The ABB crowd and Naderites are *both* correct...

[DerekG]

Like many on this board, the decision to vote for Kerry is akin to a ride on a roller-coaster, with euphoria and nausea surfacing after each drop. Upon reading transcripts of speeches by Granny D or Noam Chomsky, I feel inclined to reluctantly vote Democratic; when perusing an article written by Alexander Cockburn or Dave McGowan, said certainty dissipates.

Amid the war between the partisans and the far-left exists the maddening prospect that both camps are justified in their reasoning.

I fail to see how anyone could look upon the ABB strategy with confidence, but there is much to recommend it. It does, in fact, matter who is elected (or appointed) president. As it turns out, Humphrey did feel differently about the Vietnam War than either Johnson or Nixon. Had he been elected in '68, the Vietnam War might never have been expanded; Cambodia might have been spared the saturation bombing of Henry Kissinger, and Pol Pot might never have risen from the ashes to preside over further atrocities. Likewise, the election of 1980 carried tragic connotations. Although Carter was a failed president, his environmental vision was drastically different from Reagan's. Had he been re-elected, the post-Cold War world might have looked very different. Elections do matter.

However, I refuse to extend one vitriolic word to Ralph Nader and his supporters. After becoming acquainted with the dark underbelly of American history, I find it impossible to counter Vidal's claim that there is but one political party in America, "the war party, with two right wings." I believe fascism came to this country with the death of Roosevelt (and it would have come 12 years prior with the planned '33 coup, had it not been for General Smedley Butler). This beast has possessed both parties. To balk at the millions who fell under the sword of Republican administrations and ignore the millions who perished due to the moral cowardice of men like Truman, Johnson and Clinton, is illogical. Every presidential nominee has had to bow to the National Security State; those who opposed it were either murdered (Senator Robert Kennedy) or railroaded by his own party (Senator George McGovern). Nader might be wrong (tragically wrong), but I admire the shit-stormers of history, whether they be the aforementioned consumer-advocate, or Eugene Debs or Henry A. Wallace, all of whom recognized that change could not come through slow political reform but through organized, societal resistance.

The painful crux:

ABB--If Kerry is not elected, there will be more killing.

Naderites--If Kerry is elected, there will be more killing.

They're both right.

[Yavin4]

1. Bush Started A War With A Sovereign Nation That Didn't Attack Us

That alone is enough to vote his sorry ass out of office. In fact, Bush should be in jail for it. Yes, Kerry and Edwards both voted to give him authorization for the war, but they were given false information and the thought was that Bush would use the resolution to put inspectors into Iraq, which did happen. However, Bush went ahead with the war any way.

Understand this, if Bush gets a second term, he, and his neocon followers, will take that to be a mandate for continuing wars in the Middle East, and that means that thousands of innocent Iranian people and American soldiers will die in Iran.

It's that simple. If Bush wins, thousands of innocent people will die.

[StandUpGuy]

4. Please quote a single statement

That gives you comfort that Kerry would reduce the number of innocent deaths outside the US.

[Yavin4]

10. There's No PNAC Behind Kerry

The PNAC want the U.S. to colonize the entire Middle East through war. Now, if you want the PNAC to remain in power and make foreign policy for this country, go ahead and vote for either Nader or Bush.

[Classical_Liberal]

12. Will Marshall, Kerry's speech writer, is a member of the PNAC

Sandy Berger(don't why anyone wants to protect him) also endorced the Iraq war, and so did the entire DLC establishment.

[Yavin4]

14. There's A Huge Difference Between Having A Speechwriter

from the PNAC on your staff and having active members of the PNAC making real policy in your pentagon and your White House. As for the DLC's endorsement of the war, like I said, Bush misled everyone. He used the nation's grief over 9/11 and the mid-term elections of 2002, to ramrod the IWR through congress.

Now, if you want to cling to the Nader fairy tales that there's no difference, keep believing that crap. There are over 900+ American service people and thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis who will disagree with you.

[Classical_Liberal]

15. The DLC still supports the war

so it had nothing to do with Bush misleading them. I didn't believe Bush's lies then, and I doubt the dlc did. They are neocons. I never said there was no difference, between Kerry and Bush. There is no difference between Kerry and Bush on foriegn policy, and Kerry will appoint neocons to serve him in the Pentagon. Will Marshall is Kerry's foriegn policy speech writer, and one of the people who developed his National Security Policy. His foriegn policy speaks for itself. We will buildup our forces in Iraq. We will not give Palestinians a state, and we will treat liberal Hugo Chavez like a communist for opposing neoliberals in Latin America. There is also not enough difference, to give Kerry a mandate, which is why I advocate strategically voting for third parties in safe states. My preference is Cobb not Nader.

[Yavin4]

16. Nothing That I Post Will Change Your Mind

And frankly, I don't want to get into a flame war with you, but I had these exact same arguments with people in 2000. I'm shaking with anger at people like you. Answer me this question, honestly and truthfully:

Do you believe that Kerry would have invaded Iraq like Bush did?

[StandUpGuy]

18. 100% for sure Iraq would have been Invaded

This war in Iraq is a war against the Euro.

