[Powderworks] Warning : Political drivel content.... Impeach the Pres,
Wed, 05 Feb 2003 16:21:00 +1100
Good to "see" you all again.
I have just returned from a wonderful cycling stint in West Africa where we
have shot a documentary on cycling, and the misplaced "fear" we all have of
some of these places (and worse, of the fear we have of the people).
And what do I return to? The "bleedin' demise" of the Oils!
Still, I can't say I'm pissed off. Inconsolably sad would come close.
So, I was looking for an entry point to hop back on the list, and, thanks
Craig, you provided a nice one.
I would just suggest that you may want to take a peek at Bowling for Columbine
- there is an (all too short) piece in the middle of the film talking about
"our" completely rooted way that the West has handled world affairs in the
past, and specifically in the middle east and Asia.
So back to your cited reason for what is unfortunately our upcoming action in
Iraq. Please note that I am sure (and I'm not taking the piss) that you have
many other reasons for thinking war is a good thing in this instance, but I
imagine they have far more credit than the one cited.
If we're talking about numbers of civilian dead (and thank God we aren't) then
Iraq's 500,000 dead against 3,000 in the WTC surely gives them plenty of reason
to have nuked all western nations out of existence. These dead occured both
directly and indirectly as a result of the weekly bomibing sorties over Iraq
since 1991, which we have rarely heard about, and the sanctions imposed on the
nation. The fact that Saddam is a dictator has nothing to do with our attack.
The Shah in Iran, and Pinochet in Argentina name just two that come to mind at
the moment. They are two dictators that were installed in countries, thus
overthrowing a threat to Western economic dominance. Oh, and by the way, the
source of that 500,000 figure and the weekly sorties is the UN; a body that we
know is marjority funded by the U.S. (one of the many good things the States
do.) This makes me think that it must be a MIGHTY sticking point in the UN
that this information has been so freely released. .
So, back to the point, here we are, going in AGAIN, and openly contemplating
using our own Nuclear Warheads (God Bless the side of the righteous and
free!!!) on "weapons installations" in Iraq.
Do I hear a bit of bracchiating going on here??? Surely a simple but poignant
question to ask here is why can't we send the inspectors into these locations
rather than bombing them? Iraq HAS NOT stopped ANY inspectors going to any
location that they have requested. Mr Blix will tell you that. Ex-head
inspector Mr Butler will also tell us that.
I remain certain that an agenda is driving the major news networks in the
States, as many of you do, and that this agenda is dictated by the various
vested interests currently in power. When anyone tells us anythiing, the first
thing we should be looking for is vested interests that the informer may have.
I have a good friend in Europe that covers war stories and has just returned
from covering issues in Israel. I am certain that atrocities are being
committed on both sides, and that some of the Palestinians are no angels. But
what pisses me off is that any pro-Palestinian stories or stories with an anti
-Israel element will NOT be told. My friend has been told that this is the
sort of story that will not be newsworthy - it is not on the agenda of the
moment. And they are the words that were used.
Our reasons for war are oil only in this instance. All other reasons I have
heard are rhetoric, ill-conceived, and based on a very shaky foundation of
mistruths and fear-propagation.
Who's gonna save me?
Who's gonna save me?
I pray that sense and reason brings us in...
There, that's 2.3% of what I wanted to say off my mind...
Craig Jacobson wrote:
> Eel Bonjack wrote:
> >If you disagree with this, then you can just ignore me
> >otherwise, I think we got to make a stand here.
> >because I can't go on, living like this, watching
> >pictures of the world as they pass me by.....
> I couldn't resist taking a look at this website. Not because there
> aren't legitimate reasons to oppose the possibility of conflict in Iraq
> - there are numerous reasons - but because those who are most vocal in
> opposition never seem to come up with them.
> The first of the "articles of impeachment" put forth by Ramsey Clark
> refers to a "pre-emptive" war in Afghanistan. I hate to break the news,
> but in lower Manhattan, across the street from where I once went to
> school, there used to be these two really tall buildings. Three
> thousand people were brutally murdered there. The military action in
> Afghanistan by the U.S. and its allies was anything but "pre-emptive".
> The remaining "articles" were equally filled with distortions and untruths.
> So, whatever each person's position may be, they should take care to
> back it up with facts and reasoned arguments rather than the
> aforementioned drivel.
> Back to our regular scheduled discussion on Euro Capricornia...
> - CAJ
> Powderworks mailing list