Why the antiwar left must confront terrorism

[Oberst Klink]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/15/amnesty/index_np.html

(sorry... couldn't post the whole article)

Nov. 15, 2003 | More than two years into the Bush administration's lurching war on terror, William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, is aiming some of his sharpest criticism not at the White House, but at the American political left. His message: Take on the terror threat, or risk irrelevance.

War protesters of various stripes, alongside anti-globalization and human rights activists, have staged several large rallies nationwide this year, channeling their anger at the Bush administration through slogans like "No blood for oil," "End the imperialist occupation" and "Regime change begins at home." But in an interview with Salon, Schulz said that the political left has thus far botched a key mission. "There's been a failure to give the necessary attention, analysis and strategizing to the effort to counter terrorism and protect our fundamental right to security," he said. "It's a serious problem."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. The failure is

in the White House, which rubber stamps any and all of Sharon's actions. As long as the US is seen as a tool of Israel, Arabs will not take seriously any attempts by the US to broker a peace. And, like it or not, the Israeli-Palestinian issue is one of great, if not the greatest, concern among the Arab and Muslim world. Another thing that has hindered the war on terror is the inept handling of Muslim-Americans who were born elsewhere and are naturalized citizens. Their treatment by Bushco in the aftermath of 911 has made many very wary. The anti-Islamic remarks of people associated with the Administration, such as Boykin, has helped terrorists because they can paint the US as being on a crusade (the very word Bush used, remember) to wipe out Islam.

Leftists I know support a just peace in Israel/Palestine and support Muslim Americans, because they teach tolerance.

[piece sine]

3. and the failure of Muslims...

Their inability or unwillingness to understand the repercussions of their own actions. Why did Muslims not address to Taliban? Or Saddam's holocaust against other Muslims?

You mentioned U.S. reeaction to 9-11 but failed to fathom Islamic rejoicing that 19, maybe 20, Muslims senselessly started World World III. I'm not protecting Bush -- the war against IRAQ is wrong -- BUT WHERE, OH WHERE, is this co-called Muslim tolerance. Did we see it this weekend in Turkey?

No, Muslim accountability is going to be a slippery matter. Ask the Saudi people, under the world's only remaining absolute monarchy, why they tolerate sucha oppresive Muslim rule.

[DrWeird]

24. Why didn't christians address Oklahoma city?

or the holocaust?

[hobbs27]

56. Doh

Well America kind of executed the man that set off the bomb in Oklahoma...and ummm, wasnt there like a World War or something where many Christians lost their lives defeating Nazi Germany?

[Oberst Klink]

4. The current despots in the middle east are leftovers

from colonial rule. The Wahabi sect of Islam is in direct reaction to this western overlay on their region, politics and culture.

Our pushing of "democracy" is generally seen by Arabs as the pushing of a Charles Angels decadent culture of the west.

I believe the Arabs understood our reaction to 911. They understand the need for revenge, even against Saddam. However, I don't think democracy will set root. The Wahabis will continue to expand, perhaps makeing greater inroads into Europe in the next century, especially France.

Still, we need their oil and they love our money.

My prediction is for more of the same, with occasional punctuations of massive terrorist attacks, perhaps including nuclear, around the world.

Welcome to the new normal.

[piece sine]

15. exactly..WORLD WAR THREE

I can't imagine the western world yawning when there's another major terrorist attack. It's only going to accelerate more quickly out of control. Time for both sides to reckon what's at stake.

[Oberst Klink]

17. I have news for you

A close compatriot of OBL was asked after 911 what he wanted from us.

Answer (this is an exact quote): "Pack your things and leave the planet."

Reconsile is not possible if one side wants your demise more than they want peace.

[Ardee]

51. Link please....

which you will undoubtedly be unable to find.....There are many goals among the disparate groups we see using terrorism. Cleansing the planet of everyone but themselves is probably not prominent among these goals. But nice effort to promote hatred and separatism .......

