Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, their puppet, GWB, and other Republican Party shills, have evidently decided that the macho morons of this country hold the key to the upcoming elections.
In a new media blitz, those who oppose the war and the administration's efforts to erode civil rights are being accused of "aiding and abetting the terrorists" (House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio), of "defeatism" (Cheney), and of wanting to "wave the white flag of surrender" (Bush).
This strategy is sure to appeal to those of the "pro-wrestling mentality," and it is more than a little disturbing that the shrewdest political minds in the nation have decided that this segment of our society holds our destiny in its hands..
Meanwhile, behind this smokescreen, wholesale carnage reigns in the country that we have "liberated," and the number of devastated families in the U.S. climbs relentlessly towards 3,000.
Yesterday, a suicide car bombing in an open air market in Sadr City killed 77 and wounded 96, in the deadliest attack in weeks. To date, over 50,000 men, women and children have been killed in Iraq.
As the administration continues to push its propaganda, Suzzettee Lawson and her 3-year old daughter, Chiara, of Sacramento, are attempting to deal with the recent loss of their husband and father, Isaac. At the same time, and a little further to the northwest, Michele Buzzard of Ukiah, has been similarly thrust into eternal gloom by the death of her husband and high school sweetheart, Jason. Their 9-year old son, Tristin and 12-year old daughter, Michala, must now adjust to life without a dad.
For these families and the many others that are missing a treasured member, it is true that their sadness is initially tempered by a public outpouring of support and the elevation of their loved ones to hero status. However, too soon they will become yesterday's news, and their struggles to go forward will be lost in the gathering dust of obscurity.
If those that have created this disaster, and who continue to profit from it, wish to pin the label of "white-flag wavers" on those of us that oppose them, then I say, let's grab onto that icon as a badge of INTELLIGENT PATRIOTISM.
Could it be that the right wing has inadvertently discovered the perfect symbol for democrats, independents and thinking republicans who oppose the war?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 52
Beyond whatever purpose we have for our nation's venerable flag, let's use the white flag as an additional symbol of the intelligent patriotism we exercise by opposing the war and wanting to bring the troops safely home as soon as humanly possible.
From my reading of those who use history as their guide and understand Islamic fundamentalist doctrine/strategy, if we repeat our Vietnam error of leaving "as soon as humanly possible" the following will result.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis would die or have to escape to other countries. Bin Laden would establish a permanent base in Iraq from which to carry out his agenda of killing westerners and establising a radical islamic state controlling the entire world.
Almost no one in the world would trust the word of an American president. We would be seen as a weak degenerate society who cut and run and leave those who are counting on us to the enemy. Many governments would sever their intelligence ties with us and stop cooperating in the war on terror. Without our support and to survive, many of them would have to placate the terrorists.
With a secure base, an Al-Quida, terrorist attacks on U.S. soil would start again and efforts to establish terrorist cells in the U.S. would once again become paramount. U.S. interests abroad would also suffer a renewal of attacks.
You will need a lot of white flags, David. There was a poll done in the nineties of baby boomers. 40% indicated that there was no cause for which they would fight for their country. By the looks of things, the mainstream media must by now have convinced many more to feel the same.
You can be proud to be reading newspapers, following what they say to do and think, David. You may well be in the majority, David, but is what you propose the right thing for the future of our children and our children's children?
So all we have to do is read the newspapers and join in while the New York Times exposes our Top Secret programs to our enemies all in the name of keeping you up to date on the terrible things our government is doing to protect us. I wonder why I did not think of that before.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Already, tens of thousands of Iraqi's have been killed, so it's obvious that our being there does not protect them in any way.
Our Vietnam error was being there in the first place, as was our Iraq error. Whatever the solution for the quagmire in Iraq, I believe that we should employ the basic corporate strategy of never having a problem solved by those who caused it. Obviously, those who cause the problems are primarily concerned with covering their backsides. If this country has any chance of moving forward, it must come from new leadership.
bin laden? *chuckle*...
what about IRAN? they have a few shiites there, you may have heard.
do tell us how dying in iraq = dying for our country. or better yet, just stick to the rah-rahs, and bad-mouthing messengers like david and the new york times.
Best regards, Ben
being asked by the foreign land's leaders for our assistance would be a fine start. doesn't do much for the policy of preemptive invasions, but ya can't win 'em all.
how about when we have all our ducks in a row here at home, then maybe we can go poking into the affairs of the middle east?
spending
of course, if all our children were educated, military recruitment would be worse than it is currently.
First, I hope you agree that both the Vietnam War and the Iraq invasion were promoted by the political/industrial complex, for their own purposes.
