"There is a fatal flaw in attempting to meet the amorphous terrorist threat – either locally or globally – by reaching for a bigger gun."That's from the Sydney Morning Herald care of this Washington Post World Views column, a valuable source of the wide range of international opinion. (Even though, in the fictional universe of our current 'leadership,' world opinion only matters when in results in others doing our bidding.) There are calls to stay the course, and laments that Wolfowitz wasn't harmed during Monday's attacks; concerns for the Iraqis, and concerns about the U.S. becoming a predatory nation.
Personal commentary and clippings in opposition to the U.S. militarism against Iraq and the rest of the world
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Politics infuse everything. Consider this from today's Media Notes column in the Washington Post by Howard Kurtz.
I would ask what these folks are smoking, but being an avid non-smoker it would probably annoy me to find out. Oh, they also state that, because the biggest organization behind the protests doesn't believe the UN should inherit the Bush Administration's mess, that means they're anti-UN, proving that the peace movement hates the Iraqis.
Someone has great drugs and isn't sharing with their hallucination of a monolithic, completely unified peace movement that only sees two options. (You're with us or against us, you're good or eeeeeevil, you're for the war on terror or you're a terrorist, etc.) It's amazing what desperate people will do to avoid having a realistic discussions of our option in Iraq, including accelerating the schedule for actual democracy, letting the Iraqi's choose their own contractors, and coordinating aid and development assistance through the UN.
[And the pro-war hysterics then shout: But then we'd have to give up our lucrative contracts!! We CAN NOT do that! It's our way or the highway! And the conversation becomes unrealistically limited again.]
Kurtz isn't the sort of columnist to call people on these issues, but it's amusing to see their quotes and see how misguided (and blinded) they are just the same.
"The concern in GOP circles is such that one prominent Republican strategist said many party faithful hope the administration can provide an 'achievable' deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops by next summer. But that ' "decision-can" keeps getting kicked down the street,' the GOP strategist said."The article goes on to quote critics of the peace movement, suggesting that there are only two options: US military occupation of Iraq, or a complete abandonment of the Iraqi people to the chaos already consuming them.
The summer of 2004? How conveeenient.
I would ask what these folks are smoking, but being an avid non-smoker it would probably annoy me to find out. Oh, they also state that, because the biggest organization behind the protests doesn't believe the UN should inherit the Bush Administration's mess, that means they're anti-UN, proving that the peace movement hates the Iraqis.
Someone has great drugs and isn't sharing with their hallucination of a monolithic, completely unified peace movement that only sees two options. (You're with us or against us, you're good or eeeeeevil, you're for the war on terror or you're a terrorist, etc.) It's amazing what desperate people will do to avoid having a realistic discussions of our option in Iraq, including accelerating the schedule for actual democracy, letting the Iraqi's choose their own contractors, and coordinating aid and development assistance through the UN.
[And the pro-war hysterics then shout: But then we'd have to give up our lucrative contracts!! We CAN NOT do that! It's our way or the highway! And the conversation becomes unrealistically limited again.]
Kurtz isn't the sort of columnist to call people on these issues, but it's amusing to see their quotes and see how misguided (and blinded) they are just the same.
Sunday, October 26, 2003
Occupation is War
Yesterday I attended the peace rally in opposition to the US occupation of Iraq here in San Francisco yesterday. Under a cloudless sky and relentless 80 degree sunshine, thousands gathered to voice opposition to the immoral and unsuccessful policy of occupying Iraq.
As usual, the homemade signs were the best. ("All these signs & Bush can't read!" My favorite I couldn't get a picture of, but seemed to be a speech excerpt from our own administration, 'our mission is to remove a violent and oppressive regime from Iraq...') Several activists in an antique car with silly pro-war slogans and logos representing Bush's period of being AWOL from the Nat'l Guard decorated the car, which was staffed by costumed versions of Bush, Colin, and Dick, all handing out Deception Dollars, a performance which merited considerable attention. (S took a photo of the Powell figure pretending to snort powder off the dashboard through one of these "fraudulent event notes." :-)
During the speeches, the organizers noted that there was an estimated 15-20,000 people participating, and that the media would emphasize that attendance was smaller than during the war, rather than finding it remarkable that people care at all or reporting substantively on our concerns. (Sure enough, today's coverage is completely predictable.) Representatives of military families opposed to the occupation spoke (SF Gate), along with Rep. Cynthia McKinney, mayoral candidates Matt Gonzales and Tom Ammiano, and other local and international luminaries. I found the demonstration to be a positive, creative demand by positive, creative people to reevaluate a failing effort that is costing all of us goodwill and safety.
