Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > 2+2 Communities > Other Other Topics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-08-2003, 12:07 AM
Mark H Mark H is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: southern minnesota
Posts: 29
Default anti war please respond

* Khalid Kishtaini, Iraq's most famous satirical writer: "Don't these marchers know that the only march possible in Iraq under Saddam Hussein is from the prison to the firing-squad? The Western marchers behave as if the US wanted to invade Switzerland, not Iraq under Saddam Hussein."

* Awad Nasser, one of Iraq's most famous modernist poets: "These people are mad. They are actually signing up to sacrifice their lives to protect a tyrant's death machine." (Comment about human shields.)

"Are these people ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?" (Comment on antiwar marchers in London, who vociferously welcomed Tony Benn onto the podium, the day after he had appeared on TV to tell the Brits that his friend Saddam was standing for "the little people" against "hegemonistic America")

* Fadel Sultani, president of the National Association of Iraqi authors: "I had a few questions for the marchers. Did they not realize that oppression, torture and massacre of innocent civilians are also forms of war? Are the antiwar marchers only against a war that would liberate Iraq, or do they also oppose the war Saddam has been waging against our people for a generation?"

* Hashem al-Iqabi, one of Iraq's leading writers and intellectuals: "The death and destruction caused by Saddam in our land is the worst since Nebuchadnezzar. These prosperous, peaceful and fat Europeans are marching in support of evil incarnate."

He said that, watching the march in London, he felt Nazism was "alive and well and flexing its muscles in Hyde Park".

* Abdel-Majid Khoi, son of the late Grand Ayatollah Khoi, Iraq's foremost religious leader for almost 40 years, spoke of the "deep moral pain" he feels when hearing the so-called "antiwar" discourse: "The Iraqi nation is like a man who is kept captive and tortured by a gang of thugs. The proper moral position is to fly to help that man liberate himself and bring the torturers to book. But what we witness in the West is the opposite: support for the torturers and total contempt for the victim."

Khoi said he would say "ahlan wasahlan" (welcome) to anyone who would liberate Iraq.

* The Iraqi grandmother who was refused the microphone at the London antiwar demonstration. Here's part of the article by Amir Taheri, an Iranian journalist who also used to write for the Guardian (nationalreview). The authoritarian behaviour of protest organizers is scandalous:

'Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?' asked the Iraqi grandmother.

I spent part of last Saturday with the so-called "antiwar" marchers in London in the company of some Iraqi friends. Our aim had been to persuade the organizers to let at least one Iraqi voice to be heard. Soon, however, it became clear that the organizers were as anxious to stifle the voice of the Iraqis in exile as was Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The Iraqis had come with placards reading "Freedom for Iraq" and "American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!"

But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the "spontaneous" marchers, were allowed. These read "Bush and Blair, baby-killers," " Not in my name," "Freedom for Palestine" and "Indict Bush and Sharon."

Not one placard demanded that Saddam should disarm to avoid war.

The goons also confiscated photographs showing the tragedy of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Saddam's forces gassed 5,000 people to death in 1988.

...

But the bulk of the crowd consisted of fellow travelers, those innocent citizens who, prompted by idealism or boredom, are always prepared to play the role of "useful idiots," as Lenin used to call them.

They ignored the fact that the peoples of Iraq are unanimous in their prayers for the war of liberation to come as quickly as possible.

The number of marchers did not impress Salima, the grandmother.

"What is wrong does not become right because many people say it," she asserted, bidding us farewell while the marchers shouted "Not in my name!"

Let us hope that when Iraq is liberated, as it soon will be, the world will remember that it was not done in the name of Rev. Jackson, Charles Kennedy, Glenda Jackson, Tony Benn and their companions in a march of shame.

***

Mark H
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-08-2003, 01:27 AM
Chris Alger Chris Alger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,160
Default Re: anti war please respond

I think I and the others already have, many times. But ok.

