Because the barbarians are coming today.

Textkit is a learning community- introduce yourself here. Use the Open Board to introduce yourself, chat about off-topic issues and get to know each other.
Post Reply
PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Because the barbarians are coming today.

Post by PeterD »

Hi,

Now that the reasons -- WMD, Iraq/al-Qaeda link -- for going to war against Iraq have been completely discredited, having in the process WASTED so many lives (904 poor American boys killed and counting, thousands seriously burned and missing limbs; tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, mostly civilians), the question that remains is who is next on the kill list for the Bush admnistration. Will it be Iran? North Korea? How about Venezuela and its popular elected leader -- unlike the Chimp and his minions who were court-appointed -- Hugo Chavez, who dares to challenge US hegemony in the region?

In the prescient poem "Waiting for the Barbarians" (περιμένοντας τοὺς βαρβάρους), written by the great Greek poet Konstantinos P. Kavafys (1863 - 1933), the citizens of the city have gathered along the city's walls to await the arrival of the barbarians (Americans may substitute the word terrorists/muslims/evildoers). When the nasty barbarians don't arrive, the citizens are bewidered and lost. The poet's aim, here, is that states/governments tend to exaggerate threats ( genuine or fictitious) in order to control the population. Why worry about urgent issues like unemployment, healthcare, the environment, etc., when the "barbarians" are coming.

Here is the poem in English. It is translated from the Greek by Edmund Keely, full professor of English, Princeton University, and philhellene.

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?

The barbarians are due here today.

Why isn't anything going on in the senate?
Why are the senators sitting there without legislating?

Because the barbarians are coming today.
What's the point of senators making laws now?
Once the barbarians are here, they'll do the legislating.

Why did our emperor get up so early,
and why is he sitting at the city's main gate,
in state, wearing the crown?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and the emperor's waiting to receive their leader.
He's even got a scroll to give him,
loaded with titles, with imposing names.

Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
Why are they carrying their elegant canes
beautifully worked in silver and gold?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and things like that dazzle the barbarians.

Why don't our distinguished orators turn up as usual
to make their speeches, say what they have to say?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and they're bored by rhetoric an public speaking.

Why this sudden restlessness, this confusion?
(How serious people's faces have become.)
Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
everyone going home so lost in thought?

Because night has fallen and the barbarians havent come.
And some who have just returned from the border say
there are no barbarians any longer.

Now what's going to happen to us without the barbarians?
These people were a kind of solution.


PeterD
P.S. All replies are welcome, even the nasty ones (sticks and stones...), but do, please, think of the children. :wink:
Last edited by PeterD on Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

whiteoctave
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:42 pm
Location: Cambridge

Post by whiteoctave »

you are indeed wholly correct, peter, and no doubt were against the use of war-scale force to depose SH like so many of us. I will look at the Greek of Kavafys tomorrow if possible.
Your specification and initial statement, however, of american soldier casualties (who are of course much mourned, though it was their accepted duty, if ordered, to go to war) before the towering figure 11252-13213 (somewhere inbetween) solely civilian deaths of Iraqis (who of course had no duty to serve but were merely slain) seems a rather ill-advised way of displaying the terrible toll. lives are lives, and over twenty thousand have gone.

~D

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD »

You are indeed correct -- lives are lives, whether they be American or not. It was not my intention to mitigate the carnage that has befallen the Iraqi people. I do apologize for any misunderstanding.

Here is the link to the Greek original:

http://users.hol.gr/~barbanis/cavafy/barbarians-gr.html

-Peter
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Re: Because the barbarians are coming today.

Post by Rhuiden »

Had to throw my 2 cents worth in....
Now that the reasons -- WMD, Iraq/al-Qaeda link -- for going to war against Iraq have been completely discredited
On what basis do you say this? I hope you are not using the Michael Moore farce as your source. What did SH use to gas his own people with? Do you really believe the SH did not support terrorism around the world? Do you know that Britian is still saying that SH did try to buy weapons grade uranium (or plutonium, it's late and I can't remeber which it was) from Niger.
in the process WASTED so many lives (904 poor American boys killed and counting
I will agree that the loss of American soldiers is a serious issue but to say that they were wasted belittles their sacrifice. These people took an oath to defend our country and that is what they are doing. It is difficult to understand why some must make the ultimate sacrifice and give their life in that defense but that is the price of freedom. I do not mean to sound cold, but they were willing to do this and it is up to God to decide who comes home and who doesn't. It is all part of His plan. I, for one, am greatful to these people for what they do for our country and my family. They are protecting our way of life and don't forget...WE WERE ATTACKED. In a fight, the agressor sets the rules, we did not start this but if we don't finish it, they will finish us.

the question that remains is who is next on the kill list for the Bush admnistration.


I hope that there is a list and anyone who intends to do harm to any United States citizen anywhere in the world should be on it. I think the list should be made public and then we should hunt down every person, group, or nation that is on the list. These people only respect strength, they do not respect talking. What happened after the Phillipines gave in to the demands of the terrorists and withdrew their people...within a couple days, the terrorists had taken more hostages.

unlike the Chimp and his minions who were court-appointed


What? Bush won every recount, how many times should they have recounted? By the way, I live in Tennessee and Gore could not even win his home state. He was an embarassment to Tennesseans.

Please forgive me if any of this sounded rude, it was not my intention. I love talking politics and religion and both get my blood pumping.

