End This Damn War
About a year ago, I stood in a room full of people at the home of Earl Blumenauer’s Chief of Staff and took the Congressman to task over this war. I was thoroughly upset by the fact that the Democrats had the resolve to launch a series of town hall meetings to fight against King George’s attempts to private Social Security, but they will hide under the nearest rock whenever you mention Iraq.
Despite all that, I want to thank Earl Blumenauer for signing on to Rep. Murtha’s bill to withdrawal troops from Iraq. King George wishes all of us to believe that setting a time table to withdraw troops will cause insurgents to wait until we’re gone before launching a great insurgency. That is by far the dumbest notion I’ve ever come across and it is gut wrenching to see fellow progressives buy into that argument. First of all, you can redeploy troops back into Iraq if needed. Secondly, if King George was doing his job, there would be Iraqi forces in place to counteract an insurgency (or civil war). And finally, if the real motive for this war was the security of America and not greed, then we would have rebuilt Iraq in the last three years, given Iraqis jobs, given Iraqis hope, and quelled any desire for so many Iraqis to become insurgents in the first place.
This war was about oil and greed. It allowed for a 1990’s neo-conservative agenda to be fulfilled. It allowed America to take control of the untapped oil fields of Iraq that Saddam Hussein had put aside for the future. It allowed Halliburton to overcome a $4 billion asbestos settlement with annual no-bid contracts that exceed this amount. It allowed the U.S. to stop the hemorrhaging from the Iraqi’s use of petroeuros. In order to maintain this agenda and keep the greed alive, King George and his cohorts need this war to fail.
What I need people to understand is that whether we pull troops out or not, this war will fail under Bush’s leadership. So long as we have this president in office, his administration will go to any lengths to ensure operation Iraqi Freedom is a complete disaster. I would rather see the troops come home unharmed, be available for their families and regain their lives than cling to some foregone belief that our president intended to lead us to victory. He intended to put permanent bases in a country that would react violently to such an action. He intended to let Osama Bin Laden roam free throughout the neverworld to one day attack us again. He intended to allow havoc to reign in order to justify our on-going control of the area. But he never intended to use our troops in a sincere manner.
I'm sorry if I'm willing to be outspoken while others sit idly by drinking their $3 lattes, but if we don’t work to end this damn war, this war will never end. This Sunday, March 19th, a peace rally will take place in front park along downtown Portland. I don’t care if you have to get a babysitter. I don’t care if you have to drive 50 miles. I don’t care if you’re going to miss a March Madness game. The youth of America are off putting their lives on the line so you can sit at home on the couch stuffing your face with potato chips. If you care about their sacrifice and the harsh conditions they’ve had to face, you’ll make the time to rally in support of an end to this war.
|
March 17, 2006 |
Jenson Hagen | Comments (39 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: BOHICA | Mar 18, 2006 6:58:49 AM
Info on the Portland rally and march
Peace rally and march planned for third anniversary of war on Iraq, calls for bringing the troops home and funding human services. Over 150 organizations mobilize for March 19 at Waterfront Park As the third anniversary of the US war and occupation of Iraq approaches, local Oregon/Washington peace and social justice organizations are firming up plans for a large-scale rally and march calling for withdrawal of US troops.
End the War; Begin the Peace Rally & March
Portland, Oregon
Location: Waterfront Park, north of the Morrison Bridge, downtown Portland
Time: 1:30 pm - 4:30 pm
And if you are a veteran or family member,
The Veterans for Peace feeder march will assemble at the site of the future Vets' Peace Park, at the intersection of N Interstate and NE Oregon St. at 11 a.m. on Sunday, March 19. The park is at the east end of the Steel Bridge, one block south of Rose Quarter TC.
Pictures of the park can be seen at http://www.dunckleystreet.com/...
Access to the park and the march route are entirely handicapped-accessible.
The march will step off at 11:30, going down the esplanade and crossing the Steel Bridge on the pedestrian walkway, and continuing to the rally site through Waterfront Park.
We will be joined by a number of veterans and military family organizations and we invite all who oppose this illegal and immoral war to march with us.