Discordant notes: police allowing deranged motorists to try to force their way through the march (I have a video of a woman swearing at me after she nearly ran several people down); and a firetruck using the march portion of market street where no traffic accommodations had been made by the police, which was blocked by a rig that had unsuccessfully tried to force its way through. The march route was publicized for weeks in advance, and it appeared that the police were going out of their way to make sure that civilians had to direct traffic. (I guess they're still annoyed over the indignities they suffered on Day X?)
News and Information Resources
- Protester's reports:
- SF Indymedia Anti-War News, including Nice protest photos by Peter; more photos (best sign: Sammy Hagar imitators against mass homicide)
- DC Indymedia Home, including DC Indymedia's summary the protest (recommended), and A participant's comments on DC Indymedia
- SF Indymedia Anti-War News, including Nice protest photos by Peter; more photos (best sign: Sammy Hagar imitators against mass homicide)
- Corporate media reports:
- Reuters coverage (of the Washington march)
- SJ Mercury coverage
- SF Gate coverage
- Washington Post coverage(Sample:"The demonstrators represented a diverse mix of dissent, from suburban high school students to gray-haired retirees, from fathers pushing their children in strollers to Muslim American college students shouting through bullhorns. There were people from D.C. Poets Against the War, the Louisville Peace Action Community, Northern Virginians for Peace and Central Ohioans for Peace, among many others. Banners in Spanish, Korean, Urdu, Hebrew, Arabic and Tagalog decried the war. Smaller marches began at various locations in the city and led to the main rally, including those organized by Muslim American and by African American activists.")
- Reuters coverage (of the Washington march)
- Military families' organizations
- March Sponsors:
- Bay Area United Against War
- International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) Coalition
- Not In Our Name (and likely our Not In Our Name Bay Area Chapter); and
- Vanguard Public Foundation
- Endorsed by United for Peace & Justice, Bay Area.
- Bay Area United Against War
Common Cause has launched an Eye On Iraq campaign to track suspicious spending, among other things. A sample from their e-mail newsletter:
Did you know that the Bush Administration's reconstruction budget for Iraq includes the following requests?All this, and some US lawmakers are pointing out possible price gouging by Halliburton. (BBC) You may not be surprised that there are some bills from Bush's no-bid-contract pals that look mighty suspicious. Just because Iraq's ministries pay 98 cents a gallon or less for fuel, doesn't mean Halliburton shouldn't charge the US $1.59 for the same fuel, does it?
1. Six hundred hand-held radios and satellite phones at an average cost of $6,000 each, BUT enterprising Iraqis have been able to buy satellite phones from Jordan for $900 each.
2. Eighty pick-up trucks at a cost of $33,000, BUT new pickup trucks in the U.S. start at about $14,000.
3. Five thousand computers at a cost of $3,000 each, BUT a computer in the U.S. can be bought for well under $1000.
4. A witness protection program that would cost an average of $200,000 per person, BUT similar programs in the US cost about $10,000 per person.
The hotel housing US occupation officials was attacked in Baghdad: the attackers escaped, as did Wolfowitz.(SF Gate)
[The rest of the issue, on the overall theme of "winners" and "losers" is also worth reading. It generally supports my theory that, if you have absolutely nothing to lose, you have no motivation to support anything in world society, and that the disinfranchised are a threat to peace of our own making -- we allow them to be disinfranchised. That's MY take on it -- your mileage may vary.]
"There is no guarantee we can protect against this kind of thing unless we have soldiers on every block," said Lt. Brian Dowd of Nanuet, N.Y., a 1st Armored Division reconnaissance officer at the scene.The comment about having soldiers on every block reminds me of an essay in the Nov./Dec. 2003 issue of Adbusters, a fictional representation of what the world will be like in a few years, when the entire middle east is occupied by a corrupt and exploitative U.S. *shudder* The fiction is long, detailed, reminiscent of the British in India, full of disdain for democracy/sovereignity/self-determination, and completely horrific. For those reasons, I recommend reading it.
[The rest of the issue, on the overall theme of "winners" and "losers" is also worth reading. It generally supports my theory that, if you have absolutely nothing to lose, you have no motivation to support anything in world society, and that the disinfranchised are a threat to peace of our own making -- we allow them to be disinfranchised. That's MY take on it -- your mileage may vary.]