Cindy Sheehan Calls it Quits
Originally posted by Nadir on LastChocolateCity.comCindy Sheehan has had it. The mother who began her crusade to end the Iraq War by camping outside George Bush’s Crawford, Texas ranch after her son, Casey, was killed in Iraq, issued her resignation as “the face” of the anti-war movement in a post on the DailyKos website this Memorial Day.
The activist has endured a storm of criticism throughout her two-year campaign, and that storm grew stronger last week when she renounced ties with the Democratic Party over their refusal to cut off funding for the imperial occupation in Iraq.
I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt “two” party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?
The punk Democrats were put into office with a mandate from the American people to stop the carnage in Iraq, and to hold the Bush administration accountable for its many crimes. But the hypocrites who took over Congress in November are rolling over for George Bush and the corporate war machine just like the Republicans did. Many of the Democratic Party’s so-called leaders - including presidential candidates senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and House Judiciary chair John Conyers of Detroit - have chosen political posturing over what is best for the United States, the people of Iraq and the world.
In fact, the Democrats have taken on the Iraq war as their own. The military funding bill that passed requires the Iraqi parliament to pass an oil law that grants ownership of two-thirds of the nation’s oil to foreign corporatations confirming the “Blood for Oil” motives of the invasion. (Click HERE to watch an animated video that explains the oil law or Click HERE to read the language of the law for yourself.) Cindy Sheehan sacrificed her marriage, her family, her savings and her life attempting to stop the needless bloodshed that has now been coopted by the Democratic Party.
She offers stern criticism for the peace movement “that often puts personal egos above peace and human life… It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.”
But Sheehan is most critical of herself for believing in the United States and its system for so many years, and she has lost so much to it.
The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.
This All-American mom is packing up and heading home, broken, beatened and bruised from her battles. Her parting words are those of a parent who has done her best to prepare her offspring for the cold, cruel world outside only to find that the hard-headed brat either hasn’t been paying attention or doesn’t care. In the end, all a mother can do is let the prodigal child deal on its own.
Good-bye America …you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.
It’s up to you now.
The Daily Kos: “Good Riddance Attention Whore” by Cindy Sheehan
posted by Nadir at 1:17 PM
36 Comments:
I have always thought that invading Iraq and establishing a democracy represented one logical response to 911. However, I also feel that not invading was another logical response.
In the case of Ma Cindy, I believe that Bush should have met with her again. I also shared Cindy's claim that Bush failed to support the troops with necessary equipment, pay, and health benefits.
Paul,
What did Iraq have to do with 911?
http://reformedleftist.blogspot.com/2007/03/bush-pre-invasion-justification-to-us.html#links
http://reformedleftist.blogspot.com/2007/03/bushs-pre-war-rationale-justification.html#links
Iraq's Hussein govt didn't conduct the 911 attack. However, the neocons argue that the anti-US sentiment leading to that attack derives from a lack of democracy in the Arab world, and that the most effective effort to reduce that underlying sentiment would be to establish a democracy there. The neocons believe that because democracies provide people the opportunity to control their own lives, and to live in prosperity and security, that this would provide an alternative to anti-US, islam-based violence manifested as 911. UN & US congressional mandates leftover from the original Gulf War provided Bush a pretext for targeting one Arab nation -- Iraq -- for a US military effort to eliminate a dictatorship and replace it with a prosperous and peaceful democracy, just as the US had previously accomplished in Japan, Italy, Germany, and South Korea.
The example of Iraq's Kurdish third provided an indication of how a US military imposition of democracy could succeed: it was established via the US military Gulf War invasion, and it was perpetuated only via constant US military protection.
Where the neocons correct in believing that the US military could bring civilization to the rest of Iraq? I am unsure now, but remain supportive and hopeful. Afterall, it took South Korea a few decades before the US-installed govt actually realized its democratic mandate. I am sure that Bush could have done a better job. If Bush had done a better job, would the Arab 2/3'ds of Iraq be closer today to the civilized example of the Kurdish 1/3'rd? I assume so.