"War is the enemy"
BOHICA
Posted by: Alice | Mar 18, 2006 7:11:05 AM
Bohica:
Islamo-fascists and Al Qaeda are the enemy, not War.
War is the tool we employ to kill them.
Posted by: Scott McLean | Mar 18, 2006 7:16:35 AM
Not only must we end this war, we must not get into any more wars we can't win and which were started for the wrong reasons.
This whole policy of first strikes which now seems to be used by this Administration as a threat against Iran is going to possibly lead to another "war" that can't be won.
Why should America ever strike first unless it is absolutely proven that a country is on the precise brink of attacking America. Sadly, diplomacy doesn't seem to be working, but in my opinion that has more to do with the key negotiators.
Posted by: BOHICA | Mar 18, 2006 8:38:52 AM
Alice
War is the tool we employ to kill them
By "we" do you mean you?
War is an obsolete idea propagated by those who believe killing is the best way to steal from others.
"War is a racket... conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the very many...of course it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and 'we must all put our shoulders to the wheel,' but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket and are safely pocketed.".
General Smedley D. Butler, most decorated U.S. Marine in history, 1935
I have "seen the elephant", have you? Ever held a teenage soldier while his guts fell out? Ever shot anyone with a minigun? Ever picked up body parts?
You can always hear the people who are willing to sacrifice somebody else's life. They're plenty loud and they talk all the time. You can find them in the churches and schools and newspapers and legislatures and congress. That's their business. They sound wonderful. Death before dishonor. This ground sanctified by blood. These men who died so gloriously. They shall not have died in vain. Our noble dead.Hmmmm.
But what do the dead say?
Did anybody ever come back from the dead any single one of the millions who got killed did any of them ever come back and say by god I'm glad I'm dead because death is better than dishonor? Did they say I'm glad I died to make the world safe for democracy? Did they say I like death better than losing liberty? Did any of them ever say it's good to think I got my guts blown out for the honor of my country? Did any of them ever say look at me I'm dead but I died for decency and that's better than being alive?
-Dalton Trumbo, Johnny Got His Gun
So have you enlisted yet?
Posted by: Alice | Mar 18, 2006 9:11:25 AM
Sorry Bohica, I didn't realize it was time to trot out the quotes and cliches:
You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom. -Malcom X
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. -Thomas Jefferson
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave." -Elmer Davis
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mill
War is a continuation of politics by other means. — Karl von Clausewitz
America: love it or leave it.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
We make war that we may live in peace. — Aristotle
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. — Dwight David Eisenhower
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum (Latin: Therefore, whoever wishes for peace, let him prepare for war).
It makes me hate war, but it doesn't make me believe that we're in a world that can live without war yet. -Lt. Josh Rushing (Control Room)
War kills men, and men deplore the loss; but war also crushes bad principles and tyrants, and so saves societies. — Charles Caleb Colton
Posted by: Peter Drake | Mar 18, 2006 9:12:03 AM
Most of the Democrats in Congress are still failing to take a stand against this war. It's time to vote with the party that has consistently opposed the war since before it started: the Green Party.
The Pacific Green Party of Oregon has just nominated Joe Keating for Governor of Oregon:
http://www.keatingforgovernor.org/
PGP member Xander Patterson is running for Multnomah County Commissioner:
The current government isn't listening. It's time to elect more people with our values. Over 200 Greens hold office around the country. Vote Green!
Posted by: JustWatching | Mar 18, 2006 10:17:49 AM
Jason, you're so right. Way to spend your time there, yelling at Earl over a war he never voted for nor supported! Smart one there!
And Peter the Green, give me a break. By voting for the Greens we'll just get more Republicans in office and this war will go on forever. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on Blueoregon. Get a clue.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 18, 2006 11:28:34 AM
$3 latte? Damn, that's a good deal! I'm with this guy.
Posted by: LT | Mar 18, 2006 11:31:32 AM
As someone who met Joe Keating in 1992, I have a question about this:
The Pacific Green Party of Oregon has just nominated Joe Keating for Governor of Oregon
Last time I heard it was too close to call--single digit number of votes between the 2 candidates for Green Party nomination.
