|
|
 30 Aug 2004 @ 15:00
WSWS
On eve of Republican Convention
Massive anti-Bush march in New York
By a WSWS reporting team
30 August 2004
Hundreds of thousands of people marched Sunday past New York City’s Madison Square Garden, site of this week’s Republican National Convention, in a massive repudiation of the policies of the Bush administration.
March organizers put the size of the crowd at 400,000, a far more credible figure than the gross underestimate of 120,000 given by some officials in the New York City Police
Department (NYPD). When the first marchers had completed the nearly 40-block trek through Manhattan, large numbers of demonstrators had yet to start off. Solid crowds surged up Seventh Avenue, west on 34th Street and back downtown on Broadway for a full five hours.
The huge demonstration expressed the immense social opposition that has built up to the Bush administration over the war in Iraq, attacks on democratic rights and policies of social reaction. Its militancy stood in sharp contrast to the desiccated liberalism and half-hearted opposition to the Republicans exhibited by the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate John Kerry. Under conditions in which Kerry is supporting the war, the hundreds of thousands who marched—and many millions more who share their views—find themselves politically disenfranchised.
The huge turnout was all the more significant given the ham-fisted efforts of both the city authorities and national agencies such as the Homeland Security Department and the FBI to intimidate those planning to protest.
Activists faced surveillance and harassment from the Joint Terrorism Task Force, threats of mass arrests from the NYPD and the denial by New York City billionaire Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg of a permit for a rally in Central Park after the march. Moreover, the city remains on so-called “orange alert,” with near-daily warnings from Washington of supposedly imminent threats of terrorist attacks.
Thousands of police were deployed along the route of the march. At 34th Street, helmeted riot cops and mounted units were massed in a show of force designed to dissuade demonstrators from attempting to continue marching north to Central Park.
Hundreds of other cops—some armed with automatic rifles—National Guardsmen and Secret Service agents were also massed in front of Madison Square Garden, where the convention begins Monday. Entrances to the Garden were blocked with concrete barriers and sand-filled dump trucks.
Marchers chanted “No more Bush,” “Stop the war, stop the lies,” and “No more years.” Many carried hand-lettered signs with slogans such as: “Support our troops, bring them home,” “Don’t make the dead vote Republican, RNC out of NYC for 9/11,” and “Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam.”
When a small group of Republican delegates gathered outside their hotel to watch the march, demonstrators shouted, “Go home!”
One section of the march consisted of 1,000 flag-draped coffins, symbolizing the fatalities suffered by US troops since the Iraq war began.
The demonstrators, who turned out in near 90-degree-Fahrenheit heat, included young people who had driven from as far away as Los Angeles and Texas, as well as large numbers of New Yorkers, including contingents drawn from the city’s immigrant communities, including Koreans, Filipinos, Haitians and South Asians.
Damien Neva and Ula Bochinska came from Brooklyn, carrying a sign reading, “Poland 1939, Iraq 2003.” Damien is originally from Michigan, while Ula immigrated to the US from Poland.
Asked about the sign, Damien explained: “The buildup of the German military machine came to a head with the invasion of Poland. The Germans claimed they had to invade Poland in order to protect their security, and to establish ‘living room’ in the East. Similarly, the United States claimed that Iraq was a threat to its security, with its ‘weapons of mass destruction.’
“In both invasions, you have an imperialist nation attacking a weaker nation.”
Significant numbers of veterans participated in the demonstration, as well as some active-duty soldiers returned from Iraq, who marched in desert fatigues.
One of the latter, Mathias Feurer, said that he had come to the march to demand that his fellow soldiers be brought back from Iraq now. A member of the 1st Armored Division, he participated in the invasion of Iraq and spent four months there. Having completed his military service, he attempted to leave the Army, but had his service involuntarily extended, and was sent back to the US to an assignment with the National Guard.
“At the time the war began, I trusted our president,” Mathias, a resident of the Bronx, told the World Socialist Web Site. “I thought it would be justified and that we would really find weapons of mass destruction, but there was nothing there.”