And just as I believe this attempt by Bush was a logical response to 911, I also the counter-view is also logical, and may have worked: remove all US military bases from Arabia, and leave all the nations there to their own fates, and making petro deals with whatever religious or secular gangsters win a bloody grip.
"Iraq's Hussein govt didn't conduct the 911 attack. However, the neocons argue that the anti-US sentiment leading to that attack derives from a lack of democracy in the Arab world, and that the most effective effort to reduce that underlying sentiment would be to establish a democracy there."
So why arbitrarily pick Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia or Egypt? Why not invade Pakistan's nuclear powered military dictatorship?
"The neocons believe that because democracies provide people the opportunity to control their own lives, and to live in prosperity and security, that this would provide an alternative to anti-US, islam-based violence manifested as 911."
And how democratic it is to force democracy on a people at gun point! That sure helped anti-US sentiment in the region. It increased it!
"UN & US congressional mandates leftover from the original Gulf War provided Bush a pretext for targeting one Arab nation -- Iraq -- for a US military effort to eliminate a dictatorship and replace it with a prosperous and peaceful democracy, just as the US had previously accomplished in Japan, Italy, Germany, and South Korea."
Yet the US has ignored Israel's violation of dozens of UN Security Council resolutions since the nation's founding. Such hypocrisy.
And again, why not take out a military dictatorship in Pakistan, where weapons of mass destruction are known to exist, not just suspected as in Iraq's case?
"The example of Iraq's Kurdish third provided an indication of how a US military imposition of democracy could succeed: it was established via the US military Gulf War invasion, and it was perpetuated only via constant US military protection."
The Kurdish state "earned" their autonomy by rebelling against Hussein and were rewarded by US military protection.
"And just as I believe this attempt by Bush was a logical response to 911, I also the counter-view is also logical, and may have worked: remove all US military bases from Arabia, and leave all the nations there to their own fates, and making petro deals with whatever religious or secular gangsters win a bloody grip."
This certainly would have resulted in fewer lives lost.
There is no way that the invasion of Iraq was a logical response to 911. The terrorist attacks of 911 were not perpetrated by Iraq. This is like attacking the neighbor down the street because the guy next door kicked your dog.
Come to think of it, since most of the alleged 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't even a logical response to 911.
Nadir writes: ========================
So why arbitrarily pick Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia or Egypt? Why not invade Pakistan's nuclear powered military dictatorship?
========================
None of those nations had outstanding UN mandates violated by their dictator which otherwise prevent a US invasion; none of them already has a substantial region operating under US military protection and functioning as the very sort of democracy serving as a goal of the invasion.
Without these two factors, it would have been much more difficult to select any nation for a WWII German / Japan / Italy invasion - democratic - rebuilding - into - an - ally scenario.
Other factors figure in a well, pointing to Iraq over any of these alternatives:
- Pakistan isn't Arab, and thus wouldn't serve the goal of cutting to the heart of Islam with a prosperous modern civilization to serve as an attractive alternative to anti-civilization nihilism.
- Egypt and SA lack militaries respected in the region. Thus a successful invasion would not demonstrate "if it works there, it can work anywhere," and would have pro-civilization forces in SA or Egypt looking over their shoulders at what Iraq's military might do.
- Egypt and SA officially operate in peace with US ally Isreal, respecting border treaties over years, whereas Iraq officially operated in hostility towards Israel.
Nadir writes: =============
And how democratic it is to force democracy on a people at gun point! That sure helped anti-US sentiment in the region. It increased it!
============================
All democracies have been imposed at gun point... against armed people insisting upon a dictatorship. But unlike any other form of government, a democracy is the only type that ends up being "of, for, and by" the people. For this reason, some critical fraction of the population must desire a non-tyranical government, or at least desire it more than they desire capitulating to violence inflicted by tyrants opposing self-rule.