As someone who has known Joe for years and never heard of the other person who ran for the nomination, I hope Joe did win the nomination. He would be a great voice on issues raised here and all sorts of other issues.
Posted by: Karl | Mar 18, 2006 11:36:38 AM
Right On Jenson! I guess the American people are waking up. I wish it wasn't so late. I wish king George's lies weren't responsible for the deaths of more Americans than alqaida. I wish the tens of thousands more weren't coming home maimed in mind and body while he cuts the services to help support them. I wish he wasn't torturing people. I wish he wasn't disappearing people. I wish he wasn't using illegal weapons on civilians. I wish he wasn't setting up all his buddies to rob us blind. I wish he wasn't bringing chaos to the whole middle east. I wish.....I wish...
Alice, many of those are great quotes. Too bad they don't have any relevance to the war in Iraq. You say we are fighting alqaida in Iraq. Could you explain what the Iraqi people did to deserve us opening the borders to invite the terrorists to their country to "fight them there"? There sure weren't any there before we came.
Posted by: Scott McLean | Mar 18, 2006 11:42:10 AM
Interesting, Alice, but...
I think you are way off in critizing me over the word "we". I do mean the United States in this case. If you don't like the word then it's your problem not mine.
It's sort of funny in our country these days that people find fault with silly little things like that. And you are telling me to enlist for what. I said we shouldn't be in this war. Sounds like you are doing a poor job of playing the devil's advocate.
Anyhow, my comments stand. A second war with Iran is the last thing we need in this country. We need to get busy electing a new Congress that won't just rubber stamp the self-named war president's wars. After all wars don't get very far without appropriations from Congress.
Posted by: Scott McLean | Mar 18, 2006 11:46:46 AM
Maybe on this last post I was mistaken and for that I apologize. I suppose it was someone else with the criticism here. Sorry, Scott
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Mar 18, 2006 12:43:26 PM
Late to the party, I suggest a change in terminology. We are not dealing with a war here, and using that term weakens our opposition. We are dealing with an occupation. I would argue that it is an imperialistic occupation. Shrub supporters would argue it is an occupation in support of democracy. Talking about war makes legitimate the view that this is about defending the nation, whitch it is not about, unless one is willing to talk about defending our imperial perogative.
If there is a war involved, it is the developing civil war in Iraq that the US has unleased by destroying the Iraqi state and allowing the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis to emerge as viable political and military entities. That war may or may not intensify with the US occupation ended.
There is, of course, also the 'war on terror', which is a misnomer leading to much bad public policy. We can not war against a tactic, and the terrorism that concerns us is properly a law enforcement issue.
So let's call a spade a spade, an occupation an occupation, and an outlaw administration of war criminals what they are.
Posted by: Jenson | Mar 18, 2006 12:45:15 PM
RE: Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Earl the Pearl is a great Rep. Don't get me wrong. But like Hillary Clinton and the majority of the Democrats, they'll played political dodgeball by saying that they disagree with the war, but now that we are they, we should make the most of it.
That is the easiest anti-war stance to take, and in my opinion it's a complete cop out. Voting against this war does nothing since the Dems are in the minority. The stance that Murtha and Feingold have taken are what's needed and Blumenauer is just now jumping on board.
Am I wrong? Please let me know if I'm wrong on this one.
Posted by: rachel | Mar 18, 2006 1:27:10 PM
Jensen,
Have you watched the news or read a newspaper? Chatising Blumenauer is way off base. He called it like it was when he debated Ken Pollock before the invasion. He has voted against money for the war every time. He is the only member of the delegation to put forward an actual plan to get out of the war and it's better than what Murtha put together. And yesterday, he announced his bill that would bring the troops home, starting with the National Guard.
Whack away at the other Dems but you are wrong about Blumenauer.
Posted by: Jeremiah L | Mar 18, 2006 1:44:05 PM
I don't understand why people are saying Jenson was knocking at Blumenauer. The post seems to say that he acknowledges that Blumenauer is one of the few Dems that is supporting an end. "I want to thank Earl Blumenauer for signing on to Rep. Murtha’s bill to withdrawal troops from Iraq."
I didn't take it as an attack, I took it as a statement that he had a charged meeting with Earl, and now is glad he supports leaving that "war."