He said that he was shocked by the poverty, destruction and suffering that the war had inflicted upon the Iraqi people. “When we first got there, the kids would wave at us and stuff, but by the time I had left, everything had already gone to hell. They just want us out of there. Sooner or later, that is what will happen, but in the meantime a lot of soldiers and a lot of Iraqis are dying.”
Mathias said he would advise anyone thinking of going into the Army not to do it. “Today you’ve got young guys going in who don’t want to be in combat, and they choose something else, like being a cook. But what they need is infantry and military police, and once they get in they just send them over there—a bunch of untrained kids—and they’re the first ones to get killed. All anyone over there now wants to do is come home.”
Dave Pacella, a veteran of the first Persian Gulf War, said that he was marching on behalf of disabled veterans. “I think the present war in Iraq should be stopped,” he said. “The US interest is in oil, but you can’t win a war against the Iraqis when they’re fighting for religion and against being colonized.
“The disabled veterans who are coming back from Iraq are not getting the right treatment. Spending $177 million a day for the Iraq war is an outrage when people are starving in this country, and they’re cutting back veterans’ services.
“The soldiers in the Iraq war need counseling when they come back. Their families need counseling. And they’re not getting it. Psychiatric facilities are being cut back.”
Dave said that his father, a veteran in Pennsylvania, had been receiving psychiatric therapy once a week, but the facility closest to his home had been closed. He now has to drive a long distance and is able to get an appointment only every other week.
“I believe they want more people to join the military, he said, “but once your duty is done, they don’t want anything to do with you, and your medical coverage and treatment are frequently cut off.”
Relatively few of the marchers wore Kerry campaign buttons, and banners supporting the Democratic presidential candidate were extremely rare. There were no prominent Democratic Party leaders or elected officials participating in the protest.
Clearly, the party leadership wants to disassociate itself from this mass outpouring against the war and other policies of the Bush administration. Those leading the march included Jesse Jackson, filmmaker Michael Moore, actor Danny Glover and a smattering of New York City Council members.
When the head of the march reached Madison Square Garden, Jackson stepped to the front with a bullhorn and asked the front ranks to sit down, leading them in a call-and-response chant of “Hope is in the air, help is on the way.” The slogan echoed the speeches given by Kerry and his vice-presidential running mate John Edwards at last month’s Democratic National Convention.
Members and supporters of the Socialist Equality Party distributed 10,000 copies of a leaflet entitled “The socialist alternative to Bush and Kerry” and had numerous discussions with marchers. Many said that they were voting for Kerry, but were not at all happy about it. Others expressed strong interest in the election campaign of the SEP.
The WSWS spoke with Alejandro Urruzmendi, age 25, who drove to New York from Los Angeles, picking up several friends along the way. While born in the United States, he spent some years living with his family in Uruguay.
He said, “Creating a third party is going to take a lot of hard work and effort. Sadly, most people see Kerry as their only choice. It would be nice to have a real democracy. John Kerry agreed with the invasion. He shows no shift in policy from the Bush administration. The reason is that the same people who are supporting Bush are supporting Kerry.
“No matter who is elected president, the problems in our country are only going to increase.”
Carey Fay-Horowitz, a bakery worker, said, “I am totally against the war in Iraq. It was started based on lies, and it is a war for oil. Now it continues out of loyalty to the people in power.
“I’m not too happy about Kerry supporting the war. He is not that good an alternative. I wish another party could work, but at this time it’s too late. But I agree there should be another party, it would be ideal.”
The WSWS also spoke with Herman Bijkerk from Holland, who was taking a weeklong vacation in New York. He had originally planned to go back Saturday, but decided to extend his visit by a day when he heard about the demonstration.
Herman said, “It’s incredibly important to democracy to have more choices. Bush and Kerry represent no choice at all. In Holland, we now have fifteen parties that are meaningful, including four or five bigger ones.
“Because of Bush, you see more and more anti-Americanism in Europe. Friends and colleagues in Holland see everything American as black. Of course, this is not just because of Bush, but because of US policy in Iraq and especially in Israel.”
John, who said he had been reading the WSWS for more than three years, came to the march with a placard calling for support for the SEP’s election campaign and spelling out the party’s policies for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US troops, and for war crimes trials against those who conspired to launch the war.