I believe that the left addresses terrorism quite well, just not in a way that enriches the military industrial complex that benefits most from the continuing unrest and wars. Eliminating inequities and the conditions under which terrorists thrive are part and parcel of the left wing agenda.

Che Guevarra once stated, when folks like he were called guerillas and not terrorists,that they thrived among the population like fish in the sea.Once that population is busy working, sending children off to school, polishing the car and mowing the lawns they will give short shrift to those who would jeapordise their life styles.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bowens43]

2. I have been to several rallies in the past couple of years

but I haven't seen or heard about any rallies in opposition to the war on terror. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terror. Implying that those opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq are somehow blind to the dangers posed by terrorism is ridiculous.

Sounds to me like William Shulz doesn't have a freaking clue.
Sounds to me like william Shulz is irrelevant.

[BobVaught]

35. debatable but...

Whether or not the war in Iraq has anything to do fighting terror is debatable. But Shulz has made an important point. What no one can deny is most definetely relevant is the outcome of elections. And let's face it, the left got smashed last November.

Where you need to start having a clue is in answering this question... What, precisely, is the left's answer to countering terrorism? I think this is what Shulz was getting at. We already know what the left thinks we should not do. But anwser the question... what do you think we should do to counter terrorism?

Bob Vaught
Corpus Christi, Tx

[newyawker99]

53. Hi BobVaught!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PegThirteen]

40. P.S. Stop the War Coalition: Aims and Objectives

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/about.asp

Aims and Objectives of the Stop the War Coalition

The Stop the War Coalition was formed on September 21st, 2001 at a public meeting of over 2,000 people in London. The Coalition is campaigning under the following slogans:

The resolution below, setting out the Coalition's platform, was ratified at public meetings held in October 2001 in London.

1. The aim of the Coalition should be very simple: to stop the war currently declared by the United States and its allies against ‘terrorism’. We condemn the attacks on New York and we feel the greatest compassion for those who lost their life on 11th September 2001. But any war will simply add to the numbers of innocent dead, cause untold suffering, political and economic instability on a global scale, increase racism and result in attacks on civil liberties. The aims of the campaign would be best expressed in the name Stop the War Coalition.
2. Supporters of the Coalition, whether organisations or individuals, will of course be free to develop their own analyses and organise their own actions. But there will be many important occasions when united initiatives around broad stop the war slogans can mobilise the greatest numbers.
3. The Coalition shall elect a steering committee which reflects the breadth of those involved to carry forward the aims and objectives. Local groups should have regular, open and inclusive meetings.
4. We call on all peace activists and organisations, trade unionists, campaigners and labour movement organisations to join with us in building a mass movement that can stop the drive to war.
5. We are committed to opposing any racist backlash generated by this war. We will fight to stop the erosion of civil rights.

If you are a member of an organisation that is opposed to Bush and Blair's on-going "war on terror" and agree with our aims and objectives, we urge you to ask your organisation to consider affiliating to the Stop the War Coalition. Individuals are also welcome to join the Stop the War Coalition. Together, we can make our voice heard.

The "war on terror" has progressed through a number of stages, and naturally the slogans of the day have changed to fit. It has also had consequences far beyond the immediate US-led military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, but in each case, it has been the US-led drive to war which has been the prime cause of these crises, backlashes and other repercussions.

In the UK the Stop the War Coalition has organised massive demonstrations against these wars, in conjunction with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Muslim Association of Britain. Today, we are trying to End the Occupation of Iraq and to Stop the War on the Iraqi people. A wide range of international organisations which are attempting to do the same thing are listed on our links page.

[rini]

5. some people forget

that being a left (progressive) patriot is not an oxymoron.

[Oberst Klink]

6. Except our board here is liberally sprinkled with people like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=224584&mesg_id=224654&page=

There was a sharp rebuke, but we have to admit that a sizeable minority of the people even here at DU are anti-American and wise defeat and death.

