Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-08-2002, 01:44 PM   #376
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
You might have a differant perspective if you had been watching for snipers last month.
...and, at the risk of verring off-topic again: I doubt this very much, Brian (even though several of my relatives were "sniper-bait," for awhile, as you earlier put it).

Did the execution of Timothy McVeigh put an end to local terrorism? Can you show me even one state where the death penalty is in effect that has caused a reduction in murders? Probably not, because ppl engaging in murderous acts are so far off the scale of social considerations that they are not going to let the threat of death slow them down.

All the death penalty does is give politicians an easy issue to tout, and the prison-industrial complex more lucrative funding.
 
Old 11-08-2002, 04:45 PM   #377
opherdonchin
Dojo: Baltimore Aikido
Location: Baltimore
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 586
Offline
It's great to watch this discussion staying so basically straightforward and 'nice' for so long.

I haven't had a lot to contribute, so I've just been watching mostly, but felt like jumping in again. It seems to me like Neil and Brain are talking past each other somewhat. That is, both of you them have strong arguments that reinforce their positions and their views on the world, and they are both practiced at presenting those arguments in a way that convinces them (and probably others). Ultimately, that makes it easier for them not to be 'challenged' by the discussion. Every argument one of them brings up, the other has heard before and knows his answer. It becomes a funny dance which goes around but may not necessarily lead to real growth and change on either side.

So, if the two of you think there may be something to what I'm saying, I'd like to propse an exercise I personally would find very interesting: could each of you please highlight what you feel to be the weakest parts of your own positions? Could you tell me where you believe your thinking on this issue is most likely to be flexible? I think if I understood this, I would learn a lot more by 'listening.'

Anyway, it's just an idea.

Yours in Aiki
Opher
 
Old 11-10-2002, 08:49 AM   #378
Brian H
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 102
Offline
As I said before, my opinion on the death penalty is unsettled.

The one issue that I am very settled on is that life is sacred. But if somebody takes a big dump on the alter of life by killing another, then they loose their spot at the debating table.

Neil and I can debate retribution v. moral decay etc. and how the taking of life by government effects the society at large.

Other than that, I am still working it out. One of my co-workers was murdered in the line of duty nine years ago next month. The prosecutor declined to go for the death penalty, but the guy is rotting in prison now with no possibility of parole. The guy SHOULD have just run away, it is a virtual certainty he would have escaped had he just run. Instead he shot a policeman dead. Would the possibility of the death penalty saved the cops life? I don't know, but the murderer could have had he made a different choice. How do you get people to make those choices? If I knew, another of my co-workers would not have been murdered last year over $1.10.

Neil,

I meant to get this link to you before about the "actual innocense" of Mumia (snort, hack, cough). This is a police run site, but you will find the meat of the site (links to original sources/ side by side comparisons of the many "versions" of the incident/ crime scene diagrams) interesting.

www.danielfaulkner.com

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing
 
Old 11-10-2002, 07:56 PM   #379
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
virtual dialogues

Quote:
Opher Donchin (opherdonchin) wrote:
It seems to me like Neil and Brain are talking past each other somewhat.

Every argument one of them brings up, the other has heard before and knows his answer. It becomes a funny dance which goes around but may not necessarily lead to real growth and change on either side.

could each of you please highlight what you feel to be the weakest parts of your own positions? Could you tell me where you believe your thinking on this issue is most likely to be flexible? I think if I understood this, I would learn a lot more by 'listening.'
I've been giving this one a lot of thought, Opher. I wish I could comply: it would be great if I could see my own inflexibility to my thinking, as I wrote it out. Unfortunately, I am too close to the "source," to see myself so objectively.

Also, you miss an important point: this is not a "discussion," per se; more like an online exchange of ideas. Brian can raise points which I may/may not agree, and I can choose either to take up these issues online, or mull them over, silently. He, and others, have raised several points that I do not take issue over, because I feel that there's little to be gained in a "pissing match," or I just don't think the other person is very open to my perspective (actually, one thing I've learned from these dialogues is that NO one ever completely changes their perspective, from an online debate).

I don't know from Brian's perspective, but much of his line of thinking IS new to me (as I live in an area with an abundance of progressives), and I welcome his input, even when I disagree.

I believe that all ppl are possessed with a "native intelligence" that has a measure of wisdom about their particular place and views of the world. Take the flack over the spotted owl, in Oregon, for example: environmentalists are concerned about the near extinction about the owl, as its habitat gets wiped out. They want to limit, or halt, clear-cutting practices in that region.

Loggers, OTOH, are concerned about their jobs and view the environmentalists as outsiders who care little for the fate of loggers and their families (ultimately, they BOTH have a perspective to offer, if only one side would bend a little, which they both have, to a degree).

The problem arises when ppl are fooled or misinformed of a given situation and assume that their opinion is a reflection of that "native intelligence," or when they develop inflexible attitudes about their opposition (you cannot believe how many times I've heard rebut's to my posts begin with: "... this is exactly like the kind of thinking I've heard from protestors from the '60's," as if I were suddenly transformed into a stoned, aging hippy because I disagree).

Actually, I welcome Brian's diversity of views because it teaches me to talk to someone who does not share my world-view (although, of course, I DO have perspectives about the shortcomings of some of Brian's points, and I'm sure the reverse is true).
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
Neil,

I meant to get this link to you before about the "actual innocense" of Mumia (snort, hack, cough). This is a police run site, but you will find the meat of the site (links to original sources/ side by side comparisons of the many "versions" of the incident/ crime scene diagrams) interesting.

www.danielfaulkner.com
Even though it's off-topic, I am going to give the link a good look, because I have not had a chance to review the opposing view. Thanks for the tip, Brian.

I'll respond when I get through it all, either here or via PM. Thx again.
 
Old 11-11-2002, 02:31 AM   #380
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
I just heard an interview with Sen. McCain (remember him?) on a Pacifica station. He talked a bit about the Iraqi "situation."

It made me a little ill, his glib, sweeping generalization of the "will of the Iraqi ppl." How does he know what the Iraqi's want? He certainly hasn't been over there recently.

It would be very difficult to take an Iraqi poll right now, but from every source I've checked, the Iraqi's do not want a US invasion, and are rallying behind their leader...even if they otherwise detest him.

Just as some of us are doing: rallying behind our leader, in a time of war.

If I were OBL, I'd be a very happy man, right now. My worst two enemies, on a collision course. The likely death of one, who will be martyred for the cause of the "Jihad."

Oh, boy.
 
Old 11-11-2002, 07:26 AM   #381
Brian H
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 102
Offline
Neil,

I have enjoyed this discussion as well, for the same reason.

