckoning, Bush would risk votes and even re-election if he goes to war without a strong second UN resolution and the backing of as many other allies as possible.

Britain, Spain and Italy are Washington's strongest allies on Iraq. But leaders of those countries--especially British Prime Minister Tony Blair--are taking political risks by backing Bush.

The millions of anti-war protesters this month in the streets of Europe--from 4 million to 6 million people, depending on who's counting--are a political fact that no government can ignore.

Bush brushed off the demonstrations. Paying attention to them, he said, is "like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group."

But Blair is acutely aware that his most powerful recent predecessor, Margaret Thatcher, was driven from office in 1990 partly by street riots over a new tax. He also is aware that most of the London march slogans lambasted him, not Bush.

Many of Blair's own Cabinet ministers and allies within the ruling Labor Party are either lukewarm toward war or opposed outright. Facing a public revolt, they could dump Blair--as the Conservative Party dumped Thatcher 13 years ago--and carry on with a new prime minister less fervent to join Bush in an attack on Iraq.

For this reason, Blair needs a second UN resolution authorizing force in Iraq. Without it, joining Bush in an attack would be politically perilous.

Chirac seems intent on keeping that resolution from going forward, leading the two other permanent members of the UN Security Council--Russia and China--in opposition and holding out the threat of a veto.

Until now, most analysts had felt that, in the end, Chirac would vote for a resolution, if only to avoid a rupture with Washington and secure a role in postwar Iraq. But the demonstrations showed Chirac and other Europeans that they have broad public support to face down the United States.

Expert: Chirac veto likely

One leading analyst, Francois Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research, has written that he thinks Chirac may veto any resolution, both out of a sincere opposition to the war and a feeling that he runs little political risk in doing so.

If Chirac blocks a second resolution, Blair would be under severe pressure at home to back out of a war. Without Blair, Bush's support would shrink to a small group of smaller nations that lack Britain's military and diplomatic influence. And the polls have told Bush what American voters think of that.


Copyright ? 2003, Chicago Tribune

 

[hiphop]

No need to "accuse" us3 of posting the article: he posted it, plain and simple! We can all see that! How can anyone find it well-written? Well, maybe not in the context of a timeless novel, but definitely in the nature of provacative yet satirical journalism that makes people THINK, yes, I DO think it accomplished that goal. Just because you disagree with it or perhaps found it offensive because it criticizes the peace movement does not merit a fact that is worthless or not well-written; such a viewpoint is a mere opinion.

In this instance, I was not implying that you said he had no right to post it, but you DID say "congratulations for eating that shit," and THAT is what I had a problem with; I didn't see anything hidden in what you said.

I mentioned Arundhati Roy (a FEMALE by the way) merely as an analogy - one from a rather Marxist perspective who, as you agree (but de-emphasize) uses rhetoric. You may not consider her writing style to be "hateful," but I have read much of her commentary over the past few years, and it does come across as harsh and dare I say propagandistic at times, and, dare I say, "Marxist" in nature (even Melon pointed this out awhile back). I agree that, if truly they are facts, Roy pointed out some interesting information in your "Another World" thread awhile back, but I consider things such as "privatization of water supply" to be a manipulation of capitalism. (...)

My other analogy was Michael Moore, known best for his satirical attacks on the current administration and conservatives in general. Whenever someone posts his articles in here, people strongly agree with it and say "that's exactly what I think" despite the shocking nature of his writing style. Well, Lileks did the same from the other side of the fence. If activists for any cause are willing to put themselves in the public square to make their statement, they must be prepared to face an opposing viewpoint.

I am glad that you respect those with different viewpoints, and speaking for myself, I can assure you that the feeling is mutual. I merely posted an aggregate response to several trends I had observed in the forum recently, and it was secifically propmpted by the shit-eating comment. I was quite surprised to see that comment coming from you.

And my hand is still healing; I had the final stitches removed yesteray, and the whole ordeal was unpleasant. I may be able to play my guitar again one day.

~U2Alabama

Fine.

It was the first article I saw by A. Roy, I didn?t know she was female Great woman. Don?t know her other articles though. And who cares about Marxism. I don?t know Michael Moore either.

Explain what you mean with manipulation of capitalism, please. Can capitalism in itself be manipulated? What set of rules could be manipulated? And how would you call it then?

And you get me worried, what do you mean, one day you may be able to play your guitar? I hope you will be able to play it soon.

 

[U2Bama]

Explain what you mean with manipulation of capitalism, please. Can capitalism in itself be manipulated? What set of rules could be manipulated? And how would you call it then?

The biggest manipulation fo capitalization, to me, is monopoly. For this reason, I believe in safeguards, yes, "government interference" to prevent such manipulation, molestation, or whatever we wish to call it. I also think that making water and air into privately distributed resources is absurd and, as a capitalist myself, I think such an evil plan is out of bands for the political system I favor. I also think that it is a manipulation when a private cable company comes into town and sneaks a "single provider" witht he city government so that I may not choose another provider who would be willing to offer competitive rates.

And you get me worried, what do you mean, one day you may be able to play your guitar? I hope you will be able to play it soon.

After 2 weeks of being in stiches, the wound calloused, and causes great discomfort when I try to wrap my left hand around the neck and frets to form chords. The doctor who oversaw the removal of the stitches "may fall off" within a week. I hope he was right.

~U2Alabama