Please tell me how Kerry would have answered the threat to US Hegemony the Euro and Saddam selling oil in Euros creates.

Thanks

[Yavin4]

22. Again, What Proof Do You Have of This?

Gore, who should have won in 2000, came out against the war in Iraq, but people like you back in 2000 insisted that Gore and Bush were just alike.

[StandUpGuy]

24. I only offer my opinion

based on Clinton's performance on Iraq.

Its easy to come out against the war from the sidelines.

I'm not saying Gore would have liked it.

[tinanator]

27. why do you think they abandoned Gore and then dumped him?

there was a difference between Bush and Gore, and the Democratic Party masters didnt like it one bit.

[StandUpGuy]

17. You must have misunderstood...

I was asking you to quote Kerry.

Give my one quote that comforts you that his foreign policy will be kinder and gentler.

Thanks

[rman]

26. The military-industrial complex is behind Kerry

No-one who doesn't have the support of "the rich men behind the scenes" gets to be president.

PNAC is in many ways just an extreme proponent of the interests of the military-industrial complex.

Kerry is likely to be gentler on the US people, but not abroad - not significantly anyway.

[DerekG]

6. Iraq...no; Iran...yes

In actuality, the sanctions Clinton and Albright presided over were responsible for far more deaths than Bush's war--and let us not forget the multiple bombings that occured during the Clinton years. The difference is the +1000 deaths among the coalition.

However, I agree with you about the Iran situation. There is a sect within the Bush administration which consists of Christian dispensationalists, who yearn for armageddon--a bit more dangerous than any Democrat, who lusts solely over oil resources.

[Yavin4]

11. Until You Can Post A Link To Support Your Claims

I will say that your post is highly inaccurate. Yes, there were sanctions imposed on Iraq during the Clinton years, but some of those sanctions were lifted for humanitarian reasons. If food and medicine didn't get to the Iraqi people, it was not Clinton's fault. Remember, Saddam was an a@@hole to his own people.

[DerekG]

19. Links, straight from the horse's mouth...

Dennis Halliday administered the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq until 1998, when he resigned due his disgust at the "genocidal" policies fomented by Bush and expanded under Clinton. Also please note that Halliday's two successors quit for similar reasons.

In this first interview, Halliday asserts that it was Clinton, and not Hussein, who diverted the resources meant for the Iraqi people:

http://www.consistentlife.org/Denis%20Halliday%20Interview.htm


Q: Some people who are harshly critical of Saddam Hussein and who take a bellicose stand say that the Oil for Food program wasn’t working and that Saddam Hussein was siphoning off the revenues of the oil sales to feed the military, to feed himself, feather his nest. What’s the truth to that?

Halliday: Well, there’s absolutely no truth, whatsoever. Every penny from oil sales goes into the hands of the United Nations, into a United Nations bank account, and is released by the United Nations directly to the contractors - American, Russian, French, Chinese, whatever they may be - who provide the foodstuffs, medical equipment, medical supplies. There’s no possibility of funds being siphoned off whatsoever.





Here's a link to an interview on commondreams that reveals the true intentions behind the sanctions:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/071800-102.htm


When they launched Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in 1998, was it actually possible for the US and the UK to get rid of Hussein?

I think they deliberately decided to keep the government in Baghdad in power to sustain the instability of Iraq on the one hand, and the threat that Iraq posed for the Kuwaitis and the Saudis in the Gulf on the other.

This has been done to control the financial and oil resources of the Arab world in order to provide opportunities to sell American weapons and the American army. And they have done it very successfully.

Defense Secretary William Cohen travelled all over the Arab World selling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of planes and guns. It is called business. They have got a market for military hardware from the US and Europe and they've got control over the oil resources. I mean, we know that Iraq probably has the world's biggest supply of oil in the world, not the second. But this has all been suppressed. In other words, the Americans have got what they wanted. Who cares about 6,000-7,000 people dying every month?

I think we must address the fact that the American policy vis-à-vis Iraq serves to diminish the entire Arab world. It has been gobbling up Arab financial resources that should be going to the people; to education and to the future, into oil production and petrochemicals. That money is going into military arms, which will never be used -- I hope.

--snip---

Calls are now being made to have Western leaders who caused this genocide sit trial in the War Criminals Tribunal. Is this possible and do you support such calls?

I do. I think it has become known as the Pinochet tactic. Pinochet has done us all a favour by being vulnerable and being caught -- even though he was released. It was a signal to everybody from Bush, Albright to Hussein; men and women alike who make decisions that constitute crimes against humanity have got to watch out. They're not free to travel, they're not free to do these things. They will be -- and must be -- prosecuted.

So you think President Bill Clinton should be tried?

Absolutely. He is the commander-in-chief and he approved the bombing of Iraq, for example, in December 1998. There was no justification for this, no UN resolution. It is a breach of international law. It is outrageous and it is, of course, a crime against humanity.

[Kanary]

20. Thank you very much, Derek. This was new for me, and

I'm stunned. Not surprised, because the DEMs have not been admirable for quite a while now. But, stunned.