A friendly sparring match is a comfortable analogy for martial artists.

Like it or not, the "War in Iraq" has already begun. I would argue that has not really ended since the Gulf War.

We have been bombing Iraq on a semi-regular basis for over a decade (things got particularly dangerous in Iraq when Clinton was being impeached).

Saddam's power, as Mao said "flows from the barrel of a gun." I submit to you that if Iraq is further destabilized that Saddam will fall, with or without an invasion.

With an invasion:

Most of Iraq is empty desert. Saddam has firm control over Bagdad, but much less so the Kurdish north and Shi-ite south.

If I were running things (very scary thought), I would expect that the war plans would call for splitting these three parts up in an invasion. The areas involved would be easy to grab quickly with mobile forces. I would expect that the Iraqis in the north and south would welcome Allied occupation (being the target of much of Saddam's worst crimes) Maybe not, but they can't have much love for Saddam.

This would leave Saddam land locked in Bagdad and surrounded on three sides by Allied forces (All sides if Iran was on board).

This would leave Saddam trapped in his capital with all the people who would likely want to stage a coup and save their own hide. The oil fields would be gone and his army would be over run or in a defensive ring around Bagdad. How long would you hang out in the trenches under Allied planes if you were an Iraqi grunt?

Side benefits would be that Saddam's SCUDS would be out of range of their prime targets and few options for using them would remain (the areas that were used so successfully in the Gulf War to hide the SCUDS would be in Allied hands) Assuming Saddam managed to get SCUDS into Bagdad, the would be very difficult to move around in a city and if fired would be vulnerable in the boost phase (in the Gulf War we were only in control of the ground (for ground to air missiles) in the target areas, plus we have had ten years to come up with neat defensive toys)

How long could Saddam hold out? How quickly would his army give out in a siege? In the Gulf War the mines around Iraqi positions were as much to keep Saddam's army from surrendering as to defend them.

I would think that not pushing our forces into Bagdad would be the way to go. It invites the Iraqi Army to come out and fight. A very dangerous thing to do under Allied skies.

Air dropping food into civilian areas would serve the two fold goal of reducing civilian loses and weaken Saddam's hold on the civilian population. An independent source of food would give the Iraqis ... a measure of independence and would serve our ends much more than Saddam's.

Without an invasion:

I would suggest that a "food invasion" by the US/UN, during the current sanctions/inspections phase, would be a political/humanitarian bonanza- especially if UN security forces/peace keepers (blue hats/white tanks ) moved in too.

This aggressive use of humanitarian aid to destabilize a rogue leader would not be a bad precedent to set. All those protesters chanting "Drop food, not bombs would be happy."

The other thing I would do would attach a media element to all UN activities. The Media in Iraq is tightly controlled by the Iraqi government, and unregulated media access would serve to further the worlds understanding of the situation.

Nothing in my "without invasion" senario would prevent or detract from the "with invasion." It might even work by itself and preclude invasion.

Last edited by Brian H : 11-11-2002 at 07:32 AM.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing
 
Old 11-12-2002, 03:49 PM   #382
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Wow.

The Iraqi parliament rejecting the UN Resolution took me by surprise, but I suppose that I shouldn't have been. Interesting, that they view the Resolution as a challenge to Iraqi sovereignty, and that they take umbrage over the claim that Hussein kicked out the inspectors, when the US actually recalled them.

Interesting also that Hussein's son is calling for Arab weapons-inspectors, suggesting that the Iraqi leadership takes issue mostly over the duplicitous US usage of inspectors for spies.

Brian,

Being a strategist myself, I like a good war-scenario, too. I think that your ideas for how to implement an invasion are definitely feasible, but you neglect several important points.

1) The Shiites in the South hate the US. They have not forgotten how Schwartzkopf stood by and let them be slaughtered after George I called for a revolt, after the Gulf War. Also, the place is a highly militarized war-zone already. Bombings are commencing, and the mood there is gearing up for an invasion; the Basra region is seen as the "front-line."

2) The feeling among the other nations is not the same as it was, 10 years ago, even with the UN signing on for this charade. Saudi Arabia has refused to be a staging point for an Iraqi invasion: even with the UN approval, FWIH. This time, the invasion force will not be as multinational as it was, last time.

3) By some accounts, the US is not prepared for a war in the desert. The information of the US military's war preparedness in gereral is sketchy.

4) If/when we enact "regime change (read: assassinate)" in Iraq, the plan of the week is to install an American to oversee the resultant chaos in Iraq, over the next several months. I don't know about you, but this idea makes me very uneasy. Americans are already hated in Iraq; an American giving orders is supposed to instill a great love? I don't think so.

OTOH, I really like your "food invasion" scenario. While I have doubt about its ability to destabilize Hussein, I think that a humanitarian effort in Iraq would far more demonstrate American goodwill than an invasion following 12 years of sanctions.

I'm sure, though, that the geniuses thinking up invasion scenarios in DC could easily conjure up a creditable "humanitarian invasion," something along the lines of your idea.

Good post! We'll make a lefty of you yet!

Last edited by Neil Mick : 11-12-2002 at 03:51 PM.
 
Old 11-13-2002, 10:58 AM   #383
Brian H
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 102
Offline
Me, Lefty? Dude, that was a hard right turn you took back there

Do you really think that all that sound and fury coming from the "Iraqi Parliament" is anything but well organized theater? Unless democracy broke out while I was napping, it is still very much a dictatorship. Like everybody else, I am waiting to hear what Saddam has to say (because not much else matters in Iraq).

As to the Shiites in the south, we really did step on their crank ten years ago, but I would still count on the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" factor to override much (not saying all) of these feelings. We DID wrong them, but Saddam has been killing them (man, woman and child alike).

Beyond that, we do have Muslim allies and many of them would probably not be opposed to acting as "peace keepers." Our troops would do most of the land taking/ass kicking, while Muslim troops would be free to handle civilian areas. This is not unrealistic, in that the troops we would be using would be the guys getting face time on CNN and their national governments could rightly claim many kudos for doing it.

As to the multinational nature of our last gulf war. Some of our "coalition partners" sent only token or combat ineffective troops. I mean like "The Nation of East Whatnot: 14 combat bicycle washers." The same thing happens with other "multinational missions" like Bosnia. I would be willing to bet lunch that half a dozen "partners" will pop up at the last minute and that they will total less than a thousand (useless) troops.

