[CLUE-Talk] Traitors, Cowards, Scoundrels, and Intelligent Dissenters

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 21:02, Kevin Cullis wrote:

*snip*

> As a conservative, I am not angered by your disagreement of dissent, but
> in fact if you were an Iraqie dissenting against Saddam, you'd be put in
> prison or shot and so would your family. 

Yeah, same thing in China, and dozens of other countries. 

In fact, the Bush administration is so concerned about the right to
dissent that they're helping to block a human rights suit against Exxon
because it might deter investment in countries with poor human rights
records like Indonesia and China. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/08/international/asia/08INDO.html

Wake up and smell the coffee, Kevin - this isn't about human rights, it
isn't about protecting the U.S. from Iraq - it is firmly about grabbing
Iraqi oil and American business interests. 

> So, from my perspective,
> dissent all you want.  But one word of caution: please DO be careful
> what you say with our troops in harms way.

I'd like to know -- who has said anything negative about the troops
themselves? The protests going on right now aren't focused on the troops
and I haven't seen anyone on this list say anything negative about the
soldiers that are in harm's way.

As a matter of fact, one of the main objections here is that many people
feel American (and British, Australian and a few hundred Polish troops)
are being put in harm's way because Dubya and the gang are hot for Iraqi
oil. 

Too many Americans have already been killed in a war that didn't have to
happen. I don't hold the soldiers responsible for the war, I hold Bush
responsible. 

>   Sometimes what you say will
> come back to haunt THEM why they are being held captive.  Nothing is
> more hopeless when as a POW you know your country has forgotten you or
> being called "baby killers" by those who are not only ignorant but
> selfish (not saying you are).  So say what you want, but anything you
> say or do can be used against American's in action.

This is a weak argument. If people are afraid to protest for fear of
demoralizing the troops then we'd never be able to protest once the
administration leads the country into an unjust war. Hell, we'd probably
still be in Vietnam if people had this mindset, or at least would have
been there a lot longer.

If you want to ask people not to criticize the troops, that's one thing,
but a blanket statement like "anything you say or do can be used against
Americans [plural, not possessive] in action" that's rubbish. You know
as well as I do that the vast majority of the criticism has been
directed at Dubya and his administration - not the troops. Maybe there
is someone going around calling the troops "baby killers" this time, but
I haven't seen it. 

My favorite sign/slogan so far is this: "Support the troops: Bring them
home." 

> > 
> > I am not convinced that we should be doing this.  Who appointed us policemen of 
> > the world?  Is there enough of a threat to justify the war?  What if we don't 
> > find the proof we're looking for?  
> 
> So, you'd wait for another 9/11?

Are you ready to take on the entire Arab world, Kevin? Cause that's
right where your logic would take us. And if we wanted to prevent
another 9/11, why not start with Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the
9/11 terrorists came from in the first place? Not Iraq. 

The mindset that breeds fundamentalist Islamic terrorists is present in
many of the countries in the Middle East. It doesn't require direct
governement sponsorship, either. 

And, I should point out, that we've pretty much guaranteed that Islamic
terrorists will be stepping up their efforts to harm us thanks to our
actions. And we're breeding a whole new crop of potential terrorists in
Iraq now as well. In supposedly trying to prevent another 9/11, we've
probably guaranteed one. 

Let's remember - there have been NO PROVEN TIES between Iraq and Al
Qaeda. None, zip, nada, zero. There have been a number of claims, but
nothing proven. 

> Might does not always make right, but might should back up right.

True. And it's a damn shame that's not what's happening here.

Let me ask you this, Kevin. Is it okay if I walk up and beat the crap
out of a person because they MIGHT decide to attack me later, or would
that get me put in jail for assault? If we're going to preemtively
disarm every country that poses a potential threat, we have to go after
Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, North Korea... 

Saddam is a horrible, evil person -- but he posed no real threat to the
United States. The leaders of a lot of countries are oppresive and evil,
so can we invade them next? We had no justifiable reason to attack Iraq,
none. We can't say we're doing it to liberate Iraqis, because that's not
the truth - the administration is after the oil, end of story. The
government had plans drawn up to attack Iraq before 9/11, this was on
the slate long before the attacks. 

As many people have pointed out, it's also hypocritical to say we're
enforcing U.N. resolutions because 1) We've been quite happy to ignore
the U.N. when it doesn't suit our purposes and 2) Israel has been
ignoring the hell out of U.N. resolutions and we've been quite content
to support them. 

We cannot be the policeman of the world. We don't have the strength to
take on every despotic dictator in every country, we don't have the
money to carry adventurism to every country that's oppressive and we
don't have the moral right to decide which regimes should stay in power
and which should not.

Yes, we should wait until a country has attacked us -- or at least we
have information that an attack is imminent -- before attacking them.
That didn't happen here. Bush claimed the right to attack a country
because it MIGHT pose a threat SOMEDAY. 

Following that logic, there are a list of countries as long as my arm
that now have a legitimate right to attack the U.S. because we MIGHT
decide to invade them next. 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net