Here the Bushies may have misjudged; Iraq's Arab population may not yet contain enough devoted democrats, unlike its Kurdish population. Presumably, all people eventually contain a critical mass who prefer self-rule (democracy) over dictatorship (all alternatives to democracy).
Nadir writes: ===================
why not take out a military dictatorship in Pakistan, where weapons of mass destruction are known to exist, not just suspected as in Iraq's case.
==================================
The neocons believe that the people of Iraq have more of a social influence over the people of Pakistan than vice-versa, which is one of the reasons they felt it would be more effective to liberate the people of Iraq than the people of Pakistan. They hoped to "prime the pump", and create a democratic revolution in the muslim world, which all looks to Arabia in general, and Iraq and SA in particular, for their religious and historical inspirations.
Nadir writes: =============
since most of the alleged 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't even a logical response to 911.
===========================
I'm unaware of any evidence that the SA govt provided any safe haven for Al Qaida, whereas the govt of Afghanistan did. I am also unaware how the nationality of a culprit implicates his or her government, vs. linking a government with official or tacit support for his/her actions (regardless of his/her nationality).
Nadir writes: ======================
There is no way that the invasion of Iraq was a logical response to 911. The terrorist attacks of 911 were not perpetrated by Iraq. This is like attacking the neighbor down the street because the guy next door kicked your dog.
===================================
Unless you live in a crime-ridden neighborhood, and although the neighbor down the street didn't kick my dog, he's involved in all sorts of activities helping to create the criminal environment in the first place, including cheering my dog's injury, and operating a disgusting dog-fighting operation in his basement, raping his own children, has a recent history of shootouts with other criminal neighbors, pays people who break into the home of the one neighbor who does keep his grass cut, etc., etc.
Is my goal simply to call the police once again, as I have done so often the past, to absolutely no avail, on this single recent act, or am I trying to solve the problem? If I'm trying to solve the problem, I might very well need to confront a dirty, horrible, evil neighbor who played no direct role in the recent outrage.
Your points here are all preposterous.
"None of those nations had outstanding UN mandates violated by their dictator which otherwise prevent a US invasion;"
But Israel does. And Israel has been guilty of aggression against its neighbors, and is a nuclear power. Hypocrisy.
"...none of them already has a substantial region operating under US military protection and functioning as the very sort of democracy serving as a goal of the invasion."
I don't understand how this justifies the invasion of the rest of the country. It might make the imperial conquest easier, but this point provides no "moral" justification, and certainly no democratic one.
"Without these two factors, it would have been much more difficult to select any nation for a WWII German / Japan / Italy invasion - democratic - rebuilding - into - an - ally scenario."
But that isn't why Germany, Japan and Italy were invaded. Those nations had been aggressors and imperial powers themselves. They were beaten in (more or less) self-defense. The imperial invasion of Iraq was not self-defense because the nation was not an eminent threat.
"Other factors figure in a well, pointing to Iraq over any of these alternatives:
- Pakistan isn't Arab, and thus wouldn't serve the goal of cutting to the heart of Islam with a prosperous modern civilization to serve as an attractive alternative to anti-civilization nihilism."
Perhaps they aren't Arab, but Pakistan is Muslim and is more anti-American than Iraq was before the invasion. Your facts are just wrong here. And your preaching this "white man's burden" of civilizing the savage Arabs is undemocratic white supremacist rhetoric.
"- Egypt and SA lack militaries respected in the region. Thus a successful invasion would not demonstrate "if it works there, it can work anywhere," and would have pro-civilization forces in SA or Egypt looking over their shoulders at what Iraq's military might do."
So because it would be easier to beat Egypt and Saudi Arabia the show of might wouldn't be strong enough? You're really off your rocker now. You're evangelizing imperialism! When did you become a jackleg preacher for colonialism?
Iraq's military was mostly destroyed during the first Gulf War and the 12 years of bombing in between invasions. They didn't have a chance in a conventional war. This is why they gave only a weak resistance in the beginning - enough to buy them time to get most of the forces into hiding. They knew they could win a guerrilla war, and they are so far.