User avatar
1%homeless
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:21 am
Location: East Hollywood
Contact:

Post by 1%homeless »

On what basis do you say this?
Even though if it's not discredited and still up in the air, shouldn't we be absolutely sure first? But WMD and guilt by association aside, is Iraq the number one immediate threat? Also, should we be targeting countries? I thought we can bomb any place we want, so why not just go straight for the terrorists and disregard a country's sovereignty? Wouldn't it be much cheaper? Why do we have to take over a country to destroy terrorists? Also, outsite of Afghanistan and Iraq, I haven't heard much about anti-terrorists fighting/activity going on... I suppose it's top secret and I should be confident that they are doing all they can to fight terrorism...
WE WERE ATTACKED
Call me naive, but I'm still trying to find out who exactly attacked us. I've only encountered words and audio spoken in language that I can't understand for evidence. I assume that there are historical examples abound of countries attacking their own citizens to manipulate them into war, but since I don't have any specific examples of this at hand I will not say so. Usually, we always have to wait for the future to know what really happened in the present. So I'm not sure how anyone can win any argument when much information is very volatile...

Some of these questions aren't rhetorical, I actually wonder about them, but I don't research them because I'm pretty apathetic about all this when it is very difficult and time consuming to sift through all the information. It's much easier to let time sift through it.

Kopio
Global Moderator
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by Kopio »

PeterD,

I must say I always chuckle when you start your tirades (perhaps too harsh of a word) about American politics......because you are a Canadian! Is Canadian politics really that boring, that you have to pick on our politicians?? :P I must say I disagree with much of your opinion(s), but I always enjoy reading the (sometimes) friendly banter.

MDS
Textkit Fan
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:04 am
Location: Pickering, Ontario, Canada

Post by MDS »

Is Canadian politics really that boring, that you have to pick on our politicians??
Um...in a word I have to go with "YES." Though Martin did recently pick his new cabinet. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden »

Why do we have to take over a country to destroy terrorists?
If the leadership/government of a country is part of the terrorists or supports the terrorist with money/weapons/training, it would do no good to only go after (kill/capture) the individuals because the country would just produce more terrorists. You have to take out the source of the problem. An example is Isreal and the Palestinians (PLO) - when Isreal is attacked, they retaliate but they have not taken out the source (PLO leadership). As a result, Isreal must continually face the threats. I know this was a simplified example and that the politics of that region are very unstable and many things go into Isreal's decisions and actions but the basic concept is true.
Also, outsite of Afghanistan and Iraq, I haven't heard much about anti-terrorists fighting/activity going on
I have not heard of any fighting in any other place either but I have heard reports that terrorists from around the world are going to Iraq to fight against us. That is fine with me, let them all gather in one place because it makes it easier for us to get them and while they are there, they are not here trying to hurt Americans.
is Iraq the number one immediate threat?
I think they were. We waited a year or year and a half before we went into Iraq. During that time I am sure they were making sure Iraq was the #1 threat.

It comes down to the fact that we must trust our leaders. If we have men in leadership positions with character flaws (read Bill Clinton), it is hard to trust them but if we have decent, honorable men in leadership roles, then we must trust that they are acting in our best interest. I believe the President Bush is an honorable, decent man.

To clarify what my value system is (if it was not already obvious). I am what many in the media would call a right wing extremist waco. I am a Deacon in a Southern Baptist Church and I am an ultra conservative Republican. I would probably be a Liberterian if not for their position on social issues (gay marriage, legalizing drugs, etc.). We homeschool our children because we do not want the public school system indoctrinating our children with the garbage they teach now.

Thanks for allowing me to rant.

Rhuiden

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis »

Kopio wrote:I must say I always chuckle when you start your tirades (perhaps too harsh of a word) about American politics......because you are a Canadian!
The Canadians evidently conceal their disputes. Over on the Classics-L list about a month back we had a brief but, um, energetic debate between Canadians. Everyone was astonished, and the U.S. members were comforted or distressed (according to temperment) to find that even Canadians start frothing and can go wobbly in the brains when arguing politics.

While I do not respond with a chuckle to these posts (in this space at least, I'd much rather argue about Homer), I don't see why Canadians shouldn't be talking about American politics. Americans have no particular reticence about discussing the politics of, well, everyone, so it's only fair. :) Besides, the U.S. is a vast economic and military power, and it's decisions can change the lives of billions outside the U.S.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis »

annis wrote:The Canadians evidently conceal their disputes. Over on the Classics-L list about a month back we had a brief but, um, energetic debate between Canadians. Everyone was astonished, and the U.S. members were comforted or distressed (according to temperment) to find that even Canadians start frothing and can go wobbly in the brains when arguing politics.
I followed that one loosely until it got really stupid. Anyway, what you should know about Canadians and politics: there are only two subjects which can get a Canadian riled up in a political discussion. The first is east-west rivalry (hence the disturbing Classics-L discussion); and the second is "those damned americans". Any other political topic simply causes boredom.
While I do not respond with a chuckle to these posts (in this space at least, I'd much rather argue about Homer), I don't see why Canadians shouldn't be talking about American politics. Americans have no particular reticence about discussing the politics of, well, everyone, so it's only fair. :) Besides, the U.S. is a vast economic and military power, and it's decisions can change the lives of billions outside the U.S.
And due to our proximity and history, American actions especially affect us. We harbor much longstanding bitterness which is spiced up by more recent actions such as the softwood lumber dispute and the fact that american borders are STILL closed to canadian beef, despite the statements of american reps saying that the chances of an american being harmed by it are "the same as getting struck by lightning while holding the winning powerball ticket."

Also, many canadians are especially interested in Bush because they feel that for the first time in a long time, our national leader is no longer the stupidest. :)
First say to yourself what you would be; then do what you need to do. ~Epictetus

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: Because the barbarians are coming today.

Post by PeterD »

"Welcome to my parlour," said the spider to the fly...

