|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Announcement :: Protest Activity |
|
FINAL PROSPECT FOR PEACE PROTEST |
Current rating: 3 |
by PEACE List via ML
(No verified email address) |
30 May 2003
|
This Saturday May 31 will be your last chance to
participate in weekly anti-war protests on North
Prospect, at least for a while. The Anti-War
Anti-Racism Effort (AWARE) will sponsor its last
organized peace demonstration on North Prospect and
Marketview this Saturday May 31, after seven months of
weekly protests against the war in Iraq, but AWARE is
prepared to re-start the weekly demonstrations for
peace if the Bush Administration proceeds toward
attacks on Syria or Iran. |
Please Forward Widely
This Saturday May 31 will be your last chance to
participate in weekly anti-war protests on North
Prospect, at least for a while. The Anti-War
Anti-Racism Effort (AWARE) will sponsor its last
organized peace demonstration on North Prospect and
Marketview this Saturday May 31, after seven months of
weekly protests against the war in Iraq, but AWARE is
prepared to re-start the weekly demonstrations for
peace if the Bush Administration proceeds toward
attacks on Syria or Iran.
Over 800 area residents joined in the over 30
consecutive weeks of protest. Hundreds of local
supporters also donated thousands of dollars to
support AWARE's work over the course of that time.
AWARE wishes to sincerely thank all those who helped
out and welcome all supporters to the final
demonstration this Saturday! |
Comments
|
Re: FINAL PROSPECT FOR PEACE PROTEST |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -4
31 May 2003
|
Dear Protestors,
We will miss your futile attempts to direct foreign policy. I guess the fact we won a stunning victory in under three weeks did not get you the, much hoped for, and often predicted, quagmire. Yes there will be difficult days ahead for our troops trying to install a representative government in Iraq, but we will prevail and again you will be proven wrong.
How long to you intend to stay on this incredible losing streak? If you were a baseball team, your manager would have been fired years ago.
Perhaps you need to find different leadership.
Jack |
|
Re: FINAL PROSPECT FOR PEACE PROTEST |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -4
31 May 2003
|
FOR SALE: "NO IRAQ WAR" SIGNS. CHEAP
|
|
All It Takes Is One Small Edit |
by Mink!
mink (nospam) tcp.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 4
31 May 2003
|
|
Why should I sell my sign cheap? All I have to do is paste an "N" over the "Q" and it's still completely useful.
|
|
Re: FINAL PROSPECT FOR PEACE PROTEST |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
31 May 2003
|
Dear Mink,
Once again we disagree. I assume you mean our aims toward the current Iranian government. If we did our job right in Iraq, this will require no troops at all. The fact is, that this government in Iran which supports Hammas and Islamic Jihad must go. They can go the easy way or they can go down like Saddam. Same for Syria and North Korea. The fact is, that we, as the most powerful nation on earth, are simply not going to put up with this Bullshit anymore. That includes, by the way, Israel and their resistance to a settlement that everyone can live with.
If after a peace agreement is signed and enacted, and the Arab terrorist strike again, then the fury of hell should rain upon them.
Jack |
|
Re: FINAL PROSPECT FOR PEACE PROTEST |
by Dan Chambers
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
02 Jun 2003
Modified: 03:04:18 PM |
Jack,
I don't consider 5000-7000 civilian dead a smashing victory. Even if you consider our "victory" a stunning success, that shouldn't be surprising. Most of the arguments coming from the peace movement centered around the fact that Iraq was largely a defenseless country, posing no threat to us, and little threat to its neighbors. As you've so eloquently stated, the US military is the most advanced, mighty, and feared of any nation. Why should there have been a problem taking down the Hussein regime? Body builders do not have trouble beating up little kids.