"- Egypt and SA officially operate in peace with US ally Isreal, respecting border treaties over years, whereas Iraq officially operated in hostility towards Israel."
So like a good neocon, you admit that this invasion was for Israel?
"All democracies have been imposed at gun point... against armed people insisting upon a dictatorship. But unlike any other form of government, a democracy is the only type that ends up being "of, for, and by" the people. For this reason, some critical fraction of the population must desire a non-tyranical government, or at least desire it more than they desire capitulating to violence inflicted by tyrants opposing self-rule."
I guess you're right about this to a degree. The American Indians didn't want US democracy, and they were the victims of genocide. Enslaved Africans didn't want US democracy and they were put in chains to force their compliance with it.
The French aristocracy didn't want democracy, but the people of France did, so they overthrew the monarchy.
"I'm unaware of any evidence that the SA govt provided any safe haven for Al Qaida, whereas the govt of Afghanistan did. I am also unaware how the nationality of a culprit implicates his or her government, vs. linking a government with official or tacit support for his/her actions (regardless of his/her nationality)."
The invasion of Afghanistan was planned well before 911 as Clinton has admitted. It had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
There is no logical reason to invade Iraq unless it is for the imperial theft of the nation's oil and strategic geographical position, which you seem to be admitting.
"Is my goal simply to call the police once again, as I have done so often the past, to absolutely no avail, on this single recent act, or am I trying to solve the problem? If I'm trying to solve the problem, I might very well need to confront a dirty, horrible, evil neighbor who played no direct role in the recent outrage."
Vigilante justice is illegal as was the invasion of Iraq. Preemptive vigilante justice is immoral as was the invasion of Iraq.
Using this logic, why then haven't you tracked down your neighbors in the American Nazi Party to preempt their racist actions against your integrated household? Are you hiding a batcave under your basement, Masked Avenger?
Israel has outstanding UN violations, but none of those constitute agreements entered into by Israel's president as condition of preventing an invasion by a UN-mandated force. Instead, you are referring to countless resolutions passed by the UN against Israel. In the case of Hussein's Iraq, a UN-mandated force led by the US military stood at his border in 1992 or so, ready to invade and remove him from power. That force stood down only due to a cease-fire agreement entered into by him, which included a list of requirements to which he agreed as condition of that cease-fire, including many that he subsequently violated repeatedly since the signing of that agreement and 911.
Those stipulations included full compliance and cooperation with UN weapons UN weapons inspectors, documented, witnessed, supervised dismantling of all WMDs extant at the time of the signing, and a WMD-free certification from those inspectors. Hussein violated these and other stipulations of the cease-fire.
No similar situation remotely compares with respect to Israel; Israel's government does not today survive imminent invasion by any identifiable military force owing only to a cease-fire agreement that it has violated.
Nadir writes (of my point about Iraq's "Kurdish third" existing already as a modern democracy prior to Bush's invasion)
=============
I don't understand how this justifies the invasion of the rest of the country. It might make the imperial conquest easier, but this point provides no "moral" justification, and certainly no democratic one.
=======================
It doesn't "justify" the invasion in terms of exacting a penalty against the perpetrators of 911. Instead it serves as one of the reasons why the neocons believed that invading Iraq and replacing its dictatorship with a democracy would work, and in thus serve their purpose of preventing future 911's: giving disaffected Muslims a new alternative to replacing various dictatorships not with retrograde theocratic dictatorships, but rather with modern civilization.
Nadir writes: ===============
But that isn't why Germany, Japan and Italy were invaded. Those nations had been aggressors and imperial powers themselves. They were beaten in (more or less) self-defense. The imperial invasion of Iraq was not self-defense because the nation was not an eminent threat.