Welcome, Rhuiden. :)
Rhuiden wrote:Had to throw my 2 cents worth in....
Your money is good here. Now, here is your change:
On what basis do you say this? I hope you are not using the Michael Moore farce as your source.
No, I am using David Kay's WMD report to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Do you know who David Kay is? He is the (former) WMD inspector sent to Iraq, along with a 400-member team, by the Chimp to search for WMD. They came up empy. His exact words were "it turns out we were all wrong."
What did SH use to gas his own people with?
Deadly chemicals, silly, supplied courtesy of American chemical companies. You are of course referring to the gassing that occurred in the Kurdish town of Halabjah in northern Iraq in 1988. Thanks for enlightening us. However, you neglected to mention that when Saddam was doing this, the US did nothing to stop him -- they even refused to condemn him!
Do you really believe the SH did not support terrorism around the world? Do you know that Britian is still saying that SH did try to buy weapons grade uranium (or plutonium, it's late and I can't remeber which it was) from Niger
.

Saddam always was a monstrous thug -- even when he was brought to power by the CIA. When Saddam was committing most of his horrific atrocities, he was a staunch US ally. It was Rumsfeld, Reagan's special envoy to Iraq, who so solemnly greeted Saddam in Dec. of 1983.

As for the British, the official British inquiry report released last week stated that the intelligence the British government used to justify war was "seriously flawed."
These people took an oath to defend our country and that is what they are doing...I do not mean to sound cold, but they were willing to do this and it is up to God to decide who comes home and who doesn't. It is all part of His plan...WE WERE ATTACKED.
These young people took an oath to defend the country not to become human fodder for corporations like Halliburton and all other war profiteers. It is a disgrace that the vast majority of American enlisted personnel come from poor, humble backgrounds, lured by cunning military recruiters. They sacrifice life and limb so that the rich and powerful enjoy most of the benefits. Vice president Cheney, when asked why he deferred his Vietnam draft orders 4 times, calmly replied that he had more important things to do. War pimp, Rush Limbaugh, too, avoided Vietnam (something about rectal cysts).

"It's all part of His plan"??? I am sorry, but your god sounds like a war pimp!

Yes, the US was attacked. I thought I'd let you know that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabians. Did the US invade Saudi Arabia? Did it impose tough sanctions? Is Osama bin Laden a Saudi? Does the Chimp's family continue its close ties with the Saudi royal family? The anwers to these questions are NO-NO-YES-YES. It is standard US policy that if the US were to go to war the enemy must be substantially weaker -- militarily and economically. Does the "superpower" Grenada ring a bell?
I hope there is a [kill] list and anyone who intends to do harm to any United States citizen anywhere in the world should be on it. I think the list should be made public and then we should hunt down every person, group, or nation that is on the list.

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, would leave us all toothless and blind." Ghandi

What? Bush won every recount, how many times should they have recounted? By the way, I live in Tennessee and Gore could not even win his home state. He was an embarassment to Tennesseans.
Yes, Bush won the Sunshine State by a few hundred votes. The outrage is not over the "hanging chads" or the recount. The outrage is over the fact that just prior to the 2000 election, the Chimp's brother, Governor Jeb Bush, ordered the purging from the Florida voter scrolls the names of tens of thousands of black Americans. These Americans lost their franchise to vote! Do you think they would have voted for the Dixie party?

True, the pathetic Gore was not only an embarrassment to his own state but to the rest of America as well. What a loser. He could not defeat an opponent with an IQ of a salad bar!

Enjoyed the discussion. Do not forget your Greek studies. Take care.
Last edited by PeterD on Sat Jul 24, 2004 5:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD »

Kopio wrote:Is Canadian politics really that boring, that you have to pick on our politicians?? :P
Yes -- but much less deadly!
I must say I disagree with much of your opinion(s), but I always enjoy reading the (sometimes) friendly banter.
Thank you, Kopio. :)

-PeterD
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD »

annis wrote:While I do not respond with a chuckle to these posts (in this space at least, I'd much rather argue about Homer)...
Annis, the Ancient Greeks were political wildcats; they lived and breathed poiltics.

By the way, I am always humbled when you take the time to reply to my posts. :)

-PeterD
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

mariek
Global Moderator
Posts: 1387
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:19 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Because the barbarians are coming today.

Post by mariek »

PeterD wrote:(904 poor American boys killed and counting, thousands seriously burned and missing limbs; tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, mostly civilians)

For the latest US body count, take a look here, http://cryptome.org/mil-dead-iqw.htm. So far, 929 dead. This calendar is kinda neat, it shows you how many on each day, and if you scroll down further, it gives you details about who.

whiteoctave
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:42 pm
Location: Cambridge

Post by whiteoctave »

yeah that is kinda neat...

~D

Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Timothy »

[enter Rostra]

Exordium

I resisted the temptation to immediately reply on this sensitive topic. While I applaud free, open discussion and those who are bold enough to raise the issues, the risk that the discussion will degenerate into bitter argument in a setting more suited to friendly discourse often deters me from adding any more fuel to the flames. While I support such debate of serious issues, I do not appreciate the practice of raising them for the purpose of irritation.

Serious debate requires time and effort, precious commodities which are in short supply to me at the present. While the events of the past 3 years have been a constant concern, I have not been so with the aim of open debate. Like many, I've formulated opinions based upon the news of the day and, once formed, left the details behind. To recover them requires an amount effort which I am unable to spare at present. So I have to reply upon my memory and self awareness to support my argument; these are not always the most reliable.

So it is not without some trepidation that I add my comments here.