In the case of Vietnam, the genius who dreamed up the "Domino Theory" had a big hand in providing the justification that the public needed, given the loss of over 50,000 American lives. Of course, history has proven the theory to be dead wrong, and the lives were indeed wasted. We lost the war, North Vietnam took over the entire country, and - lo and behold - the remaining countries in Southeast Asia did not fall under communist control like a stack of dominoes. Surprise!!!!
The invasion of Iraq, of course, was justified by information that was either a pack of lies or an extreme example of incompetence. We may never know which, but there is compelling circumstantial evidence for the "lie theory."
Meanwhile, an enormous amount of money has been made by certain portions of the industrial sector from the Iraq War, and we can only guess at how much of this has filtered into the hands of the politicians who have conducted it and their friends and associates. Let's face it, the $354,000,000,000+ cost of the Iraq War, to date, as indicated on the site that Martin directed us to, has ended in someones' pockets
These wars were never about political ideology, only money. Vietnam was initiated by a Democratic administration and ended by a Republican one. Iraq was, of course initiated by a Republican administration and its future course is in grave doubt.
The real villain here is the enormous amounts of money that flow "legally" and questionably into the hands of our politicians.
As for your question, the conditions that might justify military action in a foreign land would include:
- A real and truthful threat to an ally that we are obligated to defend under a legal treaty.
- The type of unique situation that justified our proper invasion of Afghanistan, although, at this point, it would be reasonable to expect the UN to take a significant hand in future developments there, but - oh that's right - we've lost our credibility with most every other country in the world, including our "friends," so that's not likely to happen.
- A real and truthful external threat to any country in the Western Hemisphere, including - of course - the United States.....and
- Very careful consideration of any situation in which a country truthfully asks for our protection.
Of course, as long as money is allowed to dictate our political process, the line between truth and fiction will be blurred, and the electorate will continue to be manipulated as it has been in the past, to the benefit of the political/industrial complex.
Spreading the Gospel Through Pro Wrestling<.a> Evangelical Christianity's New and Unusual Outreach Approach
david - outstanding reply to ben's question. i anxiously await his rebuttal.
but i'm not holding my breath.
;p
;p
(gilda radner)
Ben you sound so dumb, but go buy some more oil and defense industry stock.
1. The "press" is not liberal, it is an important part of the system.
2. The Republicans spent 35 years promising to not start a war like this.
"No more Vietnams" said you as you voted for Regan, Regan, Bush, Bush, Bush.
3. There has never been a link from Iraq to 9/11
4. Are you saying this is a war against Islam?
5. Shake that fist, in my face, beat your own chest, Bark loud and long just don't tell me I am not a U. S. Patriot.
Get the to the bank, before the war kills our economy.
ps stay off the telephone, the internet, and remember to look over your shoulder while doing your banking.
oob la de oob la da life goes on
No, I don't agree with your statement "First, I hope you agree that both the Vietnam War and the Iraq invasion were promoted by the political/industrial complex, for their own purposes." Pure politicians never truly supported either full well knowing that they would result in far more censure than praise. Many in Congress wanted to appear tough on terror so they voted to give the President power to use force in Iraq, but once he did look how quickly they distanced themselves from their own votes.
Having personally dealt directly with the military-industrial complex, I know that they aren't dumb enough to advocate war or anything close. The anti-war types who already dislike them intensely would make mincemeat of them in quick order. But they have been more than willing to conduct studies of international situations which could lead to war (using accredited experts) full well knowing that one or more of the outcomes would lead to the conclusion that war is a possibility. They do this tongue in cheek, but they also know that if they don't they will not have knowledge of the exact threat involved and the ways to combat that threat. Threats lead to specific strategies, specific weapon systems and specific mixes of weapons. This knowledge is prerequisite to being able to develop and market weapons and weapon systems.
I surmise from your remarks, David, that you and I perceive the threat of Islamic fundamentalism differently. I see it as the next worlwide struggle, just as important as our struggle against the worldwide advance of communism. If we had not stood up against communism, the weak countries would have fallen under it knowing that they would never get any support from us.
Although we wavered in our response to communism, once we had a leader who exposed their evil, called it such and turned around our policy of unilateral disarmament, the Soviet military lost influence and were eventually removed by civilians from dictating policy.
I was in the Pentagon at the time Reagan took over, deputy to and more often in charge of the research, development, acquisition and installation of all weapon systems for all surface ships. One of my tasks was to allocate surface to air missiles to ships since we only had enough to fill a little over half of the ship's load and had almost no backup inventory ashore. We had become so weak before Reagan that the Navy was called a 1/2 ocean Navy, one that half of us believed we would lose to the Russians in all three major oceans while the other half believed that we could win in the Atlantic but would lose in the Pacific and Indian. When I joined the Navy in the fifties we were known as a 2 1/2 ocean Navy. Reagan set about restoring our much diminished military strength and the Soviets came to realize that there was no way their poor economy could beat with us if we stopped disarming and started rearming.