I really don't know if the majority of the DEMs will come to the point of being willing to be honest about our own warts. I really don't. I see the same sick rationalizing and defending as goes on the other side of the isle.

Butl if we don't, ........

Well, it's too depressing to contemplate.

I thank you.

Kanary

[Yavin4]

21. You Are Aware That There's A Major Scandal With That UN Program

Are you not? Also, you still have not shown a link where it proves that Clinton directly killed more Iraqis through sanctions over Bush's killing of Iraqis through war.

Your posts are nothing more than theories, not proof.

[DerekG]

23. Here are your answers...

Who had the greatest influence over the Security Council? Who holds the greatest sway at the U.N.? You know the answer.

This 1999 article details how Clinton countered the efforts of France, China and Russia to ease the barbaric sanctions.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/iraq-s28.shtml

After two weeks of intensive negotiations within the United Nations Security Council, the United States has blocked efforts by France, Russia and China to lift sanctions against Iraq. Washington has thereby ensured the continuation of a policy which must rank as one of the great crimes against humanity of the twentieth century.

Only last month the UN children's agency, UNICEF, released a study showing that nine years of economic embargo, compounded by the devastation from two air wars, have produced a “humanitarian emergency.” UNICEF reported that mortality rates among infants and children under five in the central and southern parts of the country which are controlled by Baghdad, where 85 percent of Iraqis live, have more than doubled since 1989. The study further concluded that 20 percent of Iraqi children under five suffer from stunted growth caused by malnutrition.

UNICEF estimated that 500,000 child deaths are attributable to the sanctions.

--End of passage--




Amnesty International certainly thinks the U.N. had a hand in the genocide:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/1999/51400699.htm

The report does not exempt the government of Iraq from responsibility for the ongoing humanitarian crisis. But it notes that, "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of the war.

--End of passage--



President Clinton and Madeline Albright are culpable in the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children through economic sanctions. Perhaps the 500,000 figure that is thrown around everywhere is incorrect--perhaps it is 400,000 or 300,000--but for the time being, Clinton has claimed more victims than Bush (if the latter is given more time, however, I'm sure he'll prove to be a better competitor).


"You Are Aware That There's A Major Scandal With That UN Program
Are you not?"

I would hope so, for it is a program birthed from the minds of neo-colonialists. In any case, it is your turn to provide links.

[Tamyrlin79]

2. Correct

It is not a matter of if there will be more killing, but rather a matter of degree. Also a matter of whether that killing will be restrained in any small measure by common sense and decency or whether it will be let loose by an insane mind.

[G_j]

3. my simple approach

Bush & Co must be punished for their crimes. As war criminals, they cannot be allowed to continue in office after what they have done.

[JanMichael]

5. It's an ugly reality that most people can't stomach.

So they remain intentionally obtuse and get the vapors over Ralphie or JFK (Everytime I see that I get ill) instead of bucking up to History and calling BS when they see it.

Our society is weakened by the fact that a "Nader" even has the ability to play spoiler. If we were a real Democracy, with choices and real representation, it'd never have to come to that.

Personally I can't wait for Debs II, with communications the way they are today the MIC better watch its back.

[DerekG]

7. We definitely need another Debs

But could you imagine the name-calling that would abound around here: "traitor", "egomaniac", perhaps something cute, like "DebIT"?

[Kanary]

8. Lots of name-calling, yes, even if we could resurrect FDR!

But, at least, there were would be a lot fewer deaths and much less misery with an FDR, and better yet, a DEbs.

But, I guess those things don't matter so much anymore.

I think maybe we need to go back to being a population of much less affluence.

There was much more heart then.

Kanary

[DerekG]

25. I admire Roosevelt...

My sympathies lie with the leftists who lit fires under his feet (like Huey Long), but Roosevelt was most certainly a humane and wise man. I know not whether he would have honored the anti-imperialist rhetoric he delivered during the war, but I'd like to think this republic would have survived had he presided over the post-war world.

More's the pity.

[LWolf]

9. Very well said.

Thank you.

I've always intended to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it turned out to be. I will vote for John Kerry. But the vitriol heaped on conscientious objectors makes me uncomfortable with the Democratic Party itself. It cuts too close to the other side. I would like to see better from party members.

It occurs to me that "Anybody But Bush" includes anybody but Bush, including 3rd party members and independents. I know that's not the intent of the people originating that meme, but it remains a fact.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. Yes and they both are wrong too

Kerry is wrong about the War, and Nader is dead stupid about political strategy for changing the situation. That is why I am for vote swapping. That is why I support the Green Party candidate David Cobb. He advocates strategic voting. Toss Bush out, but don't give Kerry a mandate for his repuke lite agenda.

[louis c]

28. Here it is

A Vote for Bush= A vote for bush

A vote for Kerry= A Vote against Bush

A Vote for Nader= No Vote

Mathematically, there is absolutely no difference in voting for Nader, or some Right Wing Nut Job, or staying home, or not even registering to vote.

Why do you think the Repukes are helping to fund the Nader Campaign and volunteering to assist in gathering signatures. Do you believe they are enlisting because they have been converted to his "noble cause"?

A Majority Leader or House Speaker once said that the most important thing about politics is being able to add.