Fears of a quagmire usually entered when we talked about occupation, which is where we're at now. We also argued that the arab world would hate us more (thus increasing the likelihood of terrorism), we would lose political allies all over the world, and there's the minor (almost insignificant) detail that the overwhelming majority of the planet's citizens were opposed to war in Iraq. Other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
I think it's also telling that your post indicates that you think the US has the right to invade whomever, whenever, wherever, we choose. Did you ever stop to think that this is the main reason that we're not exactly universally loved right now?
www.iraqbodycount.org |
|
Re: FINAL PROSPECT FOR PEACE PROTEST |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
02 Jun 2003
Modified: 03:30:37 PM |
Dear Dan,
Welcome Back. I thougt we were having a lively discussion on the "Over 80 Citizens Picket Senator Winkel's Office In Urbana" by Ben Grosser and then you vanished. I suspected a Hoffa like incident. Glad to see that you are okay.
In any event Dan, the predictions prior to our most recent success in the Gulf were essentially all over the board. I thought it was interesting that you mentioned the Iraqi civilian deaths and neglected to mention the deaths of our own troops. I am sure that was just an oversite. I think you will agree, that the US has done more than every military in the world to avoid civilian deaths in war. How many of the Human Shields bought it?
We have given the Iraqi people a chance to control theire own destiny. The absolute joy that Iraqi population expressed as a result of our action should at least give you some reason to be happy with our action. If not that, what about the kids we released from Saddam's torture chambers? What about the mass graves that we have uncovered? Saddam and his henchmen killed an estimated 1.5 million lives during his reign. Where were the outcries then?
You said: "I think it's also telling that your post indicates that you think the US has the right to invade whomever, whenever, wherever, we choose. Did you ever stop to think that this is the main reason that we're not exactly universally loved right now?" If the US faces a clear and present danger, yes, absolutely. I am not for marching just to march. I am tired of these tin horned dictators sponsoring terrorism, blowing up kids in shopping malls, etc.
I do not care if we are loved around the world. It would be easier if that were the case, but we certainly were not loved prior to both gulf wars, and will not be loved after this one. I do ,however, want countries that would ever consider attacking our citizens, torturing our people, or invading our allies to know that a tremendous price will have to be paid as a result. I think they got that message through pictures of our bombs decapitating the Iraqi leadership.
If a country proves to be a friend of the US, this country will have no better friend. If on the other hand, they choose a different path, than they can expect to have a very bad two or three weeks.
Take Care Dan,
Jack
|
|
Re: FINAL PROSPECT FOR PEACE PROTEST |
by Dan C.
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
02 Jun 2003
Modified: 04:05:40 PM |
Jack,
Just a quick response; I didn't post the figures about US casualties because they're very well known--I though my time would be better spent pointing out figures that the US gov't (according to that flaming radical Tommy Franks) "doesn't do".
I am of course happy that people were freed from the yoke of one kind of tyranny, but history has proven that we are utterly incapably of letting people choose their own economic destiny (Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, Guatemala, Indonesia, Vietnam, post WWII Italy, the list goes on). No one can seriously argue that if Iraqis choose a leader who will nationalize their oil revenues, distributing the wealth across the board that the US will let that stand. That's what we ousted Venezuela's Hugo Chavez over. So, I am happy that they no longer have one type of ogre. But now they're saddled with another. US.
As for state-sponsored terrorism, I whole-heartedly agree. In fact, I'm so serious about it, I'm demanding that we stop our support for terror all through the world. I don't have the power to influence other governments, but I do have the power and responsibility to influence mine.
The Mujahadeen fighters of the 80's owe us a big one, as do the Latin American death squads and assorted drug runners, as did President Duvalier of Haiti who had his own terror squad known as FRAPH. All were sponsored and kept in place by us.
That goes for Hussein too, incidentally.
As has been reported in every other country but ours, the first Bush squad heavily supported Hussein during the worst of his atrocities and continued to do so after they came to light. They've never taken the heat they deserve for this.
That last bit, about "clear and present danger" seems to be a bit in the news now, doesn't it? Besides Paul Wolfowitz's comments that WMD were settled on as a "beauracratic decision", there are leaks aplenty that the British intelligence operations were massaged to give their maximum leader the dirt he wanted. Ours are screaming right now too, you just have to do a little digging to find this stuff. If you need help finding it:
Enjoy!