“I think the Democrats represent the same financial and corporate elite as the Republicans, with a slightly different spin,” he said. “On Iraq alone, it is clear that there is no alternative. If the US doesn’t withdraw immediately, there will be continued resistance by the Iraqis and continued isolation of Allawi. There will be a steady stream of dying US soldiers and increasing losses on the Iraqi side.”
Since protests began in the city on Friday, over 400 people have been arrested, some of them taken to a makeshift detention center set up by the NYPD at a pier on the Hudson River. Most of the arrests took place during a ride-by protest by bicyclists on Friday night, which saw unprovoked arrests and excessive force by city cops. Police officials have said that they are prepared to make 1,000 arrests a day during the convention.
See Also:
In run-up to Republican convention: 24-hour surveillance of protest organizers
[25 August 2004]
Civil rights advocates denounce FBI harassment of protesters
[20 August 2004]
Specter of a police state: FBI “anti-terror” task force targets Bush administration opponents
[18 August 2004]
Two weeks before Republican convention:
New York City denies demonstrators' new bid for park permit
[16 August 2004] More >
|
|
|
|
 29 Aug 2004 @ 23:10
Breakup Of The North Pole
From Dirk Dunning
dirkdunning@sprintmail.com
8-15-4
I am stunned almost to speechlessness.
The northeast passage across the siberian polar ice is open. The glaciers on Ellesmere Island and the northern and northeastern shores of Greenland are collapsing within a matter of days. The channel between Greenland and Ellesmere Isalnd is open. And only about 250 miles of ice remains on the north shore of Greenland connecting it to the polar ice. And that is breaking up.
Vast stretches of polar ice are pulverized and floating free in the Arctic ocean. Thousands of square miles of ice are pulverized and on the edge of breaking up into a billion ice bergs.
An immense rent has formed in the ice north of Queen Victoria Island. An even larger tear reaches up from Siberia poking at the north pole itself.
The entire north shore of Akaska is Ice free, as is all of the northern Siberian shore - all the way to the New Siberian Islands and beyond.
The last of the ice blocking the Northwestr passage at the east end of Queen Elizabeth Island is breaking up.
In short, the north pole is falling apart. And some claim global warming isn't real!?
Within weeks, the refreeze should begin. Depending on how long it is before that happens, massive chnages may occur at the pole before the freeze. The polar ice may well break free from land on ALL sides!!
This is one of the most astounding events in all of human history. And where is it on the news???? More >
|
|
|
|
 24 Aug 2004 @ 18:06
WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
California National Guardsman files suit against extension of tour of duty
By John Levine
24 August 2004
An army sergeant in the California National Guard filed a lawsuit August 19 charging the White House with violating the contract of thousands of military and National Guard recruits through its use of “stop-loss” orders. Choosing to remain anonymous for fear of right-wing attacks, he filed the suit under the name of John Doe and is represented by attorney Michael Sorgen.
After the Vietnam War, Congress gave the Pentagon the legal right to issue “stop-loss” orders, sending soldiers into two-year tours from 90 days before until 90 days after their enlistment period ends. According to the lawsuit, however, this can only be done during war and during national emergencies, which require Acts of Congress rather than presidential decrees.
Before the present Iraq war the Pentagon targeted these orders at specific skill groups. The latest orders, which were issued in November 2003, January 2004 and June 2004, apply to all units. Some 40,000 soldiers, including 16,000 members of the National Guard, have thus been prevented from retiring or leaving the service.
John Doe has served in the Army and Marines for 12 years, including participation in the invasion of Somalia and last year’s invasion and occupation of Iraq. His time in Iraq was extended by four months in a previous stop-loss order. After returning from Iraq, he joined the California National Guard, in the “Try One” program. This meant signing a one-year contract that was set to end in December, so he could test if the National Guard duty would be compatible with family life. He was assured by the recruiter that it was unlikely his unit would be called into Iraq, as they had already been deployed on the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border in 2002.