Narratio

The mass murder on September 11th, 2001 of over 3000 civilians in the World Trade Towers, nearly 200 in the US Pentagon, and all the passengers and crews of the three airplanes used as weapons in the attack was a shock of the greatest magnitude to the people of the United States. As America was not at war with any nation, the country was unprepared for an attack of this magnitude. The determination of the attackers was such that they intended to commit suicide to insure its success. Though the actual number of innocent, defenseless people killed was on a level of some of the greatest battles of war in history, the intent of the attack was far greater still. At the time of the attack, the World Trade Towers might easily contain upwards of 90,000 people, not including the thousands of people in the surrounding buildings and streets around the Towers. Had the Towers collapsed immediately, the death toll would have surpassed human comprehension. That was the intent. The attack on the Pentagon was of a identical nature as the U.S. Pentagon is one of the largest office complexes in the world. The third plane, which never reached its intended target because the passengers, realizing what the plane was to be used for, attacked the terrorists in a desperate attempt to regain control of the plane causing them to deliberately crash the plane rather than fail, was intended for some other high profile seat of government such as the Capitol or the White House.

The response of the United States was an open declaration of war against terrorism worldwide. After identifying one of the groups responsible for the attack it demanded the surrender of the leaders of that group from Afghanistan, the nation holding them. When that demand was refused it sent troops to Afghanistan and attacked the terrorist forces and the government armies that fought with them. When the majority of those forces were destroyed or scattered the U.S. turned it's attention to the nation of Iraq. After presenting its argument to its citizens and United Nations for the danger that nation posed to the security of the United States, including the threat of the more conventional weapons of mass destruction (biological, chemical, and nuclear) as well as ties to those terrorist organizations which were responsible for the World Trade Tower attack, it demanded the exile of the head of the Iraq government or face war. When that was refused, it invaded Iraq, defeated its armies with the subsequent collapse of the government. In the aftermath of the war a diligent search was made to locate the weapons of mass destruction, the facilities for their production, and other evidence of terrorist cooperation. That search has not found any weapons of mass destruction nor is there any evidence that there were substantial cooperation between the Iraq government and the terrorist groups.

Other items of note:

Saudi Arabia, both prior to and subsequent to the September 11 attack, denied the existence of any large scale, organized terrorist activity in the country. Today they're engaged in open battle with well supplied terrorist groups in the nation's capitol.

In Spain, terrorists attacked a commuter train immediately prior to the Presidential election, resulting in one of the largest deaths in that country. Terrorist stated that it was in retaliation for Spain's support of the U.S. in Iraq. It is believed that it altered the election outcome.

The Philippines have removed their forces from Iraq as a direct result of the kidnapping and threat of death by beheading of one of its citizens.

Propositio / Partitio / Argumentatio

The horror of the attack, its magnitude, and the nature of the terrorists has changed American thinking forever. In previous political conflicts with nations the U.S. adopted the position similar to that of other countries of publicly opposing offensive policies and after presenting a case for intervention, sought support and consensus from the world community before taking that action. The U.S. restrained itself from intervention by the moderation of other nations. This is no longer the case.

In the past, intervention or war with other nations was accepted only after a deliberate "act of war" that could be clearly attributed. Attacks by small groups not directly and demonstrably in the employ of governments were not sufficient cause for the use of national armies. This is no longer the case.

The danger posed by terrorism is not confined to the United States. In past conflicts between peoples, neutral parties and non combatants, and allies were not considered acceptable targets for attack. This is no longer the case.

The apparent division of political sentiment in the U.S. over Presidential leadership should not be confused with support for the altered policy on terrorism. While many Americans have doubts about the causes for going to war with Iraq, few have any over the war in Afghanistan. The message that a nation harboring terrorism will incur the enmity of the U.S. should not be dismissed.

The fact of Saddam actually using known weapons of mass destruction is the issue, not whether he was a U.S. ally at the time. Nor does it make the U.S. responsible for that act. Nor does a failure to immediately condemn an act preclude any future statement, i.e. the atomic bomb. What we are beginning to comprehend now is that there are other weapons of mass destruction. It is the act, not the means, which is proscribed.

The majority of troops now on active duty come from the reserves. Many of these are members of the National Guard. All of them are volunteers; there is no draft in the U.S. and there hasn't been one for decades. The risks of military service are well known, especially since the first Gulf War, and not the result of any recruitment tricks.

Peroratio

As this has been long and mostly likely boring due to my lack of skill and eloquence, I will wrap this up. For my part, I knew from the start that the war in Iraq was a blunder; that the President was an inept diplomat to an unprecedented degree; that it is fruitless to expect any sort of substantial commitment from the United Nations but still necessary to try; that while Iraq was not capable of developing WMD, other countries like it have, can, and will; that if the terrorist cult gets them they will use them, most likely on the U.S.; that there is something very wrong going on in the Islamic community that is a very real danger to the world but which only they can correct.

Overshadowing and above this, I can still see the Towers fall and can still get the most awful feeling in my stomach thinking of those poor souls plunging to their deaths. So forgive me if I can’t chuckle at GWB. I’m not happy with his action in Iraq. We need someone else. But he isn’t the problem and making fun of his mistakes doesn’t address them. Replacing him won’t solve them either.

[exit Rostra]

- Tim

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques »

1%homeless wrote:Even though if it's not discredited and still up in the air, shouldn't we be absolutely sure first?
Not according to International Law. The basis of the Gulf War cease-fire between the Allied forces and Saddam Hussein in 1991 was that he completely disarm his country of all non-defensive weaponry; this included longrange missles that could threaten immediate and more distant neighbors (like Israel, which was bombed for no other reason during the start of the Gulf War that its apparently malignancy in the former dictator's eye), chemical weapons such as mustard gas, nerve agents, and the like, biological weapons such as sarin, anthrax, and others, and nuclear weapons and technology of all types. All the research, every paper document, every computer and harddrive, every warhead shell, every piece of hardware was to be turned in to United Nations Weapons Inspectors over the following months. In those few months, the Allied forces (the bulk of whose military contigent was the United States, Royal, and French Air Forces) were to patrol the "No-Fly Zones," preventing any significant military activity (particularly in the air) north of the 38th parallel, and later the 33rd parallel as well. These No-Fly Zones had the specific goal (laid down in UN Security Council Resolution 688) of securing the safety of the respective Kurdish and Shi'ite populations in the north and south of Iraq, which Saddam Hussein had subsequently decimated through use of chemical weapons just before.