What I don't understand is why Dems keep switching their stories on this occupation (I agree with Tom on this). With Murtha and Feingold, how come more people haven't come out against this? Are these the only two with the guts to say anything? I understand different Representatives and Senators have spoken out, but only on components of the ordeal. We need more people, people in charge, to speak out against the whole thing. Not only do Dems have the position today to gain upper ground on arguments for health care and the like, but they have a public that largely thinks Bush is screwing up hardcore, and they're not using that at all. Like Feingold said, why would people cower at a time when
the president's numbers are so low? People are tired of it, and as the major opposing party, Dems need to see that.
Posted by: AF | Mar 18, 2006 1:55:18 PM
Memo to the peace freaks in their mini-buses: The bad guys are the Islamo-terrorists who want you dead. If they have a chance they'll slit your throats in your sleep. Better to kill them over there than have to kill them here. Iraq is terrorist fly paper. They can't resist it and they are being killed by the dozen every day. Seems like a pretty good plan to me. I'm thanking Bush and Co every chance I get. Some of my buddies weren't so lucky and they were murdered in their office on 9/11 by the terrorists. Last time we had a Dem in office he was too busy getting his BJs to pay attention to the terrorists who were gathering power across the globe.
Posted by: Karl | Mar 18, 2006 3:08:34 PM
AF, I think you got that backwards. Clinton prevented an attack and was hunting benLaden. The Clinton team warned Bush and Co. of possible plane hijacking attacks during transition. Maybe your buddies would be alive if Bush and Co. hadn't ignored those warnings.
Iraq had nothing to do with 911. If Bush really wanted to kill "terrorists" why didn't he chase them into Pakistan? At least there were some alqaida there. What he is doing is enraging the whole world against us and creating far more terrorists than we are killing.
Look at it this way. I believe that Bush is a war criminal and a traitor to the constitution and everything our country stands for but if, say, the Chinese came to overthrow our government and occupy our country, bombing our infrastructure, killing my friends, neighbors and relatives, I sure hope I would be ready to lay my life on the line to kick them the hell out and maybe try to find a way to hit them at home, in China and let them know what it feels like. (if there are Chinese readers out there please understand- this is all hypothetical, no offense intended.) I believe there are alot of Iraqis, Arabs muslims and others who are starting to feel like that about us.
Posted by: Justin | Mar 18, 2006 3:25:49 PM
Posted by: Alice | Mar 18, 2006 7:11:05 AM
Islamo-fascists and Al Qaeda are the enemy, not War.
War is the tool we employ to kill them.
================================
So, by your measure, Muslims are the enemy! Kill them!
Great, nice to see people who are so articulate with their hateful message. You know, if you were to run up to a muslim on the street of downtown Portland and blow their head off with a 12-gauge shotgun, you would actually go to jail - and perhaps be executed.
Why can't we just drop all pretenses to the real reasons for this war?
Our government has been overtaken by business special interests. There is actually a name for this: fascism.
Not Islamic-fascism, but corporate fascism. Learn a bit about history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
=================
However, our current fascism is the promotion of rampant consumer, latte-sippin', SUV-drivin', TV-watchin' culture, devoid of any meaningful dialogue into the human condition. Just shut up and spend money. I'm sorry to say it has been about 100 years in the making, bringing the ideals of tycoons such as Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc to the mainstream.
Our current society has taken those people's core values which created the monopolies they ran - and were deemed illegal - and have made them the core principles & values for your modern american: screw the other guy. make money above anything else.
The result is we have an increadibly efficient capitalist machine, allowing ever-growing businesses to swallow up their competition, accumulate wealth, and involve themselves in legislation to change all the laws in their favor (vs the competition & citizens of the country).
This has resulted in gross inequity among social groups, poverty, terrible inter-city schools, etc...
Anyways, Bush & Co are effectively a fascist oligarchy that can pretty much do anything they want within the confines of the Senate. Kind of reminds me of Starwars, actually... except we don't have the pesky Sith lord to add to the craziness.
If you have seen the news recently, Hong Kong, France and Italy have been rioting because they are tired of this crap - but don't expect Americans to ever do this, because of our value system.