In July, he received yet another stop-loss order and documentation that would extend his enlistment for 40 years, until 2043. In addition, he received orders that he would begin with six months’ training at Fort Bliss, Texas, and serve an additional 18 months in Iraq. According to the memorandum written by Michael Sorgen, Doe’s attorney, “The Army has asserted authority to extend enlistments indefinitely under the stop-loss program, and thus could impose a longer or indefinite extension of Doe’s involuntary service.”
Returning to Iraq, he would leave behind a wife and two daughters, aged six and three. On top of this, he is currently undergoing treatment at a Veteran’s Hospital for post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from direct combat experiences in Iraq only last year.
This is the second legal challenge to the military’s stop-loss program. The first suit, by a Georgia soldier during the first Gulf War, ended in the Pentagon’s favor. The military defended stop-loss orders at that time on the basis of a Congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force to “liberate Kuwait,” although there was no formal declaration of war.
This time, the army asserted its authority to issue the stop-loss orders based solely on an Executive Order issued by President Bush on September 14, 2001, which authorized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to prepare the military “to respond to the continuing and immediate threat of further terrorist attacks on the United States.”
On this basis, the Pentagon claimed the right to issue stop-loss orders to members who had finished their terms of duty. Doe’s attorney countered, however, that “The former Iraqi regime has been removed from power, and Iraq cannot be considered to present any threat of terrorism against the US, if it ever did. The stop loss order, accordingly, is invalid.”
According to the contract signed upon enlistment, every enlistee must be available to serve on active duty for up to eight years, although they are usually free after four years. Doe already served 12 years in the Army and Marine Corps, so his one-year contract would have allowed him to retire at its termination.
In addition to the stop-loss orders, the Pentagon recalled into service 5,600 soldiers who had completed active duty and returned to civilian life under this eight-year clause. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers and their relatives will follow Joe Doe’s case closely to see whether they too will be recalled for two years of extra service beyond what they expected.
The Associated Press describes the heavy reliance on these back-up forces: “The military operations in Iraq are relying on reserves to a degree not seen since WWII. In the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom, reservists and National Guardsmen made up about 25 percent of troops in Iraq. [This figure is now 40 percent.] Of the 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the National Guard contributes about 40,000. But an estimated 96,000 have been mobilized—called to full-time service—to serve or prepare for duty there or in Afghanistan, and a further 53,000 are on alert. About 40,000 Army Reservists are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Overall, 131,000 Army Guard and Reserve soldiers are on active duty in the United States and overseas, in most cases for 15 to 18 months. Full-time soldiers’ foreign deployments typically are one year.”
Many working class youth signed up for the National Guard or the reserves having been told they will likely stay in their own communities, except in the case of disaster. Now, tens of thousands have been displaced and are having trouble returning to their communities, finding their jobs gone or promotions rescinded. About 4,000 Guardsmen and reservists have filed job complaints with the Labor Department since September 11. Many have drawn on their bank accounts to support their families or had to declare bankruptcy and shut down their small businesses as a result of their military service.
Already at least two soldiers, Brandon Hughey and Jeremy Hinzman, have refused to report for duty and escaped to Canada amid some publicity. Camilo Mejia, another soldier who refused to go to war, was arrested and sentenced to a year in jail. The antiwar newsletter Traveling Soldier is being distributed among members of the armed forces, basing itself on the Vietnam era Broken Arrow. Various agencies serving veterans say they are swamped with phone calls asking for help.
If the stop-loss orders are deemed valid by the courts, that would set a precedent that gives the president arbitrary power to mobilize the entire National Guard and Reserves and use them anywhere in the world on a whim without oversight from Congress. If the courts deem the orders invalid, this would cut off a major supply of bodies to the army. With recruitment levels for the all-volunteer force shrinking far below expectations and forces stretched thin around the world, calls for reimplementation of the draft are becoming more and more inevitable.
See Also:
New signs of discontent in the military Stop-loss orders prevent soldiers from leaving US Army
[20 January 2004]
Iraq troop rotation plan: Pentagon prepares for next war
[13 January 2004]
Pentagon calls up 10,000 National Guard for combat duty in Iraq
[4 October 2003]
|
|
|
|
 22 Aug 2004 @ 22:34
WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
Why was Senator Kennedy placed on US “no fly” list?
