Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Permission to ask a difficult question?

Is the anti-war movement (Iraq) too negative and one-sided in its approach and rhetoric?

I ask the question because, really, this premise is about the only thing the pro-war side has left to "justify" its position. By now, even most hawks don't seriously dispute Bushco's deception, at least in part, over wmd's and (falsely) linking Iraq to 9/11.... At this stage of the game, even Bush supporters must cringe at every robotic 9/11 reference sprinkled liberally throughout the President's broken-record, talking-point, buzz-word babbles intended to shore up eroding support for the war.

But do the hawks have any sort of a point, here? Are the Iraq war protesters an unnecessarily negative and short-sighted group? Do they, along with the media, not focus enough on the positive things our troops and contractors are trying to accomplish in Iraq? Are they overreaching when they declare flat-out that our soldiers and Iraqi citizens died for absolutely nothing but greed and lies?

Saddam has been removed, a push to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure has been underway for some time, an election has been held, and a constitution is in the works. These all point to at least the possibility of a better Iraqi future.... at least on paper.

I know where I stand on this. The problem is that the United States has no credible track record of good will in the Middle East. We have made too many "deals with the devil", Saddam included, in order to manipulate this region, often to the suffering of its people, all to better suit our interests.

As I see it, this sudden reversal, from exploiter to "liberator", heavy-handed and self-serving in nature, displayed a high degree of callous arrogance. It was an ill-considered exercise that was doomed to fail from the start, and it never should have been undertaken. Until early this year, I thought that our troops probably should remain until they could restore stability-- to fulfill an "obligation" to the Iraqi people. But now I seriously question whether this quagmire of a conflict is worth pursuing any further.

Any thoughts?

mnaz,

No, the Iraq war protesters are not short sighted. The idiot that took us into this war were short sighted. They didn't plan for the obvious possibility of a sustained resistance.

Unless you subscribe to the neo-con theory that controlling the oil fields at any cost and establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East is in the best interest of this country.

The only obligation I see that we have to Iraq is to leave them alone to organize their own society. If they want to be an Islamic state or have civil war or just concentrate on selling the world's second largest oil reserves, we should get out and let them do it.

For every dollar that the war profiteers make from this incursion the American public will pay for three-fold. Of course the motive for the war was profit. Occams's Razor.

A million thoughts and a tidal wave sized ARGGGGGGH!

Here's what I say off the top of my head:

It's about time we had some real gutsy protesting to some real gutsy underhanded governmenting doncha think?

It's about time we let history teach us something more than that the only way to "win" or be "the best", is to kill via a war, especially a trumped up war for oil and profit, again.

It's about time the people had a voice, and not just the tax protected rich people's perspective.

And besides, this protesting isn't negative or heavy handed, it's simply a question..."what is the point..the noble cause?" Can you answer that?

But also, I'm still asking, why Saddam instead of Osama? Sure, Saddam needed to be addressed and I think he was being addressed. But it was osama's gang that ripped airplanes through the twin towers in a terrorist attack on us. So you tell me why they had to knock Saddam out, and let Osama go? What was the thinking there? I tell you what it was, it was, "hey look boys, here's our chance to go in and grab the oil so that the car companies can keep on making gas guzzlers, corporations can profit and get power, and we can continue to live in rich and beautiful minded denial for a few more years about the fact that we've depleted this planet of just about everything life-sustaining..."
All they need is an army to make it happen!
Easy! Whip up the patriotic fervor, especially now, in the name of terror, and go for it!

I ask you, should we just stand by and let them make stupid and or criminal "mistakes", and tell ourselves that those leading our country are "nobly motivated messengers of God"....?
Huh?

We were manipulated into making a hasty decision to attack something, anything, after we were attacked. This is exactly where we need to begin in learning our lessons from history......
H

L-rod, I have to agree.

I really try to grasp the pro-war perspective, at times.... but my heart's not in it.

Regarding neo-con theory: I reject its premise of unchecked, unilateral aggression and procurement in the name of national security.... what a morally-bereft, disastrous road to try and pursue.

Still I wonder if it is all motivated by strictly profit. Is it possible that many of these think-tank Frankensteins actually believe that their doctrine is truly in the best interests of the country? Was neo-con doctrine invented strictly to line the pockets of its inventors and their friends? Could this group of people be so callous and corrupt to such a stratospheric level?

I don't think there is a politician that feels we should simply close up the war shop in iraq and come home... it would be too damaging to u.s. ego and make the same politician look weak for the next election. The war must continue at any and all cost in order to prove right the expedition, no matter how foul the reason... until someone has a viable alternative that will sit well with the populace.