==================================
I agree with you. The neocons would argue that the US should have invaded Germany, Italy, and Japan (and, for that matter, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, etc.) earlier, rather than waiting until they got the upper hand. This is why the neocons labeled this a "pre-emptive" war. They figure that in 1937 or whatever the US military could have imposed democracies on those nations at a much cheaper cost of human lives and materials than waiting as they did until they had no choice. They call this "pushing history along", as they believe that the ultimate natural state of human existence is one in which humans own their own ideas, property, and labor, and in which they elect their own leaders, who must answer to all residents of their society -- in a word: "democracy."
Nadir writes: =======================
Perhaps they aren't Arab, but Pakistan is Muslim and is more anti-American than Iraq was before the invasion. Your facts are just wrong here.
==================================
Your facts and mine ore the same. I am merely explaining to you (factually) why it was that the neocons favored an invasion of Iraq over Pakistan. Also figuring into this choice was Iraq's much more advanced economy and average rates of education and literacy, which the neocons figured would make a much greater fraction of the Iraqi population agreeable to modern civilized living.
Nadir writes: ================
And your preaching this "white man's burden" of civilizing the savage Arabs is undemocratic white supremacist rhetoric.
===============================
This is your interpretation of the neocon position, but not mine. I do not believe that human rights, universal suffrage, abolition of slavery, guaranteed personal liberties, freedom from and of religion, and the other blessed aspects of modern civilization are "white". One of the create popular criticisms that materialized after 911 got blamed on Afghanistan's government was that the western democracies helped the Taliban eject the Soviets, but then "abandoned" them. Bush explicitly stated that after eliminating the Afgahnistan and Iraqi govts he would not "abandon" those nations, but would instead use the US military in the model of post WWII and US Civil War reconstruction: to facilitate the construction of a modern civilization to replace the deposed dictatorship.
I hardly view this as some crackers "burdened" with "civilizing" the rest of the world. Instead I view this as a pluralistic, multi-racial democratic nation reacting to an invasion in one potentially, hypothetically civilized way.
Nadir writes: =============
So because it would be easier to beat Egypt and Saudi Arabia the show of might wouldn't be strong enough? You're really off your rocker now.
=======================
I am reporting to you the neocon rationale that figured into targeting Iraq over Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It also represents a longstanding principle of war: defeating the opponent's strongest point.
And: ==============
Iraq's military was mostly destroyed during the first Gulf War and the 12 years of bombing in between invasions.
===========================
This is not what *anybody* was saying in the time between 911 and the invasion, which many leading peacenics predicted would result in massive US troop casualties. Obviously world and regional opinion was wrong about the remaining might of the Iraqi military. Had the US instead invaded Egypt or Saudi Arabia, the perception would have remained in the region that a mightier dictator existed, one whose diabolical conduct and military strength exempted him from toppling by the US. Thus other regional dictatorships would race to behave even more brutally and to strengthen their militaries as well in the Hussein model, rather than to begin democratic reforms.
You may disagree with this rationale, but I am reporting to you the neocon view.
Nadir writes: ================
You're evangelizing imperialism! When did you become a jackleg preacher for colonialism?
===============================
I oppose imperialism and colonialism (and forget the distinction, if there is one. And I am certain that the US invasions of Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq all fail to qualify as either.
The neocons, by the way, are adamant opponents of those concepts. Their founding, central governing principals include a world exclusively comprising independent democratic nations, where all people on earth are born with full suffrage, universal personal liberties and rights, etc. They believe that this results in more wealth for any group of free people (for all the other people to be free) than can be achieved via having some foreign groups of people living in the various forms of tyrannies and destitution typified in most of Asia, Africa, and Arabia.
After all, impoverished children in the Gaza strip or in Nigeria can't buy very many ipods, and they are prone destructive behavior. The neocons believe that if those children instead were born into a democracy, this will drastically increase their chances of obtaining a productive life full of many consumer purchases, production of goods and services of value to others, and conduct that does not include violence against free, prosperous nations.
Nadir writes: =====================
The American Indians didn't want US democracy, and they were the victims of genocide. Enslaved Africans didn't want US democracy and they were put in chains to force their compliance with it.