As to details of sketchy US war plans ... you may be familiar with the term "surprise attack"

As to the "hatred" of the US in Iraq. (DANGER! DANGER! I AM ABOUT TO MENTION WWII) A no time in the century has the US made more hay about mutual national hatred than in WWII, including all sorts of nasty racist stuff. However, once the war ended, American GI were comfortable enough with our "enemies" to be bringing home the sisters and daughters of the men who had been trying to kill them as "war brides." I had more than a few friends growing up with moms/grand mothers with thick German, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese (etc.) accents that dad met in the military. For every nation we have ever been in conflict with, you will find a large immigrant population.

We must be doing something right.

And don't get me wrong, a "food invasion" would be a very dangerous game for the players and would go something like this:

The weapons inspectors are UN personal. It would not be a stretch to attach a contingent of experts to them detailed to access the effects of UN sanctions on the Iraqi people (not a bad idea regardless of the motives, mind you).

These experts report back about conditions in Iraq.

Saddam does not have a firm hold on many areas in Iraq and it would be likely that he is not very diligent in caring for people in these areas. UN experts find these areas. After all, if Saddam does not have a presence there, it is likely the CIA does. So "finding" these areas will not be hard.

The UN makes a big show about needing to make a humanitarian mission into these (and other areas). The UN "caused" this suffering, so they want to do something about it. (Saddam "caused" it, not the UN)

Saddam says "No you can't go there, there are BANDITS and TERRORISTS (IE "freedom fighters") there."

The UN says, "No problem, we will send in our handy Muslim peace keepers." Elements of various Muslim coalition partners will then put on blue hats and paint there tanks white and drive into Iraq. They will hug the local Imams, pray at the local mosque, and be all over CNN.

What makes this really dangerous is, that when none Iraqi troops show up to act as a buffer between the Iraqi people and the Iraqi military/secret police, that some Iraqis will feel free enough to mouth off about Saddam. (and that gosh durn CIA will make sure it gets beamed to every Iraqi home).

That sort of stuff would really piss Saddam off and the peace keepers/civilian aid workers might get hurt/killed if Saddam tried to re-exert control.

Double and triple the danger when you take into account the likelihood that for every blue hat in Iraq, several dozen Allied troops would be waiting in planes/tanks to come over the border in the event that the Iraqi tried to use open military action to expel the UN. I.E. some local commander in Iraqi puts down some "bandits" and UN troops get involved. By the time the shooting gets going in earnest, the sky would be full of gun ships and assault troops. A real invasion begins and it gets nasty.

I like a "food invasion" too, but it is not without dangers (and in its own way is a rather insidious power grab).

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing
 
Old 11-14-2002, 01:39 PM   #384
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
Me, Lefty? Dude, that was a hard right turn you took back there

Do you really think that all that sound and fury coming from the "Iraqi Parliament" is anything but well organized theater?
Maybe it was an iriminage

Yes, I know it's all "theatre," but it's important theatre. I figured Hussein to comply with the UN Resolution.
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
As to the Shiites in the south, we really did step on their crank ten years ago, but I would still count on the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" factor to override much (not saying all) of these feelings. We DID wrong them, but Saddam has been killing them (man, woman and child alike).

Beyond that, we do have Muslim allies and many of them would probably not be opposed to acting as "peace keepers." Our troops would do most of the land taking/ass kicking, while Muslim troops would be free to handle civilian areas. This is not unrealistic, in that the troops we would be using would be the guys getting face time on CNN and their national governments could rightly claim many kudos for doing it.
All this planning and war-scenario-figuring is amusing, but the fact is that neither of us TRULY know. We don't know what the Shiites are planning to do, or who they side with (altho personally, I disagree with you. The Shiites aren't stupid; do you think that they're going to happily cheer when the US comes in and installs an American to head Iraq? And then, after 5-15 years of occupation, do you think they expect anything from the "bringers of freedom and democracy," other than what they've already received (nothing)?)

And "face time, on CNN?" they'd probably rather have the "face time" on Al Jazeera.

Even if you and I knew all the factors, Brian: we can't know the fallout of all this warplanning. Suppose Iran attacks as soon as Hussein falls? And, what if you and the US vastly unerestimate Hussein's support, and the combined might of Iraq fights the US war-effort?

I'll tell you what happens, in that case: "deep doo-doo," as Bush I termed it. A Vietnam scenario that just keeps drawing our resources and lives of US soldiers, getting harder and harder to remove ourselves.
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
As to details of sketchy US war plans ... you may be familiar with the term "surprise attack"
"Surprise attack??" If we flew planes with banners announcing our intentions, we couldn't be more blatant. Doesn't matter which side we attack, Hussein knows we're coming.

The thing that bothers me most, is the apparent US unconcern with the aftereffect of this invasion upon the international and Arab community (not to mention the appalling cost of human lives).
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
As to the "hatred" of the US in Iraq. (DANGER! DANGER! I AM ABOUT TO MENTION WWII) A no time in the century has the US made more hay about mutual national hatred than in WWII, including all sorts of nasty racist stuff.

For every nation we have ever been in conflict with, you will find a large immigrant population.

We must be doing something right.
Sure, we're GREAT friends with Vietnam, who still has not recovered (and probably never will) from the effect of the Vietnam War, on them. This idea that "it will all work out, in the end," may be true (to a point, from the US perspective: as long as we're still the big, violent, aggressive Big Brother), but how many ppl have to die, to make it "all right?"

When the US attacks Iraq, you can also bet $$ that Israel will launch an offensive against Palestine, as a media-cover. And again, do you think that Iran, named as the "next" target by Israel, is going to meekly sit by and be next?

War is not a means to make peace, no matter how many WWII scenarios you pull out. The times are different now, and I can cite you many other historical scenarios to buttress this point (the Hundred Years' War, comes to mind).
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
The UN makes a big show about needing to make a humanitarian mission into these (and other areas). The UN "caused" this suffering, so they want to do something about it. (Saddam "caused" it, not the UN)

Saddam says "No you can't go there, there are BANDITS and TERRORISTS (IE "freedom fighters") there."

The UN says, "No problem, we will send in our handy Muslim peace keepers." Elements of various Muslim coalition partners will then put on blue hats and paint there tanks white and drive into Iraq. They will hug the local Imams, pray at the local mosque, and be all over CNN.

What makes this really dangerous is, that when none Iraqi troops show up to act as a buffer between the Iraqi people and the Iraqi military/secret police, that some Iraqis will feel free enough to mouth off about Saddam. (and that gosh durn CIA will make sure it gets beamed to every Iraqi home).

That sort of stuff would really piss Saddam off and the peace keepers/civilian aid workers might get hurt/killed if Saddam tried to re-exert control.
You forget something: Hussein's son, a member of Parliament, dissented from the vote. He wants the inspectors back in Iraq, except he wants ARAB inspectors. He does not trust the US hand-picked inspectors to come in (gee, I wonder why?).