This was not supposed to last long. It was assumed that the defeated and humiliated Saddam Hussein would comply fairly quickly, turn over all its contraban, much as South Africa before it, and especially under such painful guard as the No-Fly Zones which covered most of his country in a blanket of constant, foreign vigil. However, he did not cooperate with Weapons Inspectors; he made it as difficult as possible for them to find anything. They did find and destroy some portions of chemical weapons and biological weapon research activity and other smaller nuclear facilities, but UNSCOM's and UNMOVIC's intelligence, as well as that of the agencies of the US, UK, and France, among others, all confirmed that there must be much more, particularly concerning the size and immediacy of the assaults in the north and south which the dictator had committed on his own people.

This mendacity and elusion went on for an entire decade. Though at the expense of the Royal and United States Air Forces (the French had backed out long before the '90s were out), the international communited stayed satisfied with the apparent "containment" of Saddam Hussein and his military. He would not invade Kuwait again, and was assumed would eventually die and not bother anyone.
The legality of the matter is that Saddam had to comply immediately with those Security Council resolutions. Each time another resolution was ratified, the final line was to the effect of the use of "military force" if the conditions not be met. The No-Fly Zones were an example of that military force. In fact, of the fifteen individual resolutions which Saddam Hussein flagrantly violated, each one assured that the cease-fire be suspended and hostilities resume against Saddam's regime at once to rectify the situation, whether it be for his atrocious record, even during that very decade, against the human rights of his own people, or for the fact that not every single piece of weapon's material forbidden had been turned in to the inspectors.

Despite his apparent flacidity in the world stage, or his seemingly contained military, the dictator had broken the law. Ultimately — and here is one of the best reasons the UN would have had to have condoned further military intervention — to allow the man to have insulted the entire world, and all for which humanity stands for, repeatedly, in every way discredited the UN for those ten years. (The Security Council in particular, being composed, sometimes, of more "civilized" and advanced nations, has been historically reluctant to go to full-out war, because these nations all know the consequences of war and that, not only do the guilty and those fighting them die, but also the innocent by proximity.) Regardless, for the UN to allow a known terrorist, and especially one so despicable and notorious as Saddam Hussein, to get off scot-free, after so many resolutions were passed against him, brought the supposèd universal "authority" of the Security Council to meaninglessness. Weakness in the face of a threat is a bullseye for bullies and terrorists of any kind.

Thus, numerous United Nations (and even Security Council) members, in light of the potential credibility loss of the world's most profound single law-enforcing institution, carried out what was demanded of them by the UN Charter to which they had signed, and by the resolutions of the Security Council which represented them.
But WMD and guilt by association aside, is Iraq the number one immediate threat?
Now? Certainly not. The peaceful government of the new Iraq is determined and strong, bent upon securing its borders and bringing peace to its citizens, a people who had their rights taken from them too long ago.
Then? id est, 2002? As a single national entity, most certainly. When deducing the guilt of a suspect when making an arrest, one must first identify the ability. Iraq had had known quantities of "weapons of mass descruction," or "mass death," whatever term you prefer to ascribe to the illegal and extremely dangerous weapons. Then secondly, the motive must be established. Saddam Hussein had plentiful links and connections to numerous terrorist groups, including Hezbollah. Saddam Hussein himself was also known to have given numerous sums of money to the families of suicide bombers who had killed Israeli citizens. He also welcomed ("harbored," if you prefer) militants and terrorists of various types, giving them medical aid, et cetera. Having a very, very good reason to hate the West, and especially America, it became clear in the world of after September 11th — where not even civilians of our own country were safe at their jobs from terrorists — that all it took was one little vile of sarin, and one terrorist smart enough to breach a weak link in National Security, and all of New York could have been dead.

This is the reality of our present world, and the above nightmare is still terrifyingly possible. The veritable warrant of arrest of this suspected criminal had been signed by the Security Council, and, gratias deis agamus, he was arrested. He now stands on trial for crimes against humanity, against his own people whom he terrorized and murdered for twenty years.
Also, should we be targeting countries? I thought we can bomb any place we want, so why not just go straight for the terrorists and disregard a country's sovereignty?
Because that also would violate International Law. The various United States intelligence agencies I'm sure know of hideouts of terrorist cells in France, but we sure as hell aren't about to bomb Marseille. The same goes for less lovable countries, like Iran, which most certainly possess numerous al-Qaeda cells and other groups (which Tehran often boasts about hosting). Law, whether American or International, must be passed to allow such sovereign borders to be crossed. The infamous "Bush Doctrine" that regimes which actively harbor terrorists are just as culpable as the terrorists themselves is a fully rational one, just the same as an American homeowner would be tried for keeping a common criminal safe from the police. Still, warrants must be signed, a legal due process carried through, as it was for Afghanistan and Iraq alike.
Wouldn't it be much cheaper? Why do we have to take over a country to destroy terrorists? Also, outsite of Afghanistan and Iraq, I haven't heard much about anti-terrorists fighting/activity going on... I suppose it's top secret and I should be confident that they are doing all they can to fight terrorism...
Evident: there have been no further terrorist attacks on United States soil. Equally evident: there were over a dozen planned attacks by al-Qaeda alone which were in advanced planning stages at the time of their dissassemblage. Considering that Osama bin Laden had originally intended to employ the next attack on America by Thanksgiving, involving a dozen aircraft in five different cities, is a testiment among other attempts proving that our agencies are doing their job.