(took out the nasty name - my apologies to Dark)

[DarkPhenyx]

8. Hey Oberst...

Not everyone on this board is an American either. Please factor that into your equation.

[KoKo]

10. Who are you calling anti-American? And what is "wise" defeat and death?

If you are calling those of us who protested against the Iraq Invasion anti-American, I'm going to alert the Mods, because you really belong on another site if you want to spew that kind of stuff here.

[Oberst Klink]

13. Go Ahead.

I am progun (As is Gov Dean!!!), patriotic Democrat (as is Sen Kerry!!!) and I support our troups (now that we are there, as does Sen. Liberman!!!).

I want victory.

Go cry to the mods. You wouldn't be the first.

[el_gato]

14. you can't even spell troops right

and you don't support them by sending them to die for Halliburton

[Oberst Klink]

16. OK... so I caant splel...

I won't even bother editing it. At least I didn't mispell troups twice!!!

[KoKo]

18. You are saying that I don't support our troops because I protested to stop

them from being used in this Invasion and Occupation of Iraq? Are you saying that protesting this is not supporting our troops? SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! BRING THEM HOME! ( My anti-Iraq Invasion Protest Sign.)

Somehow you don't seem to be able to understand that those of us who protested did the ultimate in "supporting our troops." We gave our time and took insults to go out an protest against our troops dying for Bush, Cheney and their "trumped up "Liberation of the Iraqi People." Liberating the Iraqi People, has caused more terrorism, and death of our fighting men and women.

[Terwilliger]

20. anti-American?

in what way can you claim that anyone is anti-American? I say those that wish to perpetuate our horrible record of foreign policy failures is anti-American. How many does that cover?

[arcane1]

22. nowadays, stating ythe obvious = anti-American

we're expected to believe that even though the invasion was wrong, now that we have troops there it's suddenly right :eyes:

[durutti]

36. Once again, I'm reminded of a Phil Ochs song

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every coloured boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the AFL-CIO board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New Republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the Democratic Party.
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

[durutti]

37. So, following your logic, Oberst...

It was wrong for the American colonists to fight the British in 1776.

[Scott Lee]

55. Excuse me, but what was incorrect about her statement?

Here is the post you are using to show "anti-americanism":

"The US is the "bad guy" here. If the US government is going to use its forces and its mercenaries to murder, pillage, and rob other countries simply because it can, then we shouldn't be surprised if others actively oppose us. It isn't "evil" to fight "evil"."

Now I ask you, how is it "anti-american" to point out a malevolent administration (in a particular instance, mind you) and their criminal acts? Are those of us who opposed the Watergate breakin, or the Vietnam War, anti-american too? What about those of us who protested against toppling several small governments for the benefit of big business? Are we anti-American?

I remind you that to vociferiously oppose an evil administration is not the same thing as being against your own nation.

[Ardee]

57. what nonesense

Tell me specifically what there was in that post of Dalghrens that you objected to, calling a spade a spade is not unpatriotic ,in fact the first duty of a patriot is to see h/her country in the light of truth and reason and not to spout any "my country right or wrong " nonesense.

Certainly there is widespread perception in this world that America IS evil, it is based upon actual experience with foreign policies that murder, exploit and impose the will of the stronger upon the weaker.Do you then support these policies through a stance that discourages the right to speak against such actions?