So my belief is that if we don't stand up strongly against the Islamic fundamentalists who are willing to use terror to achieve world domination, we will create a terrible problem for our children, their children and the entire world. We are the big Kahuna and if the big Kahuna does not stand up, how can others. Al-Qaida was in Iraq well before we got there and Saddam is a great supporter and advocate of terrorism. Besides, he was in violation of many UN resolutions. What better place to stand up against terrorism? We had the whole world with us, right? Of course, as it turned out, the UN countries, like the US Congress, had no intention of standing behind their own resolutions, but that is quite normal especially when so many were making money or just political hay from the situation. Naive Bush!
We will be better able to judge in a few years who was right.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
thanks for the laugh. great way to start the day.
TEE-HEEEEEE......
ah, yes - the domino theory that david already shot down. good job - great debate. typical of yes man and his ilk. state known falsehoods as truth.
too late. they already owe the chinese a lot of money.
yes - we will. but bush, rumsfeld and cheney will all be dead already, so it's not like they ever gave two shits about accountability for their actions.
ken lay got off easy.
Communism: The U.S. Capitalist is saving China, a military dictatorship, under the name of Communist. China gets our $, and the current U.S. leaders have a new word to use to make citizens quake in fear. Islam.
Martin Luther nailed his document to a door and plunged all of Europe into 100 years of religious wars, protestant against catholic, protestant against protestant. This violence was a direct cause of the statement in our constitution against an established religion. Ben and Yes Man support a government that is determined to plunge us into a war with no end.
Do I get your messages correctly, Islam is the new Communism?
Ben and Yes Man have conveniently forgotten that nearly all the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, something never mentioned by our oil drunk administration. Yes Afghanistan had the big training camp, and was out of control, is still out of control. Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on our nation. This is the new Republican Vietnam.
Chris Levitt does not mention just what threat Iraq posed to the U.S. before the invasion, nor does Ben.
Why did you choose a white flag? A white flag denotes "surrender" or "I give up". Isn't this the wrong message you want to send?
There is no justification for the Iraq war period.
Viet Nam war was a mistake.
Reagan did not bring down the Soviet Union. Their stupid policy of spending billions of rubels on defense and bankrupting themselves brought them and their economy down. This same policy of borrowing money and leaving the bill for our grandchildren that both Reagan and the 2 Bushes have been responsible for threatens to bring our economy down in a similar manner.Ben you are clearly tied up with the military industrial complex.
Of course I realize that the president was really calling us cowards, but actually, more to the point, he was simply appealing to his non-thinking followers who only care about having America kick ass around the globe.
Personally, I'd like nothing better than to see a video clip of the president in some city being confronted by a sea of white flags, be they T-shirts or handkerchiefs. That might even energize the opposition party into providing some meaningful opposition.
Could it be that the reason the politicians distanced themselves from their own votes was the growing realization that they had been acting on false information?....
and of course the defense industry isn't dumb enough to advocate war....this appears to be a little shuffle tactic on your part....I never said that they did advocate war....but by your own admission they wanted war, and it's my belief that the politicians who benefited from their handouts did the rest. To support this theory I offer the fact that 1) they did benefit from handouts from the defense industry, and 2) they did do the rest (i.e. start the war).
Martin has answered most of your other points better than I could. I do have a little trouble, though, with your statement that the Islamic fundamentalists are seeking world domination. Ben, the people we are fighting don't even have a country, let alone the ability to even dream of taking over the world. In fact, that is the vexing part of it. How can a war like that be "won?"
In addition to Martin - Sandy, Today's illusion, Cena, Robert and Andrew have made some compelling points concerning the war and Bush's handling of it. Certainly, this must have made some impression on you, Ben - (and I don't mean the kind of impression that Yes Man is talking about).
~~
please see this
thanks for the article very good. i agree with you that intelligent patriotism is what us liberals seem to have. This war amounts to nothing and no good is really coming from it. The administration is oil drunk or more appropriately money drunk. That is the reason here for this mess and it is a mess. we were not invited there by anyone but took it upon ourselves to declare war in Iraq. The focus on terrorism was shifted from Afiganistan to Iraq and our international support collapse especially since the UN and the International community called this what it is an ILLEGAL war. Based on faulty intelligence and lies. Some see islamic fundamentalism as a philosophy based on world dominiation. The US greatest friend(Great Britian) was polled last week and asked what Britons thought of the US leadership. What they said was a power hungry empire seeking world domination. Check the poll out in the Daily telegraph papar actually here is the article:
Britons have never had such a low opinion of the leadership of the United States, a YouGov poll shows.
As Americans prepare to celebrate the 230th anniversary of their independence tomorrow, the poll found that only 12 per cent of Britons trust them to act wisely on the global stage. This is half the number who had faith in the Vietnam-scarred White House of 1975.
Most Britons see America as a cruel, vulgar, arrogant society, riven by class and racism, crime-ridden, obsessed with money and led by an incompetent hypocrite.
American troops are failing either to win "hearts and minds" in Iraq or bring democracy to that country.
More than two-thirds who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power seeking world domination. And 81 per cent of those who took a view said President George W Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover for the pursuit of American self-interests.
A spokesman for the American embassy said that the poll's findings were contradicted by its own surveys.
"We question the judgment of anyone who asserts the world would be a better place with Saddam still terrorizing his own nation and threatening people well beyond Iraq's borders.
"With respect to the poll's assertions about American society, we bear some of the blame for not successfully communicating America's extraordinary dynamism.
"But frankly, so do you [the British press]."
The worst thing about this is many of the other stable and great democracies feel the same or even worse about the leadership of this country. This was not at all the case after 9/11 but in a small matter of 5-6 yrs the US went from a beacon of democracy to an imperialist regime in the world's eyes. The UN did a poll as well a few months ago on countries seen as a positive influence in the world and the US was second from the bottom only Iran ranked lower. that was world wide! China was in the top 10. I ask you What happened. Bush and the Republicans continually rubber stamping this administration happened.
We have decades of repairs to make and not just outside the US but as Martin pointed out in debt it will take How long 20-30 yrs? Our civil liberties have been removed in many cases. nothing in a democracy justifies what has happened iunder this administration. The hope we have is to vote the republicans totally out of power in Nov 06. aside fro that we are screwed. Hate and fear are what dominates the country now. intolerance and the states have never been so polarized. It is almost like we can not even talk to each other. The country has not been this split since the civil war and the Bush administration is to thank for that.
As for us "spreading democracy" -- yeah, sure! And what happens when people exercise that democracy by holding free elections and elect governments we don't like? Isn't this exactly how Hamas got into power? Wasn't the current government in Iran elected in a democratic election? Spread democracy, and what do you do when you don't like the results?
Hamas was elected that way and the elections were overseen by the international community so this is what has happened to the region more hatred.
You comment that the people we are fighting don't even have a country as if that is a requirement for engaging in a worldwide war. I recommend that you read Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri (from Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood founded in 1928) and others in order to understand their strategies. They have detailed manuals for everything including their longterm strategy. Study them to better understand how to save your offspring rather than assist in their undoing.
Amazingly to you perhaps, radical Islamics do not feel limited about not having a country. They had one which had converted to radical Islamicism, but they lost it. But Somalia may soon drop into their hands and there are others tottering on the brink. These are very patient folks, willing to persevere over a long period of time in order to pursue their goal of creating a worldwide Islamic state through terror. Not something most Americans can begin to understand with our short term view of most everything. Our enemies are counting on the fact that the West has a habit of discounting threats as we did with Hitler, on your apparent desire to ignore their actions. Clinton did that and we got 9/11, and, as this discussion loudly attests, mostly already forgotten.
Please know that I am greatly impressed by the response to my comments and that I am greatly fearful for what they portend.
Take a look at what some military men view as the status in Iraq today HERE and take a look at the historical perspective on Iraq HERE
Best regards, Ben
We did not 'get' the world trade center attack because of Clinton's negligence. We 'got' it because that is what this administration wanted so badly that they ignored every warning they received. The "we didn't have trasnslators" excuse doesn't hold water.
you have only reams of blowhard rhetoric. also unworthy of response.
i'm game, though. too bad you can't say the same.
"The learned fool writes nonsense in better language that the unlearned - but it's still nonsense."
franklin
Sandy,
You can not blame Bush or Clinton for 9/11. US government practices "crises management". Unless a crisis is involved nothing will be done.
This is why Social Security will not get fixed until the program is on the verge of bankruptcy. Until a crisis occurs w/ SSA nothing will be done.
The reason 9/11 warnings were ignored is because the government is inept. If you want evidence of how badly the government works look at hurricane Katrina.
If this is true then why are you responding? Obviously Ben does not want to continue a discussion w/ you. Take your hurt feelings and move on"
did you miss my next line, or just ignoring it?