There is a tertiary reason for the forcible conclusion to the Gulf War led by President Bush (the secondary reason, noted above, involves the threat of the dissemination of weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists). Simply, putting so many American soldiers and military targets in one place is an irresistable target. And indeed, all the terrorists, would-be or fully trained, flooded down from the Persian hills, from the Syran sands, from across the world to come fight the "infidels" who "occupy" Iraq. The torch burns bright in the eternal night of the world of fear; all the moths are drawn willingly into the flame. Equally, terrorists who might have attacked the United States or other Western or Western-allied countries (including Israel) have instead stolen for a chance to kill a Yankee soldier in Iraq.

Is this horrible? Yes. But what's worse: an attack, of any magnitude, on any number of civilians on American soil. I believe that this conscious understanding that the terrorists would be drawn away from civilians of other nations, in particular our own, was in the minds of the Adminstration during the formation of its post-war policy. Terrorists being in the US makes them invisible and capable of doing unbelievable harm at any time to innocents, and makes tracking and killing them even harder than seeing them coming. Bringing them all to one spot where the major portion of our country's active troops are stationed brings them right before our guns, and kills them, slowly but surely.

I wince every time I read another casuality report. But each time I know it could have been five American civilians instead.

Rhuiden puts it more simply and clearly than I:
I have not heard of any fighting in any other place either but I have heard reports that terrorists from around the world are going to Iraq to fight against us. That is fine with me, let them all gather in one place because it makes it easier for us to get them and while they are there, they are not here trying to hurt Americans.
Well said.
Call me naive, but I'm still trying to find out who exactly attacked us. I've only encountered words and audio spoken in language that I can't understand for evidence.
Translations are readily available in hundreds of different languages.
I assume that there are historical examples abound of countries attacking their own citizens to manipulate them into war, but since I don't have any specific examples of this at hand I will not say so.
Are you serious? Is this some absurd extrapolation from Michael Moore's even absurder insinuation that Bush is responsible for September 11th? Moore's suggestion of this, regarding the safe deportation of the one Saudi plane a few hours earlier than the other planes could resume travel (which was indeed a deal fetched between Saudi Arabia and the US State Department), is totally contradicted by the rest of the "film." There are half a dozen totally separate conspiracy theories presented against the President in Fahrenheit 9/11, each one mutually exclusive to the next, the entire dogmentary, as Rhuiden put it well, a total "farce," aimed at nothing but propaganda, at incensing emotions of those foolish enough to believe. Allow me to express my solidarity with Rhuiden.
Usually, we always have to wait for the future to know what really happened in the present. So I'm not sure how anyone can win any argument when much information is very volatile...
Boy, you should read what Lincoln's contemporaries said about him...
Some of these questions aren't rhetorical, I actually wonder about them, but I don't research them because I'm pretty apathetic about all this when it is very difficult and time consuming to sift through all the information. It's much easier to let time sift through it.
Ah! that's a fabulous way to approach international terrorism! just wait till it all works out on its own! Saddam Hussein killed how many of his own people? Thousands? Tens of thousands? When? Pfft, well that was years ago; if he says he's sorry, very, very nicely, we can let him off the hook this time.

(Pardon this latent sarcasm; it isn't meant as a direct insult — more as rhetoric.)
I believe the President Bush is an honorable, decent man.
I as well.
To clarify what my value system is (if it was not already obvious). I am what many in the media would call a right wing extremist waco. I am a Deacon in a Southern Baptist Church and I am an ultra conservative Republican.
I, however, very much am not. I respect your faith and values, Rhuiden, though they do not encompass my own. I am a moderate Independent, whose beliefs are not religious, but are based (as you may guess from my self-given appellation) on the spirituality and humanism of an archetypical Knight. These beliefs are to aspire to the Platonic ideals of justice, fortitude, faith, benevolence, humility, passion, and love, in their various virtuous forms.
Do you know who David Kay is?
And how! Let me quote him: "We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq," Kay told Congress, "And now we know that there was little control over Iraq's weapons capabilities. I think it shows that Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country — and no central control."
Deadly chemicals, silly, supplied courtesy of American chemical companies.
If by "American" you mean "Russian," you'd be right. From the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Fact Sheet on Chemical Warfare in the Iraq-Iran War, written by Julian Perry Robinson and Jozef Goldblat, under the heading "Indigenous or external sources of supply?" :
With the exceptions, maybe, of the last two of these different categories of putative Iraqi agent, sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplier, for the reason that the USSR is said, on evidence that has yet to be solidly substantiated but which has nonetheless attracted some firm believers, to have weaponized all three of them in recent years.
Indeed, from the guns to the planes, Saddam's weapons actually had serial numbers in Russian. They flew Migs for crying outloud. It continues:
For its part, the USSR has expressly denied supplying Iraq with toxic weapons. Reports of Soviet supply attributed to US and other intelligence sources have nonetheless recurred. The earliest predate reports of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War.