[DarkPhenyx]

7. Would someone please point out to this "Gentleman"...

...that the war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the war on terrorism.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. The anti-Bush people are far from all left-wing

From the poll for the Guardian (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2003/11/17/1711icm.pdf):
of intending Conservative voters:
42% think the attack on Iraq was unjustified
37% would prefer Bush did not come to UK
24% think the military forces in Iraq should pull out now
12% think the USA is generally a force for evil

It is not an anti-USA movement. Not many advocate withdrawal from Iraq - presumably they think that would make the situation worse. But more don't welcome Bush, and more still think the preventative war on Iraq was wrong. Among the last you can count people like Douglas Hurd, the Foreign Secretary under Thatcher and Major, who said on TV today he opposed the invasion, and hoped that Bush realised that there are plenty of people who agree with the marchers' points, but never march themselves. Or Kenneth Clarke, Chancellor of the Exchequer under Major, who voted against the war in March.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. No, same poll

Try reading it. My point is that even amongst the right wing, there is significant opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

[PegThirteen]

46. Were talking about two different groups.

Marxist-Leninist Left, Militant Islamists and many other groups shown in my original post were the people in the streets.

I'm a moderate Democrat not a #*%*% communist, Maxist or any of those others mentioned.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. The people on the march yesterday

and on the anti-war march last February were quite varied, and not all far left (or militant Islamist). Look at the opinion poll - there's support for their views in all 3 major political parties (the party with the most far left in it, Labour, supports Bush more than most, but of course it also has a lot of Blair loyalists in it). Also note that the over 65 age group is more anti-Bush and war than those between 25 and 64 (though the same, much smaller, percentage in both age groups in anti-American). Those are the people who have lived through a major war.

Your piece is talking about the organisers. The message of the march was anti-Bush, not anti-war - look at the things the organisers say. They had American ex-pats leading it with a banner "Proud of my Country, Shamed by my President". If the organisers do have revolutionary designs, they're hiding them for this movement. And that means the demonstration itself decides what the purpose is.
For instance, the spy novellist John le Carre was marching yesterday (and he use to work for British Intelligence, so he would have been vetted for far left tendencies):
"It doesn't stop you from taking part in a march when you are here to say we have to reappraise the situation. That, to me, is what this is all about."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/11/21/bush_and_blair_voice_resolve/

[PegThirteen]

50. Sorry but the "peace at any price" crowd turns my stomach.

When you support these maggots you are those maggots. When their ilk supported communist Nicaragua, they supported communists. When they marched for communist North Vietnam, they supported communists. Remember the demonstrators carrying the flags of North Vietnam and Nicaragua? Remember the plackards of Ho, Che and Ortega?

Don't waste your time. I'm proud of my country, shamed by my party.

[Ardee]

52. I doubt anyone missed it the first time .

Just as I doubt most here fail to see through your motives, transparent as they are. You forget the obligatory slam at ANSWER as well, im surprised.

Im so glad that we now know that the hundred thousand or so who took part in the demonstrations against Bush policies that are abysmally wrong or quite duplicitous were all closet terrorists...thanks so much for enlightening us.

[Bridget Burke]

9. One of the reasons for being against the War...

Was that an illegal invasion of Iraq would probably inspire future terrorism. I lack the energy to click through the ads to read the article, but what does Schulz suggest? Should we converge on Congress demanding immediate adoption of Patriot II? Does he offer addresses of Al Quaida offices we can picket?

Salon wants me to subscribe again & Amnesty International wants my money, too. (I'm on all the bleeding-heart-liberal, tree-hugger, artsy-fartsy mailing lists.) I'd considered Amnesty International, but it seems they've changed their agenda. Please, somebody whose read the whole thing, tell me he said something about the prisoners at Guantanamo.

[KoKo]

11. Amnesty International got some big funding from one of the more suspicious

Globalist Support groups. I don't have time to find the link, but I read about it just last week on the George Soros threads here on DU. If you check out some of their funders it's an "eye-opener."

I think Amnesty might be influenced by the giving of people with an "agenda," that's different from the "Amnesty International" we all used to know and appreciate.

[durutti]

38. There goes my Amnesty membership n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Yes, he does talk about Guantanamo

Sorry your energy is so low.