Everyone knows that the US used the inspectors to spy on Hussein's activities.

Again, your ideas are good one's Brian: but you forget that war is an untidy business, and it only SEEMS organized and neat after the winners have put their spin on it. It makes the winners look good.

And in this scenario, there are too many unknown factors, too much at risk, to simply run this through as if it's a military training exercise in Vieqes.
 
Old 11-14-2002, 02:04 PM   #385
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Well, it certainly is not boring, over in Iraq. Now, they're unconditionally accepting the inspectors. FWIH, the feeling is one of anxious relief, but no one thinks that the war is averted.
 
Old 11-16-2002, 09:57 AM   #386
Brian H
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 102
Offline
The crap with Saddam's son cracks me up. It is nothing more than a coordinated play to enhance his personal power by "showing" that he convinced his father to accept the inspectors over the objection of the "parliament." It was meant to put Saddam and his son in the (rather bizarre) position of being able to cast themselves as "moderates."

Yes, it is a different world than during World War II, but there are many lesson there anyway. I do not expect that the Iraqis would whip out American flags and welcome invaders with hugs and kisses as the liberated countries did in World War II (or Kuwait in Gulf War I). The lesson I would draw from WWII would be how the Germans handled the invasion of the USSR.

When Germany went into the Ukraine (and other non-Russian parts of the USSR) than were sometimes greeted as liberators by the locals. Many Ukrainians willingly joined the German Army (the Waffen SS maintained large units formed exclusively from occupied countries). The Red Army quickly adopted a scorched earth policy in areas they retreated from partially in response to this "disloyalty." (The Ukraine was brutally repressed after Stalin got it back) However, Hitler made a rather stupid decision to treat all occupied nations (particularly Slavic ones) ruthlessly and began a program of clearing out vast swaths of land for German use. This program was quickly stalled by Russian counter offensives, but the harm to the image of the German's as "liberators" was total.

I am not saying that things will be easy, just that with some hard work and some multinational help, in a decade or so, Iraqi will be a much better place for its people. And without the Iraqi threat, the middle east will be safer to (and many of the Israeli issues will be more approachable)

Vietnam,

The flood of Boat People came AFTER the war. Even with all the pain and suffering of the war, tens of thousands risked death on the open sea (many dying in the process) to get to the US. And Vietnam is opening back up to Americans. I know some people who have been there and they tell me that the Vietnamese are almost universally friendly to Americans. One guy I know spent a lot of time there and we talked about it. The people and business men he dealt with held the Russian in general contempt, but liked Americans. The Russians who came to Vietnam were unfriendly and only interested in what they could take. American were remembered as somewhat buffoonish, but extremely generous and friendly. He told me about a rather bizarre incident where he spent a week with a business friend traveling around making contacts. At one point they were in a village and visited a B-52 crash site. The wreckage had been lovingly maintained with fresh paint and the bushes groomed to show what was left of the plane to its full effect. The shot down plane was a point of pride to the villagers, but they also were pleased to find out that the Americans father had been a B-52 pilot. The conversation revolved around the general disconnect people had between "America, international boogeyman" and "Americans." It was pointed out that many people who are strident racists have friends/associates of offending race. They disconnect the persons race because it does not fit in with their world view ("He is not like other XXXXX people, he is OK")

Plotting and planning is, in itself interesting, besides when Big Brother reads all this, he might like our ideas and use them.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing
 
Old 11-16-2002, 04:25 PM   #387
suebailey
Location: sunderland
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 52
England
Offline
Wink iraq

hey all

one of the things i partisipate in is the TA and were trainning hard in the light of hte up and comeing war lots of running physical fittness and and wepon handling.

of cause i wont be sent to iraq unfortunatlly but the medic core im in will replace the regualrs in other war striken countries.

but i would love to be the one who puts the bulllit through Saddam u nver know i might just getthe chance.

I wish

i would do any thing to protect my contry not only cos its got my mam, dad, bro and most importantly my better half wayne in it but its got all my mates in it to including u lot i surpose

but seriously i would do any hting to protect this country.

and i bet most of u lot would to?

keep safe all of u

with out the heart there can be no understanding between body and mind and if u have never linked ur self to true emptiness you will never comprehend the full dimension of aikido.
 
Old 11-16-2002, 04:32 PM   #388
suebailey
Location: sunderland
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 52
England
Offline
Wink iraq

hey all

one of the things i partisipate in is the TA and were trainning hard in the light of hte up and comeing war lots of running physical fittness and and wepon handling.

of cause i wont be sent to iraq unfortunatlly but the medic core im in will replace the regualrs in other war striken countries.

but i would love to be the one who puts the bulllit through Saddam u nver know i might just getthe chance.

I wish

i would do any thing to protect my contry not only cos its got my mam, dad, bro and most importantly my better half wayne in it but its got all my mates in it to including u lot i surpose

but seriously i would do any hting to protect this country.

and i bet most of u lot would to?

keep safe all of u

with out the heart there can be no understanding between body and mind and if u have never linked ur self to true emptiness you will never comprehend the full dimension of aikido.
 
Old 11-16-2002, 10:24 PM   #389
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
The crap with Saddam's son cracks me up. It is nothing more than a coordinated play to enhance his personal power by "showing" that he convinced his father to accept the inspectors over the objection of the "parliament." It was meant to put Saddam and his son in the (rather bizarre) position of being able to cast themselves as "moderates."
I find this statement rather presumptive, Brian. Nor, do I see it this way.

No doubt, there is no democracy in Iraq. But one of the things that seem to gall the Iraqi's is this point over the "respect for the sovereignty of Iraq," and everyone knows the US used the previous inspectors to spy on Saddam.

Saddam does whatever he wants, and no one's fooled by sham elections. I doubt he'd waste the energy for a media spin, using his Parliament: I think that the whole thing represents more of the displeasure of the Iraqi's, over American hand-picked inspectors.

Anyway, this isn't about Iraq anymore; its about the US attempting a power-play. Even the head of the inspection team has stated that he doubts that Iraq can provide an unabridged list in the time that Resolution 1441 requires of Iraq (2 months, FWIH). The way the US wants this to go is something like this:

1) Iraq is given the 2 months to comply with providing the list of weapons for Res. 1441. Iraq either fails, or is caught trying to "fudge" the list

2) The US immediately invades, while the Sec Council debates their next action

3) Iraq falls; Hussein is killed; an American heads Iraq

4) An Arab puppet-leader is found. It does not matter who (or, his opinions on human rights), as long as he is willing to manage those oil-dields for the US

5) Iraq replaces Saudi Arabia as the major staging point for that region, from which the US re-draws the map, enacting regime change whenever a troubling element surfaces (Saudi Arabia's leaders are increasingly growing unable to manage the outrage of the people, for example. First Iraq, next Saudi Arabia, with Egypt as the "prize")

You think these ideas paranoid, crazy, conspiracy theories? There is a plan on the books, authored by Daniel Pearl, to engage in exactly this strategem (I even paraphrased the plan, in my last sentence).