Official Iranian commentaries, too, have pointed to the USSR as a supplier of the Iraqi weapons. These sources have also accused Brazil, France and, most conspicuously, Britain of supplying the weapons. No basis for any of these Iranian accusations has been disclosed. France, alongside Czechoslovakia and both Germanies, is reportedly also rumoured, among "foreign military and diplomatic sources" in Baghdad, to have supplied Iraq with chemical precursors needed for an indigenous production effort. Unofficial published sources have cited Egypt as a possible supplier of actual chemical weapons. In the mid-1960s, when Iraq was alleged to be using chemical weapons against insurgent Kurdish forces, Swiss and German sources of supply were reported in the Western press.
Russia? France? Germany (even the good half?)? Do these rather prominent names sound familiar to those who recollect the pre-war obstruction?
Saddam always was a monstrous thug -- even when he was brought to power by the CIA. When Saddam was committing most of his horrific atrocities, he was a staunch US ally. It was Rumsfeld, Reagan's special envoy to Iraq, who so solemnly greeted Saddam in Dec. of 1983.
Yup, I'm sure we've all seen the picture. And if not, here it is. Those were tough times for the United States, for all the Western World. At any moment, we feared, the entire country — yea, the whole world — might be destoyed by a nuclear attack from our greatest single enemy in history. Desperate times call for desperate measure, and even desperater allies.
The thing is, of course, that we were not aware of those atrocities until after they happened, at which point we distanced ourselves from the nut. The overwhelming necessity for containing Communism and inhibiting the Soviet Union, however, was the overriding concern. We even gave Osama bin Laden his weapons that he used against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan — and he won with them, by the way. A decade after the Communist superpower collapsed, he would use the selfsame guns to train the terrorists who right now are in Iraq. With friends like these...
It is a disgrace that the vast majority of American enlisted personnel come from poor, humble backgrounds, lured by cunning military recruiters.
How risible! This reminds me of the "goddam that cunning, sly, manipulative lier Bush who masterminded the entire thing; he's such a stupid, brainless, witless, Texan chimp" mantra.
This is the most classist comment you've yet made, PeterD. You imply that a person from a disadvantaged background is inherently too stupid to know what he's getting into when he joins the military willingly? How disrespectful to the millions of people from poor, humble backgrounds who made this country so great. How disrespectful still more to the vast majority of American enlisted personel who come from poor, humble backgrounds and serve so courageously and valiantly, not just our country, but the entire world. If taken seriously, your comments would cheapen their lives.
Vice president Cheney, when asked why he deferred his Vietnam draft orders 4 times, calmly replied that he had more important things to do.
What's even more laughable than this is how Kerry is now saying it. Back in '92, Governer Bill Clinton was heavily criticized for not having served in Vietnam, for having deferred the draft himself. Senator Kerry said how the country should move beyond Vietnam, and not criticize the Democratic Candidate for events in the past. The Senator sure has changed his tune of late to fit his political agenda. But then, if he didn't do just that, he'd be inconsistent, and people would start calling him a "flip-flopper."
The anwers to these questions are NO-NO-YES-YES.
:D That reminds me of another Kerry anecdote. If you reverse those to Yes-Yes-No-No, you receive the answers Mr. Kerry's respective votes on resuming the Gulf War in Iraq, his vote for the Patriot Act, and then his vote against funding the troops with the supplies they needed to be effective, and then finally, his condemnation of the Patriot Act.

Actually, after editing this, I think my descent in to partisanship against Kerry regarding this election — Kerry who has nothing to do with Iraq or the War on Terrorism — is fairly tasteless, and that these two above comments be forgotten.
These Americans lost their franchise to vote!
That's just pure conspiracy trumped up in Fahrenheit 9/11. Please, present the unbiased records of this "outrage" if you will.
Do you think they would have voted for the Dixie party?
*laughs* Now that's really funny. For your information, Mr. PeterD, the party of the slaveholders and the Confederate States of America was the Democrats.

And may I also resoundingly express my solidarity with Tim as well! Well written, sir! Your clear, factual, logical presentation of the history regarding these events is more laudable than even the cool and calm testimony of the history books! And moreover, I find your reasonable argument well put. Contrary to your humility, you are indeed eloquent.
Last edited by Lucus Eques on Sun Jul 25, 2004 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
L. Amādeus Rāniērius · Λ. Θεόφιλος Ῥᾱνιήριος 🦂

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

Kopio
Global Moderator
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by Kopio »

Boy, this thread is getting interested....it's been a while since I've seen things heat up like this :shock: :shock:

FWIW, I'm with the ultra-conservative Bush-lovers :P.....go get 'em boys!

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD »

I shall present my rebuttals in short time, hopefully later this evening. I shan't be taking any prisoners. :)
Kopio wrote:FWIW, I'm with the ultra-conservative Bush-lovers :P ...go get'em boys!
:(

-PeterD
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis »

PeterD wrote:Annis,
Please, call me William.
the Ancient Greeks were political wildcats; they lived and breathed poiltics.
The ancient Greeks also kept ferrets as pets. I'll pass.

:)

My lack of chuckling has nothing to do with the Greeks, though. There are about 1,000,001 other places on the web to argue politics. Indeed, the same sort of vast tracts of argumentation that occur in those 1,000,001 other places are now a part of this thread. When it's done no one will have changed their mind about anything, and the forum database will be fuller.

I have never seen anyone change there mind after arguments like this. The details and facts of the Iraq situation are important, but people's ideas about the correct response are based on much more fundamental assumptions about how the world works, and what is important in it. Any argument which doesn't address that foundation level has no point but to make people angry or self-satisfied. Because those foundation beliefs determine how we interpret the salience of the facts.

If I may indulge in a crude dichotomy, if you give a liberal and a conservative the same set of facts (real life facts, not mathematical axioms) they will each come away with a different interpretation of those facts much of the time. In many cases each will decide the other is living in fantasyland for thinking differently. Working from the same facts.
By the way, I am always humbled when you take the time to reply to my posts. :)
Er. There are all sorts of attitudes to assume when I jabber away. Humility is probably not a good one.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD »

As usual, you articulated your points well, William. No more politics -- scouts' honour!