"The judgment about whether something spills over into cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment has to be made on a case by case basis, and not just by Bill Schulz; there are international courts that determine this. I don't know what techniques are being used on Khalid Sheik Mohammed, nor does Amnesty International. That, of course, is part of the problem here: It's very difficult to make judgments without information. Some of the descriptions from the New York Times and the Washington Post of the types of interrogations taking place would, I think, be described by an international court or a human rights commission, as cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment -- as torture. For example, being shackled in painful positions for a long period of time."

"It's an entire system of incarceration without oversight of any kind, except that of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The ICRC took a remarkable step and broke a decades-long tradition of never speaking out publicly: They criticized the indefinite detention at Guantánamo, with no access to lawyers for the detainees. To the best of my knowledge, it's the only oversight agency that's had any access to Guantánamo, and it hasn't had access to Baghram airbase in Afghanistan, or to wherever prisoners have been transferred in Egypt, Morocco or Syria, or elsewhere. I think if you're going to undermine the most fundamental rights in the U.S. justice system, and the Geneva Conventions, as the United States has clearly done in Guantánamo, at the very least you have an obligation to allow appropriate parties access to those individuals to make a judgment as to their conditions and treatment.

Freedom from torture is a non-derogable right agreed to under every international human rights treaty, including the Convention Against Torture, which the United States has ratified. The president himself has issued a statement that torture is absolutely unacceptable. So in this respect all we're asking is that the U.S. government hold itself to its own standards. "

He seems to think the Patriot Act is largely unnecessary, but that certain parts of it are acceptable - like more close circuit TV.
And he acknowledges that Amnesty can't do much about changing Al-Qaeda's policies.

This seems to be his central point:
"All I can tell you is that Amnesty has not called for the withdrawal of troops . You're absolutely right that security needs to be established. Human rights can't function in a situation of chaos and anarchy. We believe that. And that will involve, under the current circumstances, a military presence for some period of time. In fact, in Afghanistan we've called for that military presence to be extended beyond Kabul so that security can be established across the country, precisely so that a new judicial system, and a larger system with respect for human rights, can be established. "

[Oberst Klink]

19. Thanks. (nt)

[John Paul]

30. You are Scary

I have never voted for a Republican in my life, for any office. Can I have an opinion here or will I get banned and deleted (confirming my suspicions)? Lets see who and what is really dangerous..

I see little knowledge of history, nor historical perspective, nor for that matter, much fact at all in many of these posts. Did the U.S. give Saddam all those MIG's? Does anyone remember World War III?

And personally, I do not share your concern for Khalid Sheik Mohammed's well-being.

[Oberst Klink]

32. MOD ALERT!

(Sound of Helicopter in background/voice over loud speaker)

THOUGHT CRIMINAL!

PLEASE PUT YOUR MOUSE DOWN AND MOVE AWAY FROM YOUR COMPUTER!

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. who is the 'you' in your title, John Paul?

You replied to my post, but everything inside the quotes was from the Salon interview with Schulz. It so happens that I do agree with much of what he says.

I find it strange that you criticize the posts for lack of historical knowledge, and then ask if anyone remembers World War III. Since there never was such a thing, you seem to have an unusual personal opinion, rather than anything based in normal history. There is no relevance whatsoever to Saddam having MIGs - those were weapons bought by one sovereign country from another, and no different to the weapons that Iraq bought from Western countries. The subject here is the attitude of the antiwar left to terrorism.

So, on your one point, about Khalid Sheik Mohammed, are you saying that you're confident that the US and allies will never use torture? Or that it doesn't matter if it does? Several reports of torture are emerging (eg the Arar case), so it's reasonable to fear it could be used again. The lack of access to those held in the lawless zone of Guantanamo and other places means we have no way of knowing what's happening there now. The USA ought to be above using torture, whether directly or through allies. It's meant to be better than the murderers it opposes.

[John Paul]

62. Khalid Sheik Mohammed

I said nothing one way or another regarding whether US will or won't, should or shouldn't use torture. What if torturing him would prevent another 9/11? What would you say then I wonder?