By David Walsh and Barry Grey
21 August 2004
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on August 19, convened to discuss the September 11 commission’s recommendations, Senator Edward Kennedy revealed that for a period of five weeks this spring he had been repeatedly told he could not fly on commercial airplanes because his name was on the government’s “no fly” list.
The longtime Massachusetts Democratic senator (first elected to complete his brother John’s term in 1962, and now the second most senior member of the Senate) disclosed that between March 1 and April 6 airline agents had blocked him from boarding flights, mainly between Washington DC and Boston, on five separate occasions.
The 72-year-old Kennedy briefly recounted the Kafkaesque incidents: “He [the ticket agent] said, ‘We can’t give it to you ... You can’t buy a ticket to go on the airline to Boston.’ I said, ‘Well, why not?’ He said, ‘We can’t tell you.’ Tried to get on a plane back to Washington ... ‘You can’t get on the plane.’ I went up to the desk and said, ‘I’ve been getting on this plane, you know, for 42 years. Why can’t I get on the plane?’”
On each occasion, at Boston’s Logan International Airport, Washington’s Reagan National Airport and one other, airline supervisors ultimately overruled the ticket agents and permitted Kennedy to board his plane. All the flights were on US Airways.
Kennedy staff members eventually telephoned the Transportation Security Administration, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, and officials there promised to rectify the mistake. However, it took them several weeks to clear up the matter. In fact, only days after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge called Kennedy in early April to apologize, another airline agent attempted to block the Massachusetts Democrat from boarding.
Kennedy commented at Thursday’s hearing, “If they have that kind of difficulty with a member of Congress, how in the world are average Americans, who are getting caught up in this thing, how are they going to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?”
This seemingly bizarre episode is largely being treated as a joke in the US media. But it raises questions that are anything but amusing.
The secret “no-fly” list was instituted after the September 11 hijack bombings. The government will not disclose any information about the watch list. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has obtained FBI documents indicating that more than 350 Americans have been delayed or denied boarding since the list came into being. None of them, however, has been arrested or charged with any crime.
Senior ACLU counsel Reggie Shuford told the Washington Post, “That a clerical error could lend one of the most powerful people in Washington to the list—it makes one wonder just how many others who are not terrorists are on the list. Someone of Senator Kennedy’s stature can simply call a friend to have his name removed, but a regular American citizen does not have that ability. He [Kennedy] had to call three times himself.”
The ACLU has filed lawsuits in San Francisco and Seattle, demanding that the government explain how wrongly flagged travelers may get their names off the list.
The day after Kennedy’s revelation, Democratic Congressman John Lewis of Georgia reported that he too has been singled out for special scrutiny because someone on the watch list allegedly has the same name. Lewis told reporters he cannot obtain an electronic ticket, must show extra identification, and has his luggage checked by hand.
According to the Associated Press, Lewis said one airline representative in Atlanta told him, “Once you’re on the list, there’s no way to get off it.” A faculty member at the University of Houston, also named John Lewis, reported a similar problem.
There is some unclarity as to the name appearing on the watch list in the Kennedy incident. The Washington Post reports that “A senior administration official who spoke on condition he not be identified said Kennedy was stopped because the name ‘T. Kennedy’ has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects.” A number of media outlets carried the same version of the story.
Of course, “Ted” Kennedy’s real first name is Edward, and would appear as such on any ticket or identification documents, so why the senator’s name should set off alarms, even if a ‘T. Kennedy’ appeared on a “no fly” list, is a mystery that has not been explained.
The New York Times reports a different story: “The alias used by the suspected terrorist on the watch list was Edward Kennedy, said David Smith, a spokesman for the senator, who uses his full name, with a middle initial, of Edward M. Kennedy.”
Homeland Security officials, echoed uncritically by the media, present the Kennedy episode as an innocent mistake, an example of continuing glitches in the Homeland Security system. Even if one accepts the claim that Kennedy’s flight problems were the result of a mistake, considering what they reveal about the government watch list, the episode can hardly be deemed innocuous. If the seven-term senator from Massachusetts, one of the most prominent figures in national politics, can be treated as a terrorist suspect, then what are the implications of the government watch lists and databases for ordinary people?