See you in the Learning Greek board -- Cheers! :)

-PeterD
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden »

There is an old saying that says the two things people should never discuss is Religion and Politics. I don't agree with this because if you really want to get to know someone these are exactly what you should discuss. I will also agree with Annis that these discussions rarely change anyones opinion, but they are so much FUN.

Lucus Eques - We may not agree on Religous matters but it appears we have many beliefs in common. As to your post I say "well spoken"

Kopio - Welcome to the team

Timothy - I aspire to be as well spoken and articulate as you one day although I know that day will never come.

PeterD - I do not agree with your opinions but I greatly enjoy the debate. Everyone should have the courage to investigate what they believe, speak and defend it whenever possible, and change their conclusions when necessary. I look forward to future discussions.

Thanks to all,

Rhuiden

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD »

Thank you for your kind words, Rhuiden. You are indeed a gentleman.

Take care. :)

-PeterD
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

User avatar
1%homeless
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:21 am
Location: East Hollywood
Contact:

Post by 1%homeless »

Ah! that's a fabulous way to approach international terrorism! just wait till it all works out on its own! Saddam Hussein killed how many of his own people? Thousands? Tens of thousands? When? Pfft, well that was years ago; if he says he's sorry, very, very nicely, we can let him off the hook this time.
I think you took my words out of context. I wasn't talking about international terrorism, I'm just talking about the information and facts. Also, I wasn't suggesting any kind of approach. I was just talking about not having any kinds of politcal feelings or leanings --with regard to myself. I'm highly skeptical of much information in mainstream (or underground) media, and I prefer to either be ambivalent or do meticulous research before I swallow any piece of information. Even then, I (try to) never believe anything 100 percent unless I experience it empirically, but I suppose 90 something percent is enough to let me sleep at night.
Are you serious? Is this some absurd extrapolation from Michael Moore's even absurder insinuation that Bush is responsible for September 11th?
No, I haven't watched the movie. My assumptions just come from vague memories of reading many different things. Sometimes memory only store conclusions and ideas without the source, which is of course useless for arguments when you can not cite specific sources. Since this is a informal chatroom, I didn't see anything wrong with just letting my mind wander a bit or even digressing.

I usually stay away from polictical arguments, but I suppose I couldn't help myself. :) And actually, I wasn't really stating many things. I just mostly asked questions.

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »

PeterD wrote: No more politics -- scouts' honour!



-PeterD
It seems to me that you said, you have two passions; Politics and Greek
So that leaves Greek.
A year or so ago I stumbled on a website perfect for you. http://www.textkit.com
Try it :)

xanthos64
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Because the barbarians are coming today.

Post by xanthos64 »

You said: "When the nasty barbarians don't arrive, the citizens are bewidered and lost."

Perhaps your distance from Ground Zero gives you the aloofness of the poets you describe. But come to where I'm sitting and see the hole still in the ground, and tell me whether the barbaroi didn't arrive.

And your body count is wrong. My country's first casualties occurred on 9/11, and now total nearly 4,000.

palin oikonde neesthai.

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD »

My fellow textkit member,

Thank you for your reply.

Although I am greatly tempted to reply to your message, I did promise to refrain from any future political discourse on the Open Board unless, of course, it relates somehow to the study of that beautiful language called Greek. My word is my bond. I intend to keep it.

Sincerely,

PeterD
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus »

1%homeless wrote:I assume that there are historical examples abound of countries attacking their own citizens to manipulate them into war, but since I don't have any specific examples of this at hand I will not say so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Re: Because the barbarians are coming today.

Post by Democritus »

PeterD wrote:In the prescient poem "Waiting for the Barbarians" (περιμένοντας τοὺς βαρβάρους), written by the great Greek poet Konstantinos P. Kavafys (1863 - 1933), the citizens of the city have gathered along the city's walls to await the arrival of the barbarians
I recently saw this poem mentioned in an entirely different context:

http://www.dailyreckoning.com/home.cfm? ... =4013&tp=a

User avatar
Jefferson Cicero
Textkit Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 6:55 pm
Location: Declivifluminia, Meridiana

Draft

Post by Jefferson Cicero »

This is just an FYI. The source of this information comes from a web group which is also not for political discussion. The U.S. government apparently wants to start a draft which will begin on the 15 of June 2005, after Bush's re-election (if he gets re-elected). Males and females 18-26 will be subject to it. Canada has signed a treaty pledging not to take draft dodgers in like they did during Vietnam. The draft will not just be military, but also 'national service', meaning slave labour at minimun wage until the term of unvoluntary servitude (slavery) is up. In exchange, the released slaves will get the GI bill.

This is now before Congress, and both Parties quietly support it. Kerry will likely implement it if Bush loses the election. The bills are not brand new, they have been around since 2003, and will be passed by Congress as soon as the election is over. They are of course public record, but the media is strangely quiet about them because at least 60% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq.

Why the draft? The reason for it is obvious from information filtering down from people with connexions to intelligence services and media people who likewise have connections. It is obvious that the U.S., by conquering Afghanistan and Iraq, is surrounding Iran in preparation for an attack. The Iranians see it coming. So do some paleo-conservative Americans opposed to the Iraq war. Syria may also be invaded. Since Iran is too big to take without a larger force, the draft will be necessary.

The purpose is to run oil pipelines from Central Asia and the Caucasus through Iran and Iraq to the gulf. The big oil moguls want these two countries under their thumb in order to build and then keep control of the pipelines. This is empire building. Dont be surprised if another 'Pearl Harbour' gets blamed on Iran. This all will cause horrific misery for the world that will have ramifications which may last for generations.

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Re: Draft

Post by klewlis »

Jefferson Cicero wrote:This is just an FYI. The