Khalid Sheik Mohammed deserves no pity, no compassion and no concern and I seriously question anyone more focused on him than his victims. (not you specifically; I don't know you).

I agree that the US is meant to be better than the murderers it opposes and I believe it is.

I also believe that the US needs to do what it needs to do to win.

The cold war was World War III. This is World War IV.

[newyawker99]

54. Hi John Paul!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. The trouble with Schulz's viewpoint

is that he buys into the line that "terrorism" is one unified ideology represented by a specific group of people. Taken and acted upon in that sense, the "war on terrorism" looks an awful lot like a war on Islam.

It is more realistic to look at terrorism as a tactic that has been used by small groups and governments for centuries.

You cannot wipe out terrorism, any more than you can wipe out crime, because like crime, terrorism comes in many varities and has many motives.

[rini]

48. It depends which group of terrorists you are talking about

"Terrorism, the deliberate attack of innocent civilians by armed groups in order to make a political point" is a modern phenomina.
The IRA or ETA is no threat to anyone outside the borders of the conflicted countries.
However, there is one group in the world that has a common goal, the clearly stated destruction of moderate Islam (see Turkey) along with Western civilization. Radical Islamist are a worldwide threat and to pretend other wise is acting the ostrich. This is the threat, I don't know the solution.

[Undemcided]

64. Not always

The IRA or ETA is no threat to anyone outside the borders of the conflicted countries.

Try telling that to the two Australians who the IRA killed in Roermond, Holland.

[mike from ri]

23. take on terrorism while opposing bush's war: wes clark

wes clark transcends the dillemma. he is the way to voice our anit-war feelings while opposing terror.

[bpilgrim]

25. does confronting terrorism mean abandoning LIBERTY and PREVENTIVE WAR

i don't think so.

it shows how HEALTHY our democracies are that many folks know the difference between fighting terrorism and american IMPERIALISM which only creates MORE terrorism.

we had saddam contained and only made the situation WORSE by carrying out PREVENTIVE WAR.

by masking our IMPERIAL AGENDA in the guise of fighting TERRORISM only makes it MORE dangerous for america by not only squandering our credibility but also creating more hate and fear of our motives and actions.

but who listens to us?

apparently most of the authors of these type of boiler plate chastising articles that love to portray the concerns of millions of citizens in a simplistic one dimensional sterotype and as if we haven't ALLREADY proposed alternatives.

one day they will have to address the 'protestors' - concerned citizens - LEGIT concerns and complaints.

the patronizing of the media elite is as predictable as their cheerleading :puke:

peace

[KoKo]

26. Nice post, bpiglrim and one that takes into consideration an amalgam of

SPIN!

[bpilgrim]

28. the Third Way by George Soros

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=735903

From the December issue of The Atlantic (link).

A prominant financier argues that the heedless assertion of American power in the world resembles a financial bubble - and the moment of truth may be here

by George Soros

It is generally agreed that September 11, 2001, changed the course of history. But we must ask ourselves why that should be so. How could a single event, even one involving 3,000 civilian casualties, have such a far-reaching effect? The answer lies not so much in the event itself as in the way the United States, under the leadership of President George W. Bush, responded to it.
<snip>
September 11 introduced a discontinuity into American foreign policy. Violations of American standards of behavior that would have been considered objectionable in ordinary times became accepted as appropriate to the circumstances. The abnormal, the radical, and the extreme have been redefined as normal. The advocates of continuity have been pursuing a rearguard action ever since.

