Subject:
|
Re: The Role of Dissent
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Apr 2003 08:17:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
215 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> I, doubtless like many of you, have been watching the news, reading online
> sources, and watching CSPAN (which is the recorded govt. in action of the
> U.S. and often of England too).
Britain!
> Well, I was watching "Poodle" Blair
> yesterday and I got the idea that the English
British!
> are not going to just let Bush
> get away with anything he pleases once this war is over -- when the dust
> settles people are going to expect Bush to actually do what he has claimed
> all this time: free the Iraqi people to self-government. Reports of the
> death of the U.N. may have been greatly exaggerated, sorry Richard Perle.
Britain also expects progress in Israel / Palestine - the so-called "road map".
>
> I am reminded of Viet Nam.
I'm having a "war movie week". I watched Full Metal Jacket last night, and I
came to the same conclusion; just replace "gook" & “Vietnamese” with "Iraqi":
Colonel: "Son, all I've ever asked of my Marines is for them to obey
my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the
Vietnamese because inside every gook, there is an American trying
to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've got to try to keep
our heads until this peace craze blows over."
[much later]
Animal Mother: "You think we waste Gooks for "freedom"? This is a slaughter. If
I'm gonna get my b*lls blown off for a word, my word is p**nt*ng."
"The Longest Day" is tonight.
> Some think we were there for rubber trees. But
> by the end of the nightmare, we had razed many a forest thanks to napalm --
> hence no rubber trees. The difference between the stated agenda and the
> true agenda made it impossible to achieve the latter while we failed at the
> former.
>
> In Iraq, the stated agenda has been to secure the world from WMD (which they
> haven't yet found, BTW)
*shock* You mean none of these frequently reported "finds" were actually
verified?!
> and to remove Saddam from power (the regime change
> which was never part of the U.N. agenda but is for some reason very much the
> agenda of the U.S.). I believe the stated agenda to be a false one -- I
> think we are there making a bid for control of the world's second largest
> oil reserves and to destabilize the lock the arab world has upon the price
> of oil. But whatever, my point today is distinguish between a stated claim
> and the unstated true reasons for this war.
>
> The world is so closely scrutinizing the activies of the Bush administration
> that it may yet prove impossible to achieve the unstated true reasons for
> this war. Dissent triumphant!
Those interested in the role of dissent would do well to read this:
Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,927712,00.html
Some of it is not my view, but the perspective in interesting:
==+==
Most courageous of all, are the hundreds of thousands of American people on the
streets of America's great cities - Washington, New York, Chicago, San
Francisco. The fact is that the only institution in the world today that is
more powerful than the American government, is American civil society. American
citizens have a huge responsibility riding on their shoulders. How can we not
salute and support those who not only acknowledge but act upon that
responsibility? They are our allies, our friends.
[later]
Despite the pall of gloom that hangs over us today, I'd like to file a cautious
plea for hope: in times of war, one wants one's weakest enemy at the helm of
his forces. And President George W Bush is certainly that. Any other even
averagely intelligent US president would have probably done the very same
things, but would have managed to smoke-up the glass and confuse the
opposition. Perhaps even carry the UN with him. Bush's tactless imprudence and
his brazen belief that he can run the world with his riot squad, has done the
opposite. He has achieved what writers, activists and scholars have striven to
achieve for decades. He has exposed the ducts. He has placed on full public
view the working parts, the nuts and bolts of the apocalyptic apparatus of the
American empire.
Now that the blueprint (The Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire) has been put
into mass circulation, it could be disabled quicker than the pundits predicted.
==+==
> Given that our supposedly best intelligence on Iraqi WMD is proving itself
> false as the days pass (although I still think it's possible to plant the
> necessary evidence AND I think it would be a wise thing to do on the part of
> the current administration), we have to start wondering about veracity
> abouty the stated claims for this war. If the premise for the war is false,
> then what are we doing there? Okay, we are there to free the Iraqi people
> -- whether we like it or not, we are now expected to do it or face the wrath
> of the rest of the world including England.
Britain!
> Our true reasons for being there
> may have to be cast aside in favor of satisfying the claimed reasons. We
> cannot sell the lie, and then expect people to buy the truth instead. I had
> a brief discussion with someone today about whether the world would now
> accept an imperialist U.S. control of Iraq. Blair answered that question in
> the negative -- repeatedly.
I expect the world will have to take what it gets.
>
> I still have my eye on which fat cats are going to get the contracts for
> rebuilding and divvying up the oil fields. Not a small thing. It's not as
> if Bush hasn't been trying to claim the prize for his buddies and himself --
> he has! Go read about it elsewhere and find out, it's all over the place.
>
> I am just acknowledging the unhappiness american greed is generating across
> the pond and probably throughout the world. I think I am seeing Blair draw
> his line in the sands of Iraq.
I would not put it that strongly. He was openly criticised yesterday for his
stance; talking about his "aims" rather than what was likely.
Have look:
Verdict: Prime minister's questions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2909627.stm
He has taken the UK public as far as it will go without reward for the risks
taken. American policy is no longer automatically trusted here [or anywhere?] -
so he now must argue every point. We have devolved [Scotland & Wales] and local
elections here in early May - the predictions for his party are dark... and
rightly so. I doubt he’ll be removed, but I’m sure he’ll have a few more grey
hairs.
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | The Role of Dissent
|
| I, doubtless like many of you, have been watching the news, reading online sources, and watching CSPAN (which is the recorded govt. in action of the U.S. and often of England too). Well, I was watching "Poodle" Blair yesterday and I got the idea (...) (22 years ago, 2-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