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0601-08.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0601-04.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0530-06.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60140-2003May30.html?nav=hptop_tb
http://www.theomahachannel.com/helenthomas/2238950/detail.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&ncid=716&e=5&u=/ap/20030601/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq_weapons
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030609/usnews/9intell.htm |
|
Re: FINAL PROSPECT FOR PEACE PROTEST |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
03 Jun 2003
Modified: 10:52:40 PM |
Dear Dan,
Where to begin? You Said:I am of course happy that people were freed from the yoke of one kind of tyranny, but history has proven that we are utterly incapably of letting people choose their own economic destiny. Really, I guess you may have left out Japan, Germany, Taiwan, etc. for a reason.
Nationalize the Oil Industry in Iraq so it will spread the wealth? Okay Karl Marx, that has never worked in any industry it has been tried. Governments should run governments and industry should run industry. I am sure that you and I will always differ on this, but history is on my side there.
As for your statement about WMD, I guess when your boy Bill Clinton said the Iraq had them and virtually every other nation on the face of the earth agreed. We should immediately discount that. I suppose that the Kurds who were gassed by him just had a bad day. I suppose that when threatened with invasion, Sadam simply forgot to prove the world that he no longer had them. It was probably an oversight that that the portable bio weapons labs were not disclosed to the proper authorities. If he destroyed them to prevent invasion, why not allow people to find out. Why not keep records and video evidence, none of which he had.
My fear is that he has hidden them or worse given them to terrorist who now only need to release a vile full them in a subway to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. How do you think we will respond when this occurs? It will be with nukes this time and no warning should be given.
Like it or not, the President of this nation has a responsibililty to protect the citizens of our nation. If they percieve a clear and present danger than their job is to eliminate it with whatever means possible. I could give a shit if they fail to love us or not. The reality is, when they need help to whom do they turn? It is the U.S. Why, because we will.
Jack
|
|
Re: FINAL PROSPECT FOR PEACE PROTEST |
by philo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
04 Jun 2003
Modified: 06:36:07 PM |
Yes, building democracy worked in Germany and Japan. But the list of failures is longer; see Dan's post above. When things fail, they fail for good reasons. Germany and Japan were united countries, without the ethnic divisiveness found in Iraq. The odds of success are not good, and it is irresponsible to gamble with people's lives. Yes, Hussein is no longer terrorizing his people. But they are now living in a state of near anarchy, and we have no reason to expect a sane, stable, decent long term government. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils. But now that the deed is done, we have a moral obligation to *try* and help the Iraqi people move toward democracy. I hope I'm wrong, but I really don't think the Bush administration is serious about this.
As for nationalizing industries: Dan's point was that it's not up to the Iraqi people, and that talk of democracy is disingenuous. Maybe nationalization is a bad idea, but if we really were concerned about democracy, it would be the Iraqi people's mistake to make. (And it's not clear
that it wouldn't work; our nationalized highway system and our *massively* subsidized agriculture and timber industries do just fine. Not to mention publicly owned, taxpayer funded fire departments, police departments, paramedics, schools, and so on. Truly free markets have
never existed in any major economy; it's truly bizarre to hear conservative economists fantasize about thing which have never been, and never will be.)
A note about WMDs: If it was so easy to smuggle them out of the country in the nick of time and put them into the hands of terrorists, what was the point of invading in the first place? At least before the war, Hussein had something to lose. He had an incentive to refrain from aggression
and terrorism. I seem to recall *American* intelligence agencies, back before the war, warning that something like this could happen.
A note about conservatives: Ever notice how talk of human rights comes out only when they're trying to take the moral high ground against liberals? (Or trying to justify war.) As soon as the issue is pushed, they start talking about nuking population centers. Nukes don't differentiate between
combatants and noncombatants. You cannot consistently maintain that you are interested in liberating people from oppression, and then advocate vaporizing them with indiscriminate weapons.
Finally: Why should we care about who "loves" us? Because building bombs, sabotaging infrastructure, spreading biological weapons, and so on, is all relatively easy, and it's getting easier by the year. It is not reasonable to expect the U.S. to rule the entire world, and root out every wacko who wants to hurt us. It is no longer enough to be feared, we *must* be "loved".
|
|
Re: FINAL PROSPECT FOR PEACE PROTEST |
by Dan Chambers
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
05 Jun 2003
Modified: 05:47:14 PM |
Dear Jack,
You should pay attention to Philo's post, it's pretty well reasoned. To wit; I absolutely cannot take anyone seriously who keeps harping about free markets, but supports George Bush, a man who has been saved from his every economic failure by government intervention. I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously.