Even if Kennedy got caught up in the Homeland Security network by mistake, the fact remains that scores of others have found themselves blocked from boarding planes because of their antiwar and anti-Bush political views.
There are, moreover, aspects of the Kennedy affair that cannot be so easily explained away. Why did it take Ridge four weeks to apologize, and why, after the mistake was supposedly corrected, was Kennedy stopped yet again?
Given the decade-long history of political conspiracy and provocation carried out by the Republican right against prominent Democrats—from the scandal-mongering and entrapment of Clinton that culminated in the Kenneth Starr witch-hunt, the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton’s impeachment, to the stolen election of 2000, to the still unexplained anthrax attacks against Democratic leaders in Congress—the state harassment of Kennedy and Lewis, both of whom are considered in media and official circles to be “icons” of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, cannot be so casually dismissed.
With the installation of the Bush administration, the most right-wing forces within the US political establishment assumed power, and they have continued to employ the same methods they used to capture the White House. As a result, relations within the political establishment have become increasingly poisoned, even as the Democratic Party has continued to lurch to the right and sought to conciliate its Republican antagonists.
Events of the past few years have demonstrated that extreme right-wing elements in and around the Bush administration are moving toward the criminalization of political opposition.
In May 2003, for example, Republican officials in Texas, taking their lead from House Majority Leader Tom Delay, called on the Department of Homeland Security to track down 53 Democratic state legislators who had boycotted the Texas House of Representatives and fled to neighboring Oklahoma in an attempt to block a redistricting bill that favored the Republicans. Delay asked the FBI to intervene and return the “fugitives” to Texas.
Two months later, in July 2003, a leading Republican in the US House of Representatives, Congressman Bill Thomas of California, called on Capitol police to oust Democrats from a room where they were caucusing. The Democrats were meeting to discuss how to deal with Republican legislation that would sharply reduce corporate payments to workers’ pension funds.
No serious investigation has ever been carried out into the attempted assassination of the Democratic leadership of the US Senate, when letters filled with anthrax spores were sent to the offices of senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy in the fall of 2001. The anthrax attacks are widely believed to have been carried out by right-wing elements with ties to the US military or intelligence apparatus.
Kennedy embodies the flaccid and impotent state of American liberalism. He is nonetheless demonized by elements within and around the Republican Party, who denounce him as a traitor for his criticisms of the Bush administration and its conduct of the Iraq war.
Was the airport harassment a deliberate act of political intimidation—a “shot across the bow” aimed at Kennedy and other congressional critics of Bush’s policies?
Another intriguing question arises: why did Kennedy remain silent during the five weeks of his harassment?
Was he concerned that the revelation would discredit the “no-fly” list and the panoply of sinister Homeland Security operations, which he and the rest of the congressional Democrats have endorsed? Did he sense that he was, in some way, being set up? Or did the incident have its desired effect of further intimidating a “liberal” critic?
In any event, Kennedy’s failure to immediately denounce these episodes amounts to one more Democratic capitulation to the police-state propensities of the Bush administration.
See Also:
Specter of a police state
FBI “anti-terror” task force targets Bush administration opponents
[18 August 2004]
A further attack on democratic rights
All US airline passengers to undergo government background checks
[21 January 2004]
ACLU files lawsuit challenging “no-fly” list
[7 May 2003] More >
|
|
|
|
 19 Aug 2004 @ 00:29
How to explain American Foreign Policy to your child...
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A. Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll Find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use In a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to War with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those Weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein Was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some Laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and Started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a Legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by Forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an Illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he Helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, Fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars Back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing Opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban Would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy That oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are Our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very Bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion Of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years After they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French Fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what We want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him Our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked The other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically Becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can Profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for
America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a Godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Good night, Daddy. More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 28 Older entries >> |
|
|
A Newslog for those who seek Truth for the expansion of consciousness, knowledge, wisdom and the Highest Benefit for All. Leave your egoes at the door please! |
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| 8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
| 15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
| 22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
| 29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
Create your own News Log in your profile. |
|
