[CLUE-Talk] Charlie Daniels comments, article about Saddam's sons.

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 03-23 23:30, Matt Gushee wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 11:01:55PM -0700, Jeffery Cann wrote:
> > 
> > To add on:  Will it take more wars to acknowledge other atrocities such as 
> > things happening in Sudan, N. Korea, China, Chetchnya ?  Is the plan of the 
> > Administration to start wars with other countries with similar records of 
> > human rights violations -- to liberate them in the name of Democracy?
> > 
> > I read an interesting article the other day which suggested that if so many 
> > war protestors want peace, why aren't they doing something to help the 
> > victims, rather than complaining about Bush, jr.  
> 
> A couple of quick thoughts:
> 
> * Was there any evidence that the protestors are doing nothing for the
>   victims, or was the author simply trying to discredit their
>   motivations?
> 
> * I would guess that some of the protestors are very likely doing
>   something for victims of oppression--though some of those may be
>   people like the Palestinians who are not officially acknowledged to be
>   victims.
> 
> * Seems to me that if you are trying to prevent someone's city from
>   being bombed, you are in fact doing something for them.
> 
> * Some of them may be concerned about the *domestic* victims of the Bush
>   government's policies. Like Gulf War veterans affected by--what?
>   Chemical exposure? "Depleted" Uranium? Whatever it is--who are having
>   more trouble than ever getting treatment due to VA budget cuts.


I remember that debacle over Desert Storm and that propaganda about babies -
that was shameful. But I think some of these other reports - gassing of
Kurds, the attempted kidnapping of one of the inspectors (Scott ???), etc.,
hasn't a lot of that been corroborated?

I have to mention this: I've heard some murmurings of this for a while, and
then someone who has cable was telling me O'Reilly brought this up, too: at
least one of the major rallies (in LA?) was funded by the World Workers
Party. That speaks volumes about what *some* of the organizers are about,
and that isn't just being anti-war; it's about being anti-Bush (innocent
enough, but why lie about it: just say you hate Bush; call it an anti-Bush
rally), and much more nefarious. Some of the others might have been there
for what they think are other reasons, but maybe are, as Stalin said, just
"useful idiots".  Surely not all demonstrations are like this, and not all
people are just pawns in some Marxist game, but it does give one pause about
what the organizers' longer aims are. 

Also: where was the outcry over Bosnia? I saw and heard barely a peep from
anyone over that. What happened there? Did the people that died there end up
any less dead than the people that will die and have died in this new Iraq
war? Was it just because of who the president was? I'm just asking, because
it doesn't seem like different situations. 

Lastly: there are allegations that the two countries most adamant about not
going to war (Germany and France) have something to fear about what we might
find after a regime change and who is involved with Iraq's WMD program, and
who supplied what.


HOWEVER, and I can't believe I'm saying this, because I hate to come down on
the same side as the Marxists (WWP), but I have doubts about this war, too.
I fully support the military; once we are there we have to execute this war
to win it, but I just can't say anything beyond that I am firmly on the
fence on why we are there and what this about. Maybe the administration has
hard evidence of al-Qaeda ties that they are keeping close to their chest, I
don't know. Maybe the OK bombing conspiracy theories are true. If either is
the case, I wish these were presented to the American people, rather than
the somewhat nebulous reasons we have been given. That isn't to say that I
think "it's all about oil" - that's been said by dissenters at least since
Vietnam, and it doesn't hold water this time, either, IMHO. I can only
chuckle when I hear "it's revenge for his father"...but I cannot really
articulate a good reason why we are there, and that bothers me. 

Yes, Saddam is an evil, evil man. So were the Sandinistas. Sudan is still
practicing slavery.  North Korea seems to be using the tried-and-true
Communist tactic of starving their own people to purge them, and has a
murderous dictator that would make Stalin proud. As sad as the state of
affairs are in these places, do we keep invading them until they are, if not
Westernized, at least a little less murderous and oppressive? 

But it's not really enough to say that "what has he done to us?" The same
could have been said about Hitler. I guess it's really hard to strike that
balance: many folks say if Europe had done something about Hitler before he
started expansionism, a lot more deaths could have been prevented...so those
who went for appeasement/pacifism in that case only caused more deaths in
the long run. 

Whew. Hope that was coherent. It's been a long day. :)

It's days like this when I'm happy I'm not the commander-in-chief. 


-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at americanisp.net  
http://users.americanisp.net/~seanleblanc/
Get MLAC at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mlac/
Disciplining yourself to do what you know is right and importance, although 
difficult, is the highroad to pride, self-esteem, and personal satisfaction. 
-Brian Tracy