So regarding your comments about the nationalization of oil, if it doesn't go the Iraqis, it goes to Texaco, or ARCO, or Shell, or EXXON. And I bet Iraqis will just love knowing their only resource is being sucked dry and the proceeds are going to Bahamian bank accounts. Nationalization isn't marxism, it's using a countries resources to the benefit of its people. Rather than our people. Get it?
The main point is this; we opponents of the war were right about several important points. The first-no WMD's to justify a war existed! The second, it's an oil war (and it's really funny to watch conservatives dump on France for opposing the war based on their oil interests, all the while blithely pretending we don't have any). The third-the war would be illegal and immoral, costing too much in terms of human life. The fourth-this will make us too many enemies to be worthwhile; now look--we're widely hated all over the world. The fifth--people are making too much money off of this war for this to be a wild coincidence--that's just ugly war profiteering, and there's little excuse for it. The proponents of the war trotted out one argument after another, and none of them held up to serious scrutiny. This war was wrong, no matter how it looked on CNN or Fox. |
|
Re: FINAL PROSPECT FOR PEACE PROTEST |
by Dan Chambers
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jun 2003
|
ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer Friday, June 6, 2003
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/06/06/national1106EDT0554.DTL
(06-06) 10:07 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
The Pentagon's intelligence service reported last September that it had no reliable evidence that Iraq had chemical agents in weaponized form, officials said Friday.
The time frame is notable because it coincided with Bush administration efforts to mount a public case for the urgency of disarming Iraq, by force if necessary. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others argued that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons and was hiding them.
Two months after major fighting in Iraq ended, U.S. officials have yet to find any chemical or other mass-killing weapons, although they still express confidence that some will turn up.
Rumsfeld recently raised the possibility that Iraq destroyed the weapons before the war started March 20. He also has said he believes some remain and will be discovered when U.S. search teams find knowledgeable Iraqis who are willing to disclose the locations.
In making its case for invading Iraq, the administration also argued that Iraq was seeking to develop nuclear weapons and that it might provide some of its mass-killing weapons to terrorists.
On Friday, a small team of United Nations nuclear experts arrived in Baghdad to begin a damage assessment at Iraq's largest nuclear facility, known as Tuwaitha. It was left unguarded by American and allied troops during the early days of the war and then pillaged by villagers.
The arrival of the team -- whose members are not weapons inspectors -- marked the first time since the Iraq war began that representatives from the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency returned to the country. The atomic energy agency had long monitored Iraq's nuclear program.
In its report last September, the Defense Intelligence Agency said it could find no reliable information to indicate that Iraq had any chemical weapons available for use on the battlefield. But the agency also said Iraq probably had stockpiles of banned chemical warfare agents.
The existence of the DIA report was disclosed by U.S. News & World Report, and a classified summary was reported by Bloomberg News on Thursday. Two Pentagon officials who had read the summary confirmed Friday that it said DIA had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons.
A White House spokesman said a portion of the still-classified report is being taken out of context of the entire document's conclusions, which match what the Bush administration argued all along.
"The entire report paints a different picture than the selective quotes would lead you to believe," said Michael Anton, a spokesman with the White House's National Security Council. "The entire report is consistent with with the president was saying at the time."
A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there was a National Intelligence Estimate published at nearly the same time as the DIA report -- and with DIA's concurrence -- that concluded Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
The DIA's analysis is just one piece of an intelligence mosaic that Rumsfeld and other senior administrations could consider in making their own assessment of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capability. Congress is reviewing the prewar intelligence to determine whether the administration overplayed the weapons threat in order to justify toppling the Iraqi regime.
On Friday, the Senate Armed Services convened a closed-door hearing focusing on the mission of the 75th Exploitation Task Force, which made the initial effort to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction at the conclusion of the war, and the follow-on search team, called the Iraq Survey Group.
The committee was hearing from Stephen A. Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence; Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the DIA; and an unidentified CIA representative.
|
|