* Khalid Kishtaini, Iraq's most famous satirical writer: "Don't these marchers know that the only march possible in Iraq under Saddam Hussein is from the prison to the firing-squad? The Western marchers behave as if the US wanted to invade Switzerland, not Iraq under Saddam Hussein."

It's nonsense with a logical corallary that one should not protest the murder of an unfree people.

* Awad Nasser, one of Iraq's most famous modernist poets: "These people are mad. They are actually signing up to sacrifice their lives to protect a tyrant's death machine." (Comment about human shields.)

Ditto.

"Are these people ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?" (Comment on antiwar marchers in London, who vociferously welcomed Tony Benn onto the podium, the day after he had appeared on TV to tell the Brits that his friend Saddam was standing for "the little people" against "hegemonistic America")

Point?

* Fadel Sultani, president of the National Association of Iraqi authors: "I had a few questions for the marchers. Did they not realize that oppression, torture and massacre of innocent civilians are also forms of war? Are the antiwar marchers only against a war that would liberate Iraq, or do they also oppose the war Saddam has been waging against our people for a generation?"

If you assume "liberation" is the goal and likely result of the war effort, then a lot of things follow. But it's a big if. How about some evidence based on empirical experience?

* Hashem al-Iqabi, one of Iraq's leading writers and intellectuals: "The death and destruction caused by Saddam in our land is the worst since Nebuchadnezzar. These prosperous, peaceful and fat Europeans are marching in support of evil incarnate."
He said that, watching the march in London, he felt Nazism was "alive and well and flexing its muscles in Hyde Park".

Hyperbole is cheap.

* Abdel-Majid Khoi, son of the late Grand Ayatollah Khoi, Iraq's foremost religious leader for almost 40 years, spoke of the "deep moral pain" he feels when hearing the so-called "antiwar" discourse: "The Iraqi nation is like a man who is kept captive and tortured by a gang of thugs. The proper moral position is to fly to help that man liberate himself and bring the torturers to book. But what we witness in the West is the opposite: support for the torturers and total contempt for the victim."
Khoi said he would say "ahlan wasahlan" (welcome) to anyone who would liberate Iraq.

Do you seriously think that that the US is going to restore to power a "Grand Ayatollah," or anything of the sort, in Iraq? Also, some of the biggest effective apologists and proponents for aggression, tyranny, torture, murder and terror (e.g., Negroponte, Abrams, Poindexter) are in the very adminstration that will wage this war against Iraq. If India mounted an invasion against Pakistan, you wouldn't assume that it intended to "liberate" Pakistan from it's military dictator. Why do you assume differently about the US when so many lives are at stake?

* The Iraqi grandmother who was refused the microphone at the London antiwar demonstration. Here's part of the article by Amir Taheri, an Iranian journalist who also used to write for the Guardian (nationalreview). The authoritarian behaviour of protest organizers is scandalous:

'Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?' asked the Iraqi grandmother.

I spent part of last Saturday with the so-called "antiwar" marchers in London in the company of some Iraqi friends. Our aim had been to persuade the organizers to let at least one Iraqi voice to be heard. Soon, however, it became clear that the organizers were as anxious to stifle the voice of the Iraqis in exile as was Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The Iraqis had come with placards reading "Freedom for Iraq" and "American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!"

But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the "spontaneous" marchers, were allowed. These read "Bush and Blair, baby-killers," " Not in my name," "Freedom for Palestine" and "Indict Bush and Sharon."

Not one placard demanded that Saddam should disarm to avoid war.

1. There might be some truth to this, especially since in the early days of pre-war, the best organizing is done by those that are already fairly well organized, capable of getting the permits, interfacing with the cops and media, and so forth. These tend to be people with a more narrow ideology than the rank-and-file protestors. The obvious solution is for more people to join the movement.

2. The notion that demonstrators were only allowed to demonstrate if they carried the right placards sounds like a lie. Who's going to prevent them?

3. Re: "Not one placard demanded that Saddam should disarm to avoid war." Because they don't believe this war is about disarmament. That's their point.