I scan the political horizon from east to west, from north to south and I see a limitless confusion and despair regarding what Dubya has wrought. Our folly is fully a fools situation and the country will pay... karmic law never discriminates.

Hester....

I agree. Iraq was a ridiculous, imperialistic, opportunistic, bait-and-switch policy which, unbelievably, most Americans bought, at the time.

My question is more in the context of where we are now in this conflict. As far as the "noble cause", a possible better future for the Iraqis, with more freedom (there's that word, again) than they had under Saddam, is the ready-made answer. I'm surprised Bushco didn't try to take this easy way out with Cindy.

This is what's frustrating.... greedy, preemptive, bloodthirsty policy can be sold not only with lies about security, but also the ancillary "humanitarian" (freedom) benefits of said preemption, (which helps assure the policy-maker's "righteous footing"). And when the conflict degenerates into a murderous quagmire, the cause of "freedom" can be recycled endlessly to keep us all chained to the needless violence.

One thing I do see coming out of this mess. I think it will be a hell of a lot more difficult for the President to suck us in, like Bush did in 2003, in the future. There may a limit to the power of apple-pie, flag-waving, and "freedom" rhetoric in the face of little substance, after all. The anti-war movement continues to grow, and its makeup is changing. Military families are starting to leave the pro-war fold, and I think this trend will continue.

i don't quite get mnaz's post: he seems to have a clear cut view on the issues yet wants to undermine the clarity of that stance by catering to the propagandistic conservative moderates who claim that critical views are "one-sided" (ignoring of course the one-sided nature of the ruling cabal in Washington/Texas).

i also ask, what is the basis for assessment about the 'anti-war movement'. this movement never is portrayed as such by the mainstrean media. as far as the establishment is concerned, the whole Texas demonstation is just an emotional act by an agreived mother, not a mass movement organized according to moral principles and political stances.

Lrod says we should just get out of Iraq. i disagree. we should get out of Iraq AND admit criminal responsibility for violation of the laws of international relations, AND pay huge reparations to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure (excluding from contracts on moral grounds those companies like haliburtin who are plausibly deemed war profiteers) AND turn over to an appropriate court the responsible leaders (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) for criminal prosecution for the international crime of agression, and war crimes, as consideration for amnesty for the normal foot-soldiers/victims of our imperialistic mis-adventure.

none of this will happen of course, let alone be seriously discussed in the mainstrean news and political forums. not however because it is too 'one-sided', rather because it is too close to what may be called 'justice' for the powers that be.

So there is no conceivable upside whatsoever to the US effort in Iraq? There never was?

So the Bush Administration is a monolithic evil entity, bent solely on criminal corruption and nothing else?

(This is what I had in mind by "one-sided").


But you know what? I can't do this anymore. I'm in too much agreement with most of the comments on this thread, so..... nevermind, I suppose.

I was trying to do the "equal time" thing, but.....

when ones opponents do not give 'equal time' or present a more-than-one-sided picture, for you to try to do so will result in a watered down distorted picture.

this is purr mathemtaics. suppose A and B are political opponents in a debate. B gives a 'one-sided' presentation, i.e. only his view of the matter. A then can either give her own view, unadulterted by B's virw which is already there. or he can also waste time presenting B's vieew so as to appear to be giving equal time. the result is that B's view will occupy 75% and A's view will occupy only 25% of the available time. that, however, is a distortion, not equal time. so, as long as the antiwar movement is more or lss excluded from the mainstream channels of comunication concerning public affairs in this worldf, which it is mostbcertainly today, to try to cater to the other side is completely assinine (and of course, the Democratic party has the ass as its party symbol).

there is another approach and that is to listen to thwe other side's imperatives and directly challenge them, say on the notion that if we don't fight them over there they will be here attacking us, the notion that Iran is the next danger, the construct about the war on terror, etc.

the intransigence of the brainwashed mind has to be challenged.

do i believe that anything beneficial has come out of the Iraq invasion?

fuck no.

the constitution will not become a working model, the rival factions will descend into civil war, the oppression that exists today is worse than before and it will get weven worse, meanwhile some few people are pocketing huge sums of dollars as these Pentagun contracts flow into the coffers of flippand nonsensensical reconstruction efforts, more at building the green zone and the various military perimeters.

is it important to understand the intransigence of the feeble miinded lackeys who subscribe to all that bullshit, yes. Buit I will not sanction them any reasonable doubt, no way.

every cloud has a silver lining.

good effects of the U.S. aggressive war in Iraq.
(these are, i hasten to add, outweighed by the negative effects, but these are real i suspect.)

-- The criminal nature of the Bush regime is exposed in plain sight for all the world to see it for what it is.