===================
So, my real message is stop your racist rhetoric, and keep it real: greed is the root cause of these 'terrorist' - the scarecrow in the field, continuously propped up by terrible, understaffed security in Iraq that wouldn't even be able to suppress an LA riot without shooting everybody. It's been 4 years, still no effective Iraqi army/police force. We didn't send in enough troops in the first place to secure territory that was 'liberated' and saturated with foreign insurgents. We invaded Iraq, pissing off a huge population of Muslims (approx 1+ billion). We don't exactly have a good track record here, people...
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Mar 18, 2006 5:19:38 PM
can we give AF a special commendation for outstanding use of cliches? i think the only one he left out was the "smoking gun mushroom cloud" p.o.s. good job on not disturbing your brain cells, AF.
Posted by: Salvador Peralta | Mar 18, 2006 5:19:54 PM
Islamo-fascists and Al Qaeda are the enemy, not War. War is the tool we employ to kill them.
The trouble with that, Alice, is that this war is creating more enemies than our soldiers can possibly kill while marginalizing the moderate voices in the Muslim community who could legitimately bring stability and sanity to the region.
Lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be accomplished by War.
Some points that aren't repeated often enough in the media:
1) 70 percent of American troops believe that we should leave Iraq within a year.
2) 80 percent of Iraqis want american troops out.
3) 46 percent of Iraqi's believe they are justified to kill American troops.
4) Iraq currently has 50 percent unemployment.
5) Iraq produces less oil today than they did before the war, and production is expected to drop again in 2006.
6) Electricity output in Iraq is at a 3-year low -- much lower than before the war began.
Posted by: Salvador Peralta | Mar 18, 2006 5:21:40 PM
can we give AF a special commendation for outstanding use of cliches? i think the only one he left out was the "smoking gun mushroom cloud" p.o.s. good job on not disturbing your brain cells, AF.
I read that as being tongue-in-cheek. Someone, please tell me that he wasn't being serious.
Posted by: Peter Drake | Mar 18, 2006 5:37:02 PM
LT: The results of the Green Party gubernatorial nomination just came in on Friday. Check www.pacificgreens.org for details.
JustWatching: You seem to be laboring under the delusion that Greens can't win. That's why I mentioned the over 200 Greens in office. Yes, it's extremely unlikely that we'll get a Green in the US Senate soon, but there are already a couple of Green state legislators (in other states) and a bunch of mayors.
The larger point, of course, is that when you vote for democrats, you get ... more democrats, who don't stand up to the republicans. War? Democrats supported it. Environment? Clinton had eight years to increase CAFE standards and did nothing. Corporate power? Democrats supported NAFTA.
(If you're worried about the "spoiler effect", stop attacking your ideological allies and start campaigning for instant runoff voting.)
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Mar 18, 2006 6:15:58 PM
In our local Multnomah County race for the county commissioner, there are no Democrats in that contest who supported the war. One's a small businessman who's worked to bring more sustainable jobs to our area and championed the Children's Investment Fun, Jeff Cogen; one's been a solid pro-union voice in Salem, Gary Hansen; one's worked as spokesperson for Portland Public Schools, Lew Frederick. For the Pacific Green Party, there's a candidate, Xander Patterson, who's served on the soil and water conservation board and also done work with Physicians for Social Responsibility.
All have resumes with different emphasis, but supporting one candidate over another because of Bush's war doesn't make any sense. They're all in the same place, unless anyone can show me evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: JustWatching | Mar 18, 2006 6:40:28 PM
The reason Green's can't win is because their's is a party based on one issue - and believe it or not, it's not the most important issue to everyone on the planet.
Open your eyes and take a look around, their are lots of people in this world you'll have to compromise with if you really and truly want to make an impact. Greens seem pretty narrow minded to me, especially after reading some of these posts.
Posted by: Peter Drake | Mar 18, 2006 7:02:32 PM
Charlie: Yes, we have some very progressive Democrats in Portland. We've also got some bad ones in Oregon. Kulongoski has supported the war. Keating will not.
JustWatching: Why do you keep insisting that Greens can't win? We DO win on a regular basis. That's why we hold hundreds of elected offices.