The goons also confiscated photographs showing the tragedy of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Saddam's forces gassed 5,000 people to death in 1988.

Then they should be jailed. Stealing is illegal in the UK, I believe.
...

But the bulk of the crowd consisted of fellow travelers, those innocent citizens who, prompted by idealism or boredom, are always prepared to play the role of "useful idiots," as Lenin used to call them.

Yeah right. All the peaceniks are commie dupes. Old story.

They ignored the fact that the peoples of Iraq are unanimous in their prayers for the war of liberation to come as quickly as possible.

Say what? And how does the writer know that people with no right of expression are "unanimous in their prayers" that US bombs will soon be falling all around them? What made-up crap.

The number of marchers did not impress Salima, the grandmother.

"What is wrong does not become right because many people say it," she asserted, bidding us farewell while the marchers shouted "Not in my name!"

Let us hope that when Iraq is liberated, as it soon will be, the world will remember that it was not done in the name of Rev. Jackson, Charles Kennedy, Glenda Jackson, Tony Benn and their companions in a march of shame.

***
You forgot Jane Fonda. Or maybe not, given that about a million or so people that died in that war for no reason would have survived had her advice been heeded.

Bottom line: most in the peace movement aren't hard core pacifists that believe that no war is ever justified, and many would support multilateral action against Iraq if the facts were different. As these examples prove, the pro-war camp is long on scary rhetoric but short on facts and tneds to prefer crude smears and red-baiting to an honest debate about the facts and evidence. It's telling.

As for the assumption that the US will "liberate" an underdeveloped oil-rich country by conquering it and then surrendering the power it obtains to the people of that country, you'd think that the US would first limit the shipments of arms and cattle prods from the US to Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey, or make some other modest steps toward liberating oppressed people. "Liberation" doesn't follow from any historical experince of the US with weak, undeveloped countries. Further, what little exists in terms of planning documents suggest that the examples of Europe and Japan during WWII are not being contemplated. This war is about extending the reach of the US, not that of Iraqis. If it were otherwise, the US either (1) would not have such a long and ignominious record of supporting tyranny, or (2) without any institutional change or reform, changed its stripes, and is now pledged to the goal of selflessly "liberating" the oppressed, and by coincidence is doing so against a defenseless country with the second largest reserves of oil in the world. Believe what you will, but ask yourself: what do you think the Iraqis hold about Israel, and how is the US going to give power to that voice?


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-08-2003, 05:14 AM
hudini36 hudini36 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 43
Default Re: anti war please respond

Not evryone that believes that this war is wrong is anti-Israeli. The views that you are putting forth remind me of the anti-Castro Cubans. Most of the high level operatives in the Cuban community worked for the CIA. Many still do. Nixon's used many of these same CIA operatives as plumbers. Speculation exists (not without evidence from Jim Garrison) that several of these operatives were involved in the assasination of JFK.

I have no more reason to believe in your exiles than I do in those Cubans. Not one democracy exists in the Islamic Middle-East countries. Not one. Egypt claims to have one, but Mubarak has been president since Sadat's assasination.
Egypt uses tactics reminiscent of Saddam against any political opposition.

I don't trust the CIA to tell the American public the truth about anything. More evidence exists linking the CIA to 9-11 than exists for linking Iraq.

Since when does the USA give a damn about dictators that kill their own people? Not in Pakistan. Not the former Shah, not Somoza, not Marcos, not in Guatemala, not in El Salvador. Not in Honduras. Not in Peru. Not in Rwanda. Not for years in South Africa. Dick Cheney voted in congress to reccomend that Nelson Mandela remain in prison for life.

The USA stands for corporate profits. From a geo political point of view, conquering Iraq makes sense. With Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE under American arms, the rest of the world that is dependant upon oil from the region will have to kiss Bush's ass.

The problem is that the army will never be able to leave while the world is dependant upon fossil fuels.

By the way,Mr. Spook, is it a coincidence that Enron and Halliburton "won" contracts to do major work in post war
Viaquez? (oh, excuse me Iraq)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.