So, it's not really what Iraq does, or doesn't, do. It's about the US attempting a power-grab, in the Middle East, and whether or not the international and local communities will let them get away with it.

So far, we were lucky, because we forced Bush & Co to go through the UN, instead of acting unilaterally.
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
Yes, it is a different world than during World War II, but there are many lesson there anyway.
Sigh.. WWII again? OK, let's try on WWII, for a second. Japan unilaterally attacked the US, because it figured that the US was going to attack, first.

So, I guess then, that Japan was justified in attacking first...sort of, um, "pre-emptively," right?
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
And without the Iraqi threat, the middle east will be safer to (and many of the Israeli issues will be more approachable)
Once again, we are not going to Iraq for humanitarian purposes. If we cared a fig leaf for the plight of Iraqi's, we'd stop a 12-year embargo that has taken 100's of thousands of lives and caused 25% of Iraqi's to be born underweight (as opposed to 4%, before the embargo). The embargo causes ppl to flock to Saddam, and as you mentioned earlier, a flood of food and supplies could even weaken his grip on the people.

Does the US care about the Iraqi's? Only as a media spin, from my perspective.
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
Vietnam,

The flood of Boat People came AFTER the war.
Actually, I was referring to the destruction of Vietnames culture and its peoples, caused by the War. How many millions dead? How much damage to its temples, its art?

Sure, they forgive us, but that's not the point: by most accounts the war was avoidable.
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
Plotting and planning is, in itself interesting, besides when Big Brother reads all this, he might like our ideas and use them.
Oh, jeez I hope not
Quote:
sue bailey (suebailey) wrote:
of cause i wont be sent to iraq unfortunatlly but the medic core im in will replace the regualrs in other war striken countries.

but i would love to be the one who puts the bulllit through Saddam u nver know i might just getthe chance.

I wish

i would do any thing to protect my contry not only cos its got my mam, dad, bro and most importantly my better half wayne in it but its got all my mates in it to including u lot i surpose

but seriously i would do any hting to protect this country.

and i bet most of u lot would to?

keep safe all of u
Hmm. Welcome back, Sue. Wherever you're stationed, I'm sure that it will be a "learning experience;" I hope that it's not too harsh a one.

If you can show me how Hussein is a threat to ANYONE but his own people; again, you're doing a lot better than George W.

Let me spell it out: this war is nothing more than a power grab by the US. I'm sure the US gov't is thanking you for the support, but I, as one American Aikidoist, am sorry to see you, a fellow Aikidoka, taking part in it.

And no: I WOULDN"T want to put a bullet in Saddam. I'd want to see his posterior hauled up on the International Court, and sentenced to life imprisonment: preferably on a grave-digging detail. Or, better yet: a nurse in a terminal ward, forced to give comfort to the dying, or he's confined to Solitary for a week (call it the Calvinist in me).

Your last quote in your post was from O Sensei, I guess. O Sensei also said: "Aikido is love." Not much love comes from bullets; forgiveness, maybe (with time), but not love.

Stay safe, Sue.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 11-16-2002 at 10:36 PM.
 
Old 11-17-2002, 09:36 AM   #390
Brian H
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 102
Offline
You should be quicker to dismiss the Iraqi parliament. NOTHING happens in Iraqi without Saddam implementing it or punishing someone for doing it. For the Iraqi parliament to make such a "bold move" as to do something in "opposition" to Saddam there has to be a purpose. The alternative is a bunch of ministers getting shot. None of this is for our consumption (and was not covered on Iraqi TV- per CNN/Fox), but the French will likely swallow the hook to the gill.

But what are we concerned about, Iraq says it has NO weapons of mass destruction. It should not take Iraq two months to catalog nothing.

Blix came out yesterday and said no spies and few Americans (something like 1 in 6). That show ease some of you concerns. I don't believe the part about spies, but ...

"Caring for the Iraqi people": Civilians are regrettably secondary in any war plan (the guys that would kill our guys come first). But I do not join you in dire predictions of the US crushing the Iraqi people and running Iraq like a nineteenth century colony. My proof is the nearest mirror to you. Go look into it and ask yourself, "Could I allow that to happen?" I think the answer would be the same as mine. I would guess that many in between us (call me "the anti-Neil") politically would give the same answer. That being said, we do live in a representative democracy, and our elected leaders would not stay elected if they strayed that far beyond the will of the people.

And "redrawing the map of Iraq," I will submit to you that this is a real possibility. The Kurds in the north might (should?) declare the creation of a Kurdish home land and secede from Iraq. The US would be immediately be put in the ugly position of putting down a revolt by people they just liberated. Therefore, if it happened, I think we would let it happen. (the Turks would not be pleased). If Iran got involved, what is to say they would not try and grab Southern Iraq (Iran-Iraq War II?). Can't say that would be good, but it could happen.

As we have discussed before, the oil industry is not a private sector concern. It is about oil producing GOVERNMENTS. The US actually gets a relatively small percentage of its oil from the gulf. Our main interest being the global price of oil, which impacts our economy. Europe and Asia DO get a lot more of their oil from the gulf (particularly Japan). I do not think they would stand by and let us get a strangle hold on their nations economies (even if we wanted to).

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing
 
Old 11-17-2002, 01:30 PM   #391
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
You should be quicker to dismiss the Iraqi parliament. NOTHING happens in Iraqi without Saddam implementing it or punishing someone for doing it. For the Iraqi parliament to make such a "bold move" as to do something in "opposition" to Saddam there has to be a purpose. The alternative is a bunch of ministers getting shot.
I'm not saying that the parliament's vote was a "bold" move, in opposition to Saddam, or even that Hussein didn't arrange it all for some purpose or another (besides spin). I'm saying that we should take the maneuver as a sign that the inspectors are a "sticking point" to the peace process.
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
the French will likely swallow the hook to the gill.
Yeah, those gullible French; imagine, you'd almost believe that they'd swallow ANYTHING, like a President laying out groundless charges of Iraq's possessing nuclear weapons, or even LYING about IAEA reports that do not exist.
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
. But what are we concerned about, Iraq says it has NO weapons of mass destruction. It should not take Iraq two months to catalog nothing.
Now, Brian: don't dissemble on me. You know as well as I, that the catalogue of weapons Iraq must submit has to be more involved than simply reporting "nothing," even if they actually have no weapons o mass destruction (which, I believe, they do not. Again, where's that beef...). I'm sure that they have to report on their missiles and missile technology and other conventional weapons, which, thanks to the US, is considerable.
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
I don't believe the part about spies, but ...
Well, at least we agree on ONE point
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
I do not join you in dire predictions of the US crushing the Iraqi people and running Iraq like a nineteenth century colony. My proof is the nearest mirror to you. Go look into it and ask yourself, "Could I allow that to happen?" I think the answer would be the same as mine. I would guess that many in between us (call me "the anti-Neil") politically would give the same answer. That being said, we do live in a representative democracy, and our elected leaders would not stay elected if they strayed that far beyond the will of the people.
Oh stop it. You dissemble again. Next you'll be saying that we'd NEVER just stand by and let 500,000 people die.