Where do you get the idea that the Green Party is based on one issue? We're certainly strongly against the Iraq occupation, but we're also concerned about the environment (especially climate change and deforestation), human rights, ending corporate welfare, election reform (e.g., publicly financed campaigns and IRV), making taxation more progressive, etc. See our national platform at gpus.org for details.
Yes, we do have to compromise, accept alternate viewpoints, and so forth. There is, however, a difference between compromise and rolling over. Isn't it obvious that Bush has commited more than enough crimes to be impeached? Have any of the Oregon Democrats signed on as cosponsors to Feingold's resolution to merely censure him?
Most people on this site, I think, believe that the Democratic Party, under the DLC, has moved too far to the right. There are two options: try to pull it back to the progressive values for which it should be standing, or leave and join a party that really does stand for those values. I've obviously chosen the latter route. If you think you can save your party, I sincerely wish you the best of luck.
You're welcome to use us as leverage in this effort, e.g., "If this party keeps moving to the right, I'm going to join the Greens!"
The best way for the Democrats to eliminate the Greens is to take back the progressive high ground.
Posted by: paul | Mar 18, 2006 8:35:42 PM
Jenson,
Learn your opposition better. This statement:
This war was about oil and greed. It allowed for a 1990’s neo-conservative agenda to be fulfilled. It allowed America to take control of the untapped oil fields of Iraq that Saddam Hussein had put aside for the future.
is internally contradictory. You can't equate a "neo conservative agenda" with a war for "oil and greed."
A neo-conservative agenda (e.g. Kristol, Wolfowitz, Bennett) calls for the use of American force to spread democracy and capitalism. Their belief is that the this will both increase freedom worldwide, improve worldwide economic growth, and result in a more peaceful world system.
Oil and greed is old fashioned self-interested, Klauswitzian realism.
The problem with arguing the latter, as you and many peace activists want to, is that an Administration that was really only motivated by oil and greed would have been quite happy to keep Saddam Hussein around. After all, he was a relatively predictable, albeit murderous, autocrat. He wanted money, we wanted oil. He killed his citizens. We cared less.
No, the danger of Bush is much greater than you realize, because he truly believes he is doing God's work in the Middle East. If only he were as cynical, duplicitous, and realist as you think.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Mar 19, 2006 9:32:37 AM
A neo-conservative agenda (e.g. Kristol, Wolfowitz, Bennett) calls for the use of American force to spread democracy and capitalism. Their belief is that the this will both increase freedom worldwide, improve worldwide economic growth, and result in a more peaceful world system.
Oil and greed is old fashioned self-interested, Klauswitzian realism.
The problem with arguing the latter, as you and many peace activists want to, is that an Administration that was really only motivated by oil and greed would have been quite happy to keep Saddam Hussein around. After all, he was a relatively predictable, albeit murderous, autocrat. He wanted money, we wanted oil. He killed his citizens. We cared less.
Paul, I'd have to argue that you've set up a false dichotomy here. What a lot of us believe happened is that the Neo-Cons and the guys that you call Klauswitzians (Cheney & Rumsfeld) had goals that were mutually compatible.
Your Klauswitzians did in fact play ball with Saddam for years, with Cheney dealing on behalf of Halliburton through dummy corp (Dresser Industries) right through the "embargo" but like other US supported dictators, he fell afoul of changing US interests.
The Hated French (Dresser Industries again, and many others) as well as the Russians, were violating the embargo right along, and it became obvious to the Boys that the easiest way to sort things out would be to install some new authorized negotiators at the top af a brand new Iraqi gummint.
Didn't work, but the plan was obvious.......
If Bush had a couple of malformed thoughts that allowed him to fall in line with The Plan, let's not equate that with actual intellectual or religious motivation.......
Posted by: Alice | Mar 19, 2006 3:03:28 PM
Justin: you get a D- for reading comprehension...
Alice wrote (Mar 18, 2006 7:11:05 AM):
Islamo-fascists and Al Qaedaare the enemy, not War.
War is the tool we employ to kill them.
To which Justin replied (Mar 18, 2006 3:25:49 PM):
So, by your measure, Muslims are the enemy! Kill them!
Great, nice to see people who are so articulate with their hateful message. You know, if you were to run up to a muslim on the street of downtown Portland and blow their head off with a 12-gauge shotgun, you would actually go to jail - and perhaps be executed.
Here's a few more wild eyed radicals for you to accuse of racism:
Patrick Sabatier, editor of Libération (leftist French daily):
The war against Islamo-terrorism, like those fought by the democracies against the other totalitarians, fascism and communism, is as much ideological and political as military. It will last long and it won't be won until, in the Muslim world as elsewhere, the murderous cocktail of anti-Western hatred, the cult of death, and the turn to unlimited brutality as preached by bin Laden is isolated, condemned, and defeated." (Sept. 11, 2004)
Sen. John F. Kerry (Presidential Candidate):
I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror: by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence; by going after the financing more authoritatively; by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances; by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the President has almost not done; and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America." (First 2004 Presidential Debate, Sept. 30, 2004)
(a few days earlier) To destroy our enemy, we have to know our enemy. We have to understand that we are facing a radical fundamentalist movement with global reach and a very specific plan. They are not just out to kill us for the sake of killing us. They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region's governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle East to Central Asia." ("Remarks of Senator John Kerry at Temple University in Philadelphia," Sept. 24, 2004)
Stephen Hadley (National Security Advisor to the President):
Although we have sometimes struggled to find the proper label for the enemy we face in the War on Terror – be it Islamic extremists, militant Jihadists, or Islamo-fascists – we have a clear understanding of the nature of the enemy and the ideology that motivates them. ("Remarks by Stephen Hadley to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee National Summit 2005," October 26, 2005)
Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom:
Security measures alone will not tackle the problem [of terrorism]. We are dealing not with an isolated criminal act but with an extreme and evil ideology, the roots of which lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam. … we will seek to debate the right way forward in combating that evil in the Muslim community with Muslim leaders. We intend to begin that process immediately. In the end, only the community itself can take on and defeat it, but we can all help and facilitate. … we are talking to other nations, Muslim and non-Muslim, about how to mobilise internationally the moderate and true voice of Islam. ("Prime Minister's Question Time," Hansard, July 13, 2005).
John F. Lehman, a member of the 9-11 Commission (and former Secretary of the Navy):
We commissioners and our staff of some 80 seasoned professionals worked exhaustively and exhaustingly for 20 months to establish the facts, study the lessons and derive from them concrete reforms to fix a broken system. The most important of these were on policy and strategy; what we must do as a nation to defeat Islamist terrorism. ("No Time to Lose," The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 1, 2004)
Posted by: Aaron V. | Mar 19, 2006 4:03:44 PM
AF - "Islamofacists" are an enemy, but there are plenty of enemies at home that can cause Americans problems.
There are the Christofascists who bomb abortion clinics, gay-bash, and weaken our country by ordering religion to be taught in science classes.
There are out-of-state corporations weakening our schools and public safety by demanding kicker money.
There are supposed liberals (see the Mar. 19 Oregonian for a profile of one) who support Enron/PGE and are against elections controlled by the people instead of city power brokers like the Portland Business Alliance.
The only difference between the Islamofascists and Christofascists are there religion. Give the Bible-thumpers any power, and they'll act just like the religious fanatics in Saudi Arabia or the mullahs in Iran, and fund fundie Christian terrorism in countries they consider decadent.
Posted by: Aaron V. | Mar 19, 2006 4:05:24 PM
Correction to the last paragraph: "....THEIR religion." I went to a public school, but I didn't take typing. I knew it should have been "their," not "there"....
Posted by: Alice | Mar 19, 2006 5:04:55 PM
Hey Aaron:
There are qualitative and quantitative differences between Islamo-Fascists and the Shiite Baptists (or Christo-Fascists).
When was the last time the Baptists got caught trying to buy WMD's or hijack an airplane? When was the last time you heard of a Christian suicide bomber?
I'm not saying that wacko-lefties or wacko-righties shouldn't receive equal treatment under the law (or terror war): they should. I'm just saying the "Islamic true believers" are more dangerous and more numerous than the "Christian true believers". If you don't see the differences, you ought to limit your foreign travel: you're too naive to protect yourself.
Posted by: Jeremiah L | Mar 19, 2006 6:41:58 PM
I disagree, Alice, that "Christian" terrorists are less dangerous than Muslim ones, especially suicide bomber types.
After all, isn't Bush a "Christian?"
(I don't remember Jesus blowing anybody up or sending his followers into neighbor A's land to kill some slaves after neighbor B did anything to the group, but I may be wrong. Maybe that stuff is in Bush's family Bible.
New Bush Version; Luke 6:29 "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also." 29b Unless you happen to hate a group that is similar in religious ethnicity to the group that struck you. Then go blow them up.)
Posted by: Jeff Bull | Mar 20, 2006 8:55:02 AM
OK, here's my permanent question:
End the war - and then what? Say Iraq ends tomorrow: where do we go from there? I saw a note up the thread about chasing "Islamo-fascists" into Pakistan; there's pretty solid evidence they're there, so is that what happens? That we lay down an ultimatum to Musharraf? I'm guessing no one in this forum wants to take that route. If we don't do that, though, what are we doing but sitting back and waiting?
And this isn't only a question for lefties: say we spend the next decade in Iraq (and it'll take that long if promoting democracy is the actual end result), what happens if the dominoes don't fall and democracy remains an Iraqi phenomenon? What happens if and when a stable, unitary state never comes together?
But, to return to the left, the argument used to be "American troops are fueling the insurgency. It's best for them to get out and let the Iraqis get on with it." I've seen plausible arguments since then - think Lawrence Kaplan's cover story in the New Republic making the case that we're the only thing keeping the sectarian/ethnic factions apart. Are we to condemn the Iraqis to the civil war for which our invasion provided the space?
The basic premise here is that the war didn't make sense. Thing is, that's in the past: you can rehash "the lies" all day, but can't undo the war. There comes a time when that's got to be faced. I don't have these answers. I'm only suggesting that what happens next is a hell of a lot more complicated than "stop this war."
Posted by: JustWatching | Mar 20, 2006 12:17:51 PM
For Peter:
Let's be realistic, the Greens have a platform sure, but it's kinda secondary right? If we're being completely honest with ourselves we'd admit this to be true. Campaign finance! The environment! Oh crap - we forgot about women's right, gay rights, etc. Uh, I guess we'd better write a platform, and quick!
I'd like to change the title of this to "Top Ten Reason's I'm Not a Green." http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45c/072.html
I personally like reason #7.
Posted by: paul | Mar 20, 2006 1:42:00 PM
But Pat, the realists and the neo-cons cannot have mutually reinforcing interests. What is the realist argument for deposing Saddam? So that we can install an unpredictable democracy that makes our oil supplies less certain?
To a realist, Saddam is a fine ally. Murderous tyrant, OK, as long as the oil flows and the region remains peaceful. If he takes over a few countries, what do we care. If he attacks Iran, all the better.
Realists simply don't buy the neo-con rhetoric about the promise of freedom and democracy. So I don't see how you can have it both ways. Blood for oil and blood for democracy just aren't compatible positions.
Posted by: Karl | Mar 20, 2006 4:05:06 PM
"Blood for oil and blood for democracy just aren't compatible positions."
Paul, of course they are. Sadam wasn't being a good boy. He was switching to the Euro. That could have punctured the empty balloon of our "borrow-borrow-borrow" economy. They thought they could stick some crook like Chalabi in there who would play ball our way and call that "democracy". They had no idea. So they came up with the constitution that split the country into three parts and started the ethnic cleansing. They are still pouring millions into the building of 14 permanent bases. These are oil guys, they put Karsai in Afghanistan because he is an oil guy. It's greed and oil and they don't care if they start Armageddon 'cause then it's just "god's will".
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Jason | Mar 17, 2006 11:46:50 PM
Say what you want about the rest of the Democrats, but it looks like Blumenaur's done everything he can to stop the war. He opposed it and voted against it, has always voted against funding it, and even introduced a bill to bring the troops home. Of all the people to yell at, why Earl the Pearl?