To explain the significance of the transition, I should like to draw on my experience in the financial markets. Stock markets often give rise to a boom-bust process, or bubble. Bubbles do not grow out of thin air. They have a basis in reality - but reality as distorted by a misconception. Under normal conditions misconceptions are self-correcting, and the markets tend toward some kind of equilibrium. Occasionally, a misconception is reinforced by a trend prevailing in reality, and that is when a boom-bust process gets under way. Eventually the gap between reality and its false interpretation becomes unsustainable, and the bubble bursts.
<snip>
Where are we in this boom-bust process? The deteriorating situation in Iraq is either the moment of truth or a test that, if it is successfully overcome, will only reinforce the trend.
<snip>
A recent Council on Foreign Relations publication sketches out three alternative national-security strategies. The first calls for the pursuit of American supremacy through the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action. It is advocated by neoconservatives. The second seeks the continuation of our earlier policy of deterrence and containment. It is advocated by Colin Powell and other moderates, who may be associated with either political party. The third would have the United States lead a cooperative effort to improve the world by engaging in preventive actions of a constructive character. It is not advocated by any group of significance, although President Bush pays lip service to it. That is the policy I stand for.
<snip>
I propose replacing the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action with preventive action of a constructive and affirmative nature. Increased foreign aid or better and fairer trade rules, for example, would not violate the sovereignty of the recipients. Military action should remain a last resort. The United States is currently preoccupied with issues of security, and rightly so. But the framework within which to think about security is collective security. Neither nuclear proliferation nor international terrorism can be successfully addressed without international cooperation. The world is looking to us for leadership. We have provided it in the past; the main reason why anti-American feelings are so strong in the world today is that we are not providing it in the present.

more...
http://www.soros.org.mk/osi/soros/en/biogra.htm

looks like the RATIONAL POV from here :hi:

peace

[John Paul]

31. but...

We had Saddam contained but what about all the Iraqi people? The live ones and the other what, half million or so and counting? (oh yeah, that's all the U.S.'s fault, so nevermind). As a democrat I was in favor of knocking off Milosevic. As a democrat, I was in favor of knocking off the Taliban and Bin Laden, and as a democrat, I was (and remain) in favor of knocking off Saddam.

[Bridget Burke]

42. But the Taliban's on the comeback trail

& nobody's managed to find Bin Laden. Saddam may or may not have been "knocked off"--hiding or dead, who knows?

It's not a video game.

[Ardee]

58. So what is your image of America

Are we then the worlds policeman?
Are we really endowed by the creator with the right to decide which governments stay and which must go?
Are you so very certain that all these actions were based upon the purest of motives?
Do you really believe in some mythic and pure vision of this country?

It is such spurious logic to support a unilateral invasion of a nation and the overthrow of that nations government on moral grounds, especially when the real reasons for that action are blatantly obvious and have nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

Do you then , by inference, seek to end this countries alliances with the many nations who equal Husseins atrocities? Do you support the invasion and overthrow of those governments as well? Do you see no difference between the actions in Yugoslavia wherein a coaltion of nations acted to end a genocidal policy and the invasion of Iraq wherein Bush acted basically alone, excuse me if I fail to get excited about a "coalition of the just".............

You need , rather desperately, to reevaluate your patriotism.....

[John Paul]

63. You, rather desperately, need to get yer head out yer...

Thank you for that moving speech. Your passion is only exceeded by your stupidity. Such as:

"Do you see no difference between the actions in Yugoslavia wherein a coaltion of nations acted to end a genocidal policy and the invasion of Iraq wherein Bush acted basically alone"

Clinton acted basically alone. The UN wouldn't do it. Clinton forced NATO, kicking and screaming, to participate, albeit, minimally.

Next example:

"Are we really endowed by the creator with the right to decide which governments stay and which must go?"

HUh?

THen this, my favorite:

"Are you so very certain that all these actions were based upon the purest of motives?"

Of course there is no "purest of motives" here. But in regards to that butcher, I'll take what I can get. I daresay the Iraqi people would by and large agree with me.

We are not the world's policeman, and the creator has nothing to do with it. Iraq under Hussein was a major obstacle to peace in the middle east, which is in everybody's interest.

[ixion]

27. war is not the solution to terrorism

ceasing to spread terror to smaller countries is the way to stop terrorism. working as a global community is a way to stop terrorism... but invading other countries is not going to accomplish anything.