Except when you consider (then) Sec of State's Madeleine Albright's statement that killing 1/2 million Iraqi's was "worth the price" of ousting Hussein.

Of course, "we" didn't have to pay that price, and "we" didn't get what "we" wanted...except the 1/2 million (or so) dead (next you have to ask yourself: "worth the price to whom?" Certainly not me. Nor, I imagine, you.

But: did you hear sbout all those outraged Americans calling in, protesting the embargo in the 12 years that it has been around? Must have missed the 6 o'clock news, when I was watching).

Americans don't generally protest about any unfair practices by the US, unless it involves American lives. That's why the Vietnam War protests started so late in the war: the American casualties didn't roll in on the TV news till later. I daresay that if there were a news blackout, we'd STILL be in Vietnam as late as the 80's.

And, "a 19th C colony?" No, it would look more like Saudi Arabia today: puppet dictators kowtowing to US dictates until the people say "enough." If you deny that the US is not a neocolonial power, then you're ignoring a lot of the facts. Just because we do not have American dictators in all the countries where we enact "regime change," does not mean that they aren't literally subservient colonies.

Just look at Haiti: the poorest nation on the planet, also possessing the distinction of have the most US involvement and intervention in its local and foreign governance, in its history.

Coincidence? I don't think so.
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
And "redrawing the map of Iraq," I will submit to you that this is a real possibility. The Kurds in the north might (should?) declare the creation of a Kurdish home land and secede from Iraq. The US would be immediately be put in the ugly position of putting down a revolt by people they just liberated. Therefore, if it happened, I think we would let it happen. (the Turks would not be pleased). If Iran got involved, what is to say they would not try and grab Southern Iraq (Iran-Iraq War II?). Can't say that would be good, but it could happen.
If you can show me one instance where we allowed a revolt (not engineered by US) to proceed where the US MIGHT lose influence and the country was sitting on a valuable resource, I will be amazed. AFAIK, this instance does not exist.

Several times I asked you, why not N. Korea? They're a repressive regime (one of the "axis o evil"). They admitted to a nuclear weapons program.

Well, I'll tell you why: they are not sitting on any resources of note. So, they are not worth the bother.
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
As we have discussed before, the oil industry is not a private sector concern. It is about oil producing GOVERNMENTS. The US actually gets a relatively small percentage of its oil from the gulf. Our main interest being the global price of oil, which impacts our economy. Europe and Asia DO get a lot more of their oil from the gulf (particularly Japan). I do not think they would stand by and let us get a strangle hold on their nations economies (even if we wanted to).
Brian, this is all about oil. The ppl in power themselves have lucrative portfolios in oil. Their friends have stock in oil. Even their DADS sit on the boards of oil corporations. The public sector is being USED by wealthy elements of the private to line their pockets.

How much oil the US gets from Iraq is irrelevant; it's how much $$ the people running the gov't get from this charade. Remember Haliburton?

Remember Enron? Nearly right up until the collapse of Enron, who was the CinC's biggest advocate? Kenneth Lay. Didn't Lay even have his own office, in the White House?

Oil-producing governments: yeah, it's about them. But, it's also about who stands to make the most, and what is most politically expedient.

The primary rule of journalism is: "follow the money." Who is making the money, here? It certainly isn't the human rights organizations.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 11-17-2002 at 01:44 PM.
 
Old 11-17-2002, 03:18 PM   #392
Brian H
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 102
Offline
Quote:
Brian: don't dissemble on me.
I am not dissembling. I am being a wise ass

The "peaceful" solution, meaning sanctions, has been a total flop. The Iraqi government remains strong/in power and the people suffer.

Plan "B" has to be a force option.

In law enforcement the "use of force continuum" always begins with "officer presence." The mere threat of forceful action being often all that is needed to avert further use of force.

Our current military build up in the Gulf will hopefully fall into this category in the fullness of time. Iraq has a limited ability to respond legitimately to UN actions. World opinion is generally against Saddam on substantive matters. It is just a matter of time.

My main fault with sanctions is that they are generally only followed by the US. The US and/or the UN has imposed sanctions on Iran/Libya/Cuba/ etc. however, only the US has stringently followed them. Many European nations have done a great deal of business in sanctioned countries (Russia has had BILLIONS in Iraq). Regrettably sanctions have just turned into a way to eliminate US competition from sanctioned markets and not into ways to make positive changes in rogue nations.

Going back to the police analogy, it is like dealing with a violent drunk who attack someone (Kuwait) was driven off. You have to do something about him, but your mere presence seems to not cow him in the least. You tried approaching him and applied a "non-resistive control hold" (sanctions) but the guy is still serious trouble.

There are points in this debate that remind me of someone jumping into a police incident screaming "DON"T YOU DARE SHOOT HIM IN COLD BLOOD!!!"

This is not an all encompassing analogy of the Iraq problem, but there are lots of options between "sanctions" and "total war." As in a police incident, the Iraq conflict will be solved more with cunning and guile than force.

Revolt that we did not want: Cuba, all of the communist central America governments (OK they replaced scumbags, but at the time -I don't think we would today- we were supporting the scumbags) more recently Venezuela had a coup that would have made the US very happy (oil again) that failed miserably. The very anti-American government came in through democratic action and stayed in power through a revolt.

Example of the "new" thing in use of force. (Officer in middle and free to choose most most reasonable level of force)
Attached Images
File Type: bmp use of force.bmp (76.8 KB, 7 views)

Last edited by Brian H : 11-17-2002 at 03:21 PM.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing
 
Old 11-17-2002, 03:32 PM   #393
Brian H
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 102
Offline
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Sigh.. WWII again? OK, let's try on WWII, for a second. Japan unilaterally attacked the US, because it figured that the US was going to attack, first.

So, I guess then, that Japan was justified in attacking first...sort of, um, "pre-emptively," right?
Err.

Japan starts a war of aggression against its neighbor.