-- The thesis that America is an imperialist state, long entertained by radical leftist and postcolonialist intellectuals, has been render confirmed. Now perhaps the consequences can be thought through by more people.

-- The thesis that there is nondifference b/t the Reubloicans and Democrats -- also entertained by many left oriented people like the Greens, prior to 2001 -- has been disproven. There is a big difference between liberal lackeys of comporate power (Dems), ans fascist lackeys of corporate power (Repubs). Now the Democratic party faces a moment of truth and reckoning: will it stand up for the good of humanity or will it continue to play the role of the fool? IF they meet this challenge, then the world will be better off.

The upside for me is that it will hasten the collapse of the government of the United States. When we crawl out of the smoldering ruins we will no longer be a threat to world peace. India will send Hindu missionaries to help us take care of ourselves.

And in Billy's fantasy of the future, "The United States of America has been Balkanized, has been divided into twenty petty nations so that it will never again be a threat to world peace." This has led many of Vonnegut's critics to label him anti-American. His supporters argue that Vonnegut mocks America not because he hates it, but because he loves it so much, and wants his countrymen to be better than they are

is it important to understand the intransigence of the feeble miinded lackeys who subscribe to all that bullshit, yes. But I will not sanction them any reasonable doubt, no way.

i was at a pow mythology rendesveus in east Texas, man, with this groupie fucked up woman who i really loved, man, and still do even after we lost touch, man she is true history, wow, i lovd that bitch, and she was, a real woman, had her tubes tied, two boys from two differemt dudes, the first one she loved died a suicide in the woods, a vietnam vet,

the second dad a fling with a fucking red bull transient
when she got pregnant he split
yet
she lived down the street from her sister
mercy
and across the street from her mother.
her sister worked at the longview local manufacturing plant
and joyce lived down the street, on th corner, a semi=wooded lot, with her two sons, mercy


so one weekend i went with her to this pow symposium out in the woods in east texas. we had cabins.

there was this lake with a podium. several speakers were at the platf
form
man


one dude spoke and i combined my experience with his info and more info that i got from this vvaw connection years later on the internet cafe, man


he said that the spring 1972 nva offensive that took loc ninh was absurdly oppposed by the commanders in saigon, man

shit and they lost americans there,
air farce c-130's duhdropped supplies into a beleagured army force that had been dropped into loc ninh artillery base, previously abandoned in the summer of 1971.


in tet 1972 the nva over ran the abandoned airstrip with adjoining sandbagged ruins of loc ninh artillery base, man
why they'd been jamming the classified secret foxmike of loc ninh artillery base all along

the whole area was strong vc
always were

man

50 klicks south of the old michellinnrubber plantations in east cambodi\man
ja

last time i was at loc ninh i personally called the classified radio frequency of loc ninh artillery
man
tho the base was totally deserted , man,

the third deserted artillery base in a trilogy from
fuck phouc vinh with the ten foot peace sign at th east enf pf th runway, man
"dig it" writ up across the base, white paint onm corrugated black metal east end of runway
the smell of death
tent flaps flapping in the breeze
defoliated treez

looked back at peace sign painted by artillery grunts


jack in the box at suburban corner

wacka wacka wacka wacka

a little bed time story heheheheheheh
to
budop to
logh ninh
under orders
land unarmed save for 1 m-16 and two 38 caliber pistolas
and i had my bullets in my pocketlike barny fife
shit
i called this artillery base
nobody was there
the sand bagged ruins of bunkers


a true momentum of greatness, static,


not a shot was fired


some dudes in plain fatigues off the south end of the runway
quiet save for

on the foxmike secret classified frequencu if loc ninh artillery
i said,
"loc ninh artillery, dis cuddy 442, over"
what happened next was wooden woody flute sounds
came into the eaerphones of our hwlmets. man

long and slow like a dirge, doo dah doo dah
\and the words, "LOT LOK!"


what you think i'm a schmuk?


i said, "?are you the ARVIN?"

what came next was more words in Nameze
man
intense and
we split

but i gavw them a click.

provisional rev gov on nam man
test province
loc ninh\

tet 72
more pow's
mia's bones sunk into asian soil
huge landmass
calcium and phosp=hates
25000 years from now
never mind the unexploded ordinance
i delivetred
a subtle witnessing
"LOT LUCK" the voice said, and a click
we spit

imagine being one of them

the collapse is imminant

The upside for me is that it will hasten the collapse of the government of the United States. When we crawl out of the smoldering ruins we will no longer be a threat to world peace. India will send Hindu missionaries to help us take care of ourselves.

There is a big difference between liberal lackeys of comporate power (Dems), ans fascist lackeys of corporate power (Repubs).

om shanti and don't bogard that ganja!

save that hemp