===================================
American Indians and black Africans did not get democracy imposed on them. At the time that white Americans enslaved Africans and exterminated Indians, those crackers were not attempting to force Indians and blacks into their democracy. Instead, these honkies were attempting to make those non-whites subservient to a whites-only democracy.
Even this, however, represented a globally revolutionary advance in civilization, since no contemporary group of people had anything then like a formal democracy of any sort, and of course horrible racism, slavery, and sexism pervaded not only amongst crackers, but also all over Africa, Arabia, Asia, and even the Americas among the Indians. As it happened, of all the racist, sexist, colonial, brutal bastards over the earth of any "race", whereas the first to invent language, writing, architecture, math, science, etc. were Arabs, Persians, and Africans (while honkies lived in caves), the first to invent a lasting, formal, documented democracy within this context (of global slavery, dictatorship, conquest, colonialism) surviving to this day were this one special group of honkies in the US.
And their founding documents included the mechanisms by which this honkey-only democracy cold later expand to include non-whites and women, making it unique again on earth in officially abolishing racism and sexism, advances in civilization then yet unknown on the other continents. And of course black folks participated in originating and implementing that advance, of course.
However, many other blacks on the earth at that time opposed such an advance. Black-on-black and Arab-on-black slavery flourished well into the 20th century, even in Liberia, ironically enough (founded by freed US black slaves, who went on to enslave the "natives") until about 1920; even the victors of Haiti's "liberation" struggle turned out to seek not liberty itself, but merely liberty for their own selves: the freedmen there implemented slavery soon enough after defeating Napoleon.
Meanwhile, whites who wanted democracy had to fight many other whites who violently preferred dictatorship. Just like the Haitian revolutionaries who celebrated winning their own liberation from slavery by becoming now slave owners, the French revolutionaries revealed that what they wanted was not to replace the royal dictatorship with a democracy, but rather a new dictatorship with them as the new leaders. They even eventually made Napoleon their official "emperor" of a very, very bloody dicatorship!
Only a succession of bloody revolutions finally produced democracy in France, 80 years or so after the first one.
Getting black folks included in US democracy involved no forcing of black folks into democracy. Rather, it involved black folks forcing themselves into the democracy. This required killing white opponents to this advancement in civilization. Black folks participated enthusiastically in killing those honkey savages, and so did many advanced-thinking white folks. God bless them all.
Nadir writes: ===========
The invasion of Afghanistan was planned well before 911 as Clinton has admitted. It had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. There is no logical reason to invade Iraq unless it is for the imperial theft of the nation's oil and strategic geographical position, which you seem to be admitting.
===========================
The US military has all sorts of contingency plans for invading various nations that it perceives as posing a threat. The US military prior to 911 considered Iraq's Hussein govt a potential threat.
Invading to steal Iraq's oil seems preposterous to me, since the US gets petro from all the other Arab sources without such an expensive event.
And I've already explained why the neocons wanted to invade Iraq, and how they believe that imperialism/colonialism produces a much less favorable economic environment than does independent democracies around the world comprising free people working and freely trading with each other. This is what all their literature claims, and if you believe that all their literature lies, and that they instead have a hidden, undocumented belief system identical to that of the British East Indian Company of the 1800s, then this can come only from your own imagination, unless you have mind-reading abilities.
Nadir writes: ===============
Vigilante justice is illegal as was the invasion of Iraq. Preemptive vigilante justice is immoral as was the invasion of Iraq.
==============================
Yes, I suppose it is vigilante justice. But it involves more than simply executing some criminals. It also involves freeing people held hostage and effectively enslaved by those criminals. It represents vigilante justice that I would compare to the laudable efforts of Nat Turner and John Brown.
Nadir writes: ==================
Using this logic, why then haven't you tracked down your neighbors in the American Nazi Party to preempt their racist actions against your integrated household?
=================================
I would like to think that I would have enough courage to have done so in 1965, when I presumably would have known that black folks in Westland were constantly suffering from various acts of racism. A family such as mine with a white man, a black woman, mixed babies, and a procession of regular black visitors would surely then experience violence, threats, vandalism, and other acts.
Whether I was that white guy, or just some other white guy, or even if I was a black guy then, I like to fancy myself as a brave warrior for freedom, and would like to think that I would have tracked down those son of a bitches and visited upon them whatever actions would have been necessary to win security for that hypothetical family.
Instead, I live in such a home in 2007 Westland, Mi, and have experienced zero problems, nor heard of any problems. All the people I know of any "race" are living their lives as they choose, and most are prospering, and all go where they want, when they want, and do whatever they can afford to do.
Seeing black folks living in and enjoying Westland occurs everyday that I go outside and drive around. To the contrary, any evidence that Nazis live in Westland comes to me from you, which you learned about not from a firebomb crashing through your Westland livingroom window, but rather from some internet searches you performed.
Thus I declare that in Detroit, the Nazis and KKK are irrelevant, and that the best way to keep them so is to focus 100% effort on supporting black folks building success for themselves, including my children, and outfits like our own Ben Carson program, the Artist Village, and even your own blasted career. Would you prefer on Friday that instead of me leading an Isley-Jasper-Isley love caravan down to Toledo to participate in your concert, that I instead go hunt down these mysterious Nazis and assault them?
Nadir writes: ====================
So like a good neocon, you admit that this invasion was for Israel?
====================================
I'm not a complete neocon. I believe I understand their philosophy, I subscribe to much of it (advocacy of worldwide democracy and capitalism, that this produces the most prosperity for everyone, and minimizes war), but I am certainly doubtful of their belief that US military action can inspire today in Afghanistan and Arabian Iraq what it did ten years ago in Kurdish Iraq.
As for the Israeli angle, I agree that the neocons believed that invading Iraq and transforming it into a democracy would enhance the security of US ally and fellow democracy Israel. I further believe that the neocons and their Israeli allies believed that this enhanced security would derive from an massive increase in the number of prosperous muslims in Arabia, busying themselves with advancing their careers, shuttling their children to activities, and upgrading and maintaining their homes. In all: a victory for all sensible people.
"It doesn't "justify" the invasion in terms of exacting a penalty against the perpetrators of 911. Instead it serves as one of the reasons why the neocons believed that invading Iraq and replacing its dictatorship with a democracy would work, and in thus serve their purpose of preventing future 911's: giving disaffected Muslims a new alternative to replacing various dictatorships not with retrograde theocratic dictatorships, but rather with modern civilization."
I think you give the neocons too much credit. They wanted the oil, the cash from the US treasury and the hope of a friendly nation that would allow permanent basing rights. They got the oil and the cash.
Even if they were well-meaning in their aims, what right do they have to force anyone to change their style of government by force? That's imperialism.
"I agree with you. The neocons would argue that the US should have invaded Germany, Italy, and Japan (and, for that matter, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, etc.) earlier, rather than waiting until they got the upper hand. This is why the neocons labeled this a "pre-emptive" war. They figure that in 1937 or whatever the US military could have imposed democracies on those nations at a much cheaper cost of human lives and materials than waiting as they did until they had no choice."
In 1937 the neocons' predecessors were selling munitions to Hitler.
"I do not believe that human rights, universal suffrage, abolition of slavery, guaranteed personal liberties, freedom from and of religion, and the other blessed aspects of modern civilization are "white"."
They aren't, and we don't have these even in America today.
Human rights? Guantanamo, forced detention of US citizens, lack of universal health care and Detroit removing access to water for poor people.
Universal suffrage? You would deny suffrage to convicted felons and elderly people who don't have a driver's license.
Abolition of slavery? Slavery is legal in America's prisons. Many migrant workers are forced into indentured servitude by work rules that trap them in work camps that don't allow them to leave until they have paid off debts that amount to more than the wages they earn.
Guaranteed personal liberties? The Patriot Act, governmental surveillance.
Freedom from and of religion? This may be your closest point because there is no state sanctioned religion, but certainly American society has little tolerance (you included) for religions that it deems "primitive" like Islam, traditional African and Native American religions and even traditional European religions like Wicca.
"I hardly view this as some crackers "burdened" with "civilizing" the rest of the world. Instead I view this as a pluralistic, multi-racial democratic nation reacting to an invasion in one potentially, hypothetically civilized way."
I don't agree that neo-imperialism or bombing nations that posed no threat to you is civilized.
Nadir writes: ==================
what right do they have to force anyone to change their style of government by force? That's imperialism.
====================================
That is not imperialism. You constantly accuse US leaders of "imperialism" and "colonialism". Please define these terms. My understandings of these terms do not correspond with what is going on in Iraq.
What "right" did Hussein have to impose himself as ruler over a nation that never consented to his leadership? What "right" do any strongmen in Iraq have to impose themselves on those around them who have not consented? Bush erected a government of, by, and for the citizens of Iraq, subject to their consent. Such a government is the only type that I recognize as legitimate.
Nadir writes: ==============
Universal suffrage? You would deny suffrage to convicted felons and elderly people who don't have a driver's license.
=============================
I support voting rights for convicts, and just as for all other rights, proof of citizenship in order to demonstrate that the right does indeed belong to you, and to prevent you from nullifying the voting rights of others by voting multiple times, voting for dead people, or in place of legitimate voters.
Nadir writes: ==================
American society has little tolerance (you included) for religions that it deems "primitive" like Islam, traditional African and Native American religions and even traditional European religions like Wicca.
===================================
America has total toleration for all these religions. Find me anywhere on this earth with more toleration for all religions.
I find all religions preposterous and silly, though some more destructive than others. I have full toleration for people dressing in any and all silly costumes, tearfully expressing belief any and all silly superstitions and fables, performing any sort of dance. I oppose any discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodation, and anything else based on religious beliefs, or any religious practices that respect the rights of liberty and property of others. I have zero toleration for enslavement, rape, beating, and murder justified by religion.
Since you have called me intolerant of various religions, I demand that you cite any example of me demonstrating intolerance for any religion. The following doesn't count: me exercizing my right to ridicule religious customs, practices, costumes, superstitions, and fables, and criticizing the histories and personalities of various religions.
Nadir writes: ====================
Human rights? Guantanamo, forced detention of US citizens, lack of universal health care and Detroit removing access to water for poor people.
===================================
Is this the best you have as US human rights violations? No wonder so many move here and nobody ever leaves. People who work hard and make smart choices in the US more so than any nation ever on earth live very long, healthy, affluent, and free lives. The risk of a hard working, smart choice-making person in the US lacking water, health, and liberty is very uncommon.
Nadir writes: =======================
Guaranteed personal liberties? The Patriot Act, governmental surveillance.
===============================
I oppose most of the Patriot Act (and, for that matter, patriotism itself) and Homeland Security Act as well. But overall, Americans enjoy great personal liberties. I am unaware of these acts interfering with any of the daily operations and desires of anybody, except for traveling. American voters really shot themselves in the foot by consenting to all those stupid, worthless stipulations. But Americans are traveling more than ever.
Nadir writes: ==============
Abolition of slavery? Slavery is legal in America's prisons.
=============================
You will have a very hard time convincing immigrants from the countries like Sudan that slavery has not been abolished in the US, especially using the US prison system as an example. I agree with the Sudanese immigrants that the US has abolished slavery.
I agree with most Americans that getting convicted of a crime and subsequently sentenced to prison bears zero resemblance to what Nat Turner and Hirsi Ali were born into. But of course I share your belief that anti-drug laws are uncivilized, as is the death penalty.
I do believe because no human enterprise is perfect, many innocent people reside in US prisons. However, I think it is very rare for a hard working, smart choice-making person in the US to get locked up in prison.
Post a Comment
<< Home