The US responds with sanctions that cause serious damage to Japanese economy.

And you think this justifies an attack by Iraq (I mean Japan) on Pearl Harbor?

Have you been reading Chomsky again?

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing
 
Old 11-19-2002, 11:24 PM   #394
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
I am not dissembling. I am being a wise ass

The "peaceful" solution, meaning sanctions, has been a total flop. The Iraqi government remains strong/in power and the people suffer.

Plan "B" has to be a force option.
You call a policy of genocide, exterminating 100's of thousands of Iraqi's a "peaceful" solution??"

I think we're definitely getting into Orwell country, here.

Also, it's a sad thing if we're reduced to either starvation, or invasion, as a means of resolving a problem.

As I mentioned in an earlier post: sometimes the WAY one approaches a situation, is the very nature of the problem.

Where's the beef, Brian? Over and over: I'm hearing from the mainstream media how "dangerous" Saddam is, how we must attack now now now! And yet, not a shred of evidence.

In fact, the US is NOW saying that Iraq attacking US planes in a no-fly zone (which is definitely NOT approved by the UN) constitutes a "material breech." So: a country that defends itself against a non-UN-sanctioned attack is in violation of UN Resolution.

Oh, boy.

And: black is white, war is peace, and Big Brother is your friend.
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
Iraq has a limited ability to respond legitimately to UN actions. World opinion is generally against Saddam on substantive matters. It is just a matter of time.
Again, this isn't about Iraq, anymore. It's about the US gov't's attempt to establish a power-play. Doesn't matter what Iraq does, the US will have Iraqi blood, I mean: oil.
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
Revolt that we did not want: Cuba, all of the communist central America governments (OK they replaced scumbags, but at the time -I don't think we would today- we were supporting the scumbags) more recently Venezuela had a coup that would have made the US very happy (oil again) that failed miserably. The very anti-American government came in through democratic action and stayed in power through a revolt.
Yes, but I was talking about US-backed coups that were purely for humanitarian reasons. In both your examples, the US gov't was quite surprised when those governments turned against the US. And: in the case of Venezuala, the US gov't is EVEN NOW talking about "getting" Lula later, when all the Iraqi fuss dies down (as if it ever will, at the rate we're going).
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
Going back to the police analogy, it is like dealing with a violent drunk who attack someone (Kuwait) was driven off. You have to do something about him, but your mere presence seems to not cow him in the least. You tried approaching him and applied a "non-resistive control hold" (sanctions) but the guy is still serious trouble.

There are points in this debate that remind me of someone jumping into a police incident screaming "DON"T YOU DARE SHOOT HIM IN COLD BLOOD!!!"
Yes, and there are points where I notice how callous little regard is given to ppl in other countries whose only crime was living on top of oil (not specifically referring to you, Brian).

In the other website where I discussed Aikido and war, I pointed out that Afghanistan was nearly bombed into the Stone Age, by the US. A conservative came back with: "Go cry me a river about Afghanistan: they were already close to the Stone Age, anyway. Besides, he quipped: the US will probably "kick" some bucks their way, at some point.

I told him that this was a sick thought. So, I said: killing 5000 people with US bombs deserves such scorn, while killing 2000 Americans with our own planes deserves a war against the world, forever, amen??

Are American lives so precious, and non-Americans worth so little?

All of your ideas are interesting, and definitely have merit, Brian: but let's face it...neither you, nor the US gov't has any proof of Iraqi war-readiness that belies their thinly veiled motives to grab the oil.

Who made US the great policeman who can say a country needs invading, when they haven't invaded another country in 10 years?? Who gave US the right to starve a people for 12 years?

Who ever said that our country was totally right, in all of our judgements, and whomever we feel is wrong, just..is, with no proof?
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
Japan starts a war of aggression against its neighbor.

The US responds with sanctions that cause serious damage to Japanese economy.

And you think this justifies an attack by Iraq (I mean Japan) on Pearl Harbor?

Have you been reading Chomsky again?
Yes, in fact, I do...a lot. I bet you read George Will, don't you

And no: I don't THINK this justifies an attack, I am outlining the US's logic, here. If the US can attack Iraq pre-emptively, then I guess Japan was justified in attacking Pearl Harbor.
 
Old 11-20-2002, 07:49 AM   #395
Brian H
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 102
Offline
PUT THE CHOMSKY DOWN AND BACK SLOWLY AWAY!!!

Every life cut short is its own unique tragedy.

The 5,000 figure is for "Afghani killed" and (my understanding) includes soldiers killed in battle. To me that is an astoundingly low number of casualties and I credit our military for that.

It is both easy and crass to say that an American soldier who stepped on a land mine or an Afghan girl hit by an errant bomb "gave their life for the Afghan people" (or any other slogan). But I do recognize that they were cut down in a larger process that will hopefully leave Afghanistan and the world a better place.

When the Russian went into Afghanistan, they quickly adopted a "kill them all and let Marx sort them out" policy. The Russians inflicted over a million casualties and drove a million more into exile. The Afghans fought them for ten bloody years. This has not happened with us(yet?).

The Afghans a very proud and independent people, however they have rarely had an effective central government. Instead they have always organized on tribal lines. They have also killed each other along tribal lines since the beginning of time. Only a fool would say that they will quickly form any kind of peacefully united government quickly.

The US "war" in Afghanistan was prosecuted more with bags of cash than with bombs/bullets. The local war lords are kept happy with a regular rub down with $$$. Ridiculous corruption to a westerner, but I would much rather spill money than blood. Food/wealth is flowing into Afghanistan (a uniquely American way to wage war) and the Afghan people grow stronger every day. Once this difficult process is complete, I do not think the US will/should have any role in the Afghan government. As we have discussed before, there are a lot of Afghan immigrates in my area, and the ones I have met are all exemplary Americans. I am proud of the efforts the US has made so far to make their native land whole.

In the long term the schools are back open and there is a massive influx of aid. Chomsky himself predicted 1-2 millions civilian deaths to starvation in Afghanistan last winter. The Taliban had forced out all of the relief workers, so Chomsky's predictions may have come true in whole or in part had the Taliban stayed in power. In the face of that civilian death toll, 5,000 pales in comparison.

Who made us the "cops of the world?"

Nobody, and I will be first in line to say that we should not be the "cops of the world." But I also wonder why every nation on Earth did not rise up and crush Saddam the first time he used poison gas against his own people. When he made war against his neighbors ...

What more would he need to do to require that he be stopped?

And about oil, the US is carrying the water for countries that do get all/most of their oil from the gulf. It is easy to heap scorn on those who act, but ignore those who hide in the shadows.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing
 
Old 11-20-2002, 09:07 AM   #396
Brian H
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 102
Offline
Check little this little nugget:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/f...20021119.shtml

Gold, pyrite, or something else?