[theworldvotes]

47. Participate in this 'Global community'

Want to participate in this 'global community'? Check out theworldvotes.org!

In November 2004, Americans are to vote for a new president. Whoever they may choose, the outcome bears consequences beyond US domestic affairs. As decisions made by the US President affect the lives of citizens on all continents, www.theworldvotes.org wishes the rest of the world to have a voice in elections that matter.

"The foreign policy of the new president is of direct concern to citizens around the world. What is missing is a means for citizens around the world to express themselves and be counted." This is what theworldvotes.org seeks to be: a community for the world’s citizenry to let present and future presidents know what they expect of the world’s most powerful state.

With this primary objective, to give world citizens a voice by casting a vote during the forthcoming US presidential election, the website also facilitates an international dialogue about how global governance can become more democratic.

As of today, visitors to the website can register to vote. Before the actual presidential election take place, those who registered will receive a ballot by e-mail. The initiators hope the initiative will draw subscribers from all over the world. To achieve this, the initiators call upon organisations that endorse the idea to enlist with theworldvotes.org and to encourage their membership to sign up.

[KG]

29. more BS from those that oppose the anti-war movement.

:boring:

[BobVaught]

34. precisely

The problem the left is having... the reason they took such a beating in the elections last year... they have become very good at telling us what not to do. We know what ther plan for countering terrorism is not.. but what is it precisely?
I looked on Howard Dean's website to see what he had to say about countering terrorism. It was full of hyperbole like... the U.S. and foreign nations need to "intertwine our destinies." Oh, uh, yeah, right, that's how to defeat terrorism.... gotta intertwine them destinies...

[Oilwellian]

59. How ridiculous.....

First of all, the Dems did not "take a beating" in the 2002 elections. If you look at the final numbers, the Repubs won ONLY 19% of registered votes, the Dems lost with 17%. I HARDLY call that a majority with a mandate for EITHER party.

Secondly, the anti-war people are against the war in Iraq because Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on this country. The Bush crime family has continually muddied the difference between Iraq and the war on terrorism and made it sound as though they are one and the same. Iraq was the ONLY secular Arab country in the region and was successful at keeping islamic fundamentalism out for decades. It was for that very reason we put Saddam in power in the first place. I truly question the wisdom behind toppling Iraq and allowing fundamentalism a foot in the door.

Perhaps the american people need to take a walk down memory lane and be reminded of the GOP Congress' response to Clinton when he tried to warn them of the growing terrorist threat. I recall comments from people like Hatch saying "terrorism is not an issue" and accusations of "wag the dog" when Clinton attacked suspected terrorist camps. Now all of a sudden, we're suppose to believe the Republicans have a better plan to fight terrorism when they worked so hard to completely IGNORE it during Clinton's term and instead were far more interested in investigating the activity of his cock? And we're suppose to ignore the fact that Republican foreign policies over the past 2 decades are a large reason WHY we're facing terrorist attacks today? Please, spare me with the idea that the Republicans are far more effective at fighting terrorism when they have a history of arming and training the very terrorists who are attacking us now.

[Alpharetta]

60. When will BUSH confront terrorism?

He let the White House stonewall the investigation into who exposed a CIA agent. Don't we need agents and their contact network to fight terrorism?

He let the Pentagon go after Iraq. Don't we need the Pentagon to go after terrorism? Terrorism in Iraq was a myth. No WMD. No Al Qaeda link.

He turned Afghanistan back over to the Taleban-backed warlords. Al Qaeda is still moving freely there.

He backs a military junta in Pakistan where the Taleban also moves freely.

He won't move to ease our dependence on Saudi oil. Weren't the 9/11 attackers Saudi?

He squelched the 9/11 report.

He won't give documents to the current 9/11 investigation.

I don't see him confronting terrorism. I only see him leveraging it for his own benefit.