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing
 
Old 11-22-2002, 02:00 PM   #397
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
PUT THE CHOMSKY DOWN AND BACK SLOWLY AWAY!!!
STAY BACK! I've got a CHOMSKY in my hands, and I'M NOT AFRAID TO QUOTE FROM IT!!
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
Every life cut short is its own unique tragedy.

The 5,000 figure is for "Afghani killed" and (my understanding) includes soldiers killed in battle. To me that is an astoundingly low number of casualties and I credit our military for that.

It is both easy and crass to say that an American soldier who stepped on a land mine or an Afghan girl hit by an errant bomb "gave their life for the Afghan people" (or any other slogan). But I do recognize that they were cut down in a larger process that will hopefully leave Afghanistan and the world a better place.
You're right; it IS an astoundingly low figure. That's because I didn't quote the statistics of starvation brought on by the cutting off of supplies in the region, the deaths brought on by landmines, the deaths caused from Afghani's made homeless, or the general lawlessness from all the post-war chaos. I didn't quote these figures because I can't, thanks to the US military's blackout of the media.

You can talk about all the "lives saved" by the US invasion, but neither you nor I know exactly what the cost is because, once again, we're not paying it, nor are we allowed to see what the cost is, to the Afgani's.

I remember in an earlier post, decrying about the news blackout, in Afghanistan; do you remember your response...? "No news is good news." A few days later, the Taliban attempted an assassination attempt upon Hamid Karzi.

You should have said: "No news and all war make the American public a clueless, blinded body."
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
Food/wealth is flowing into Afghanistan (a uniquely American way to wage war) and the Afghan people grow stronger every day.

In the long term the schools are back open and there is a massive influx of aid.
Massive aid? Again, not in my reality. $12B to bomb Afghanistan, and only $10M for aid?? You call this relief "flooding in??"

See http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=352576
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
But I also wonder why every nation on Earth did not rise up and crush Saddam the first time he used poison gas against his own people. When he made war against his neighbors ...
Oh, you mean, when he had full US support to gas Kurds and even, according to the US Ambsddador to Iraq at the time, the freedom to do what he likes, to Kuwait?

Puzzling, isn't it, how important it is to "get" him now, when he did the bulk of his atrocities under the approving gaze of the US media and gov't.

Couldn't be that someone in the Bush House is worried about upcoming elections, could it,,,?

Much easier, after all, to engage in cowboy diplomacy and grandiose invasion strategems than to really tackle the problem of terrorism, to get to the "meat of the matter," isn't it?

Who transacts 60% of weapons sales in the world? Who gave the Taliban $3B and taught OBL all his dirty tricks? Who helped Hussein to power and gave him chemical and biological weapons, as well as military hardware and helped to improve his missile technology?

What country engages in the bulk of terrorism around the world?

You know who is responsible for these acts, Brian (and no: it isn't Andorra).
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
What more would he need to do to require that he be stopped?
What do you think would happen if Hussein announced that he had nuclear weapons and planned to use them, if invaded? Or, if he gassed more Kurds, as he did with US support? Or if he even tried to invade Kuwait again?

You know, as well as I: he'd be obliterated. The whole world would gladly fall behind the US invasion and vaporize Hussein and most of Iraq.

He knows it, too; and that's why he's not going to do anything.

Who are Iraq's neighbors most afraid of, right now? Not Iraq. (With the exception of Israel, which is literally a US military outpost, at this point), the neighbors of Iraq are mostly concerned about the US; they fear the US invasion.

In fact, if you compare the US involvement in human rights abuses for the past 12 years with Iraq's: we finish a poor second.
Quote:
Brian Heanue (Brian H) wrote:
And about oil, the US is carrying the water for countries that do get all/most of their oil from the gulf. It is easy to heap scorn on those who act, but ignore those who hide in the shadows.
Gosh, we're such good Samaritans, aren't we? All that selfless warmongering, so all the First World countries can get their oil. Kind of makes me all misty.

You mentioned earlier that the US doesn't even get most of its oil from Iraq, so that oil is not the reason we're invading. I put to you that its not the oil FOR OURSELVES that we want: it's the control of the flow of oil. If we have an Iraqi puppet running things, we can call the shots for ppl trading with Iraq.

And once we (I mean, the US) has that, the the US dispension of power around the world is more secure.

You don't think that we're going to just invade, set up a puppet and leave the oil fields untouched, do you?

And regarding all those "hiding in the shadows:" maybe there'd be fewer hiding there, if we didn't provide so much training, weapons and support, in the first place.

Finally, it is blatantly obvious how uninterested the US is in implementing peaceful measures (inspectors) to resolve this problem. I am tickled by the US media's stance, right now: "We aren't advocating war, but here are some cool, nifty graphics showing you how the war will proceed.

After the weapons inspectors get their chance (and, likely, fail), we'll show you how ready the US is to go to war. Film at 11."

Again, this war is not about what Hussein will, or won't, do: it's about the US using strong-arm tactics and end-run's around the UN, and the world, to implement their imperialist agendas.

Hussein could convert to pacifistic Buddhism, and quit to a monestary, tomorrow, but it won't change a thing. The US wants its oil and its strategic deployment, and it wants it by the next (2004) election.

Oh, and the death of a man who made Daddy look bad is a nice topping on that cake, too.
 
Old 11-22-2002, 02:44 PM   #398
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
For an analysis of the Iraqi War with respect to the US 2004 election, see http://argument.independent.co.uk/re...p?story=354875
 
Old 11-25-2002, 02:39 PM   #399
Brian H
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 102
Offline
What I said was "Good news is no news" (watch your local news and count the number of items in the first ten minutes that does not involve death and suffering)

Washington is a major media hub, so there are lots of reporters around (and lawyers ). One of the reporters I know has been to Afghanistan and a friend of a friend has been over there also.

Rest assured that any bad news that comes up will be quickly and throughly covered.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing
 
Old 11-26-2002, 07:58 AM   #400
Brian H
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 102
Offline
I have been not been seeing a lot about the Iraqi Kurds lately, but stumbled onto this.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/templ...id=247&Sub=253

It is the most comprehensive information I have yet seen and it very hopeful (VERY unusual these days)

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing
 

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are you knew there Aikido in IRAQ? Wissam J. Faraj General 5 02-14-2006 07:45 AM
Iraq Aikido makuchg General 21 11-06-2005 05:36 AM
Help for soldier in Iraq?? ServinginIraq General 12 11-23-2004 11:10 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:50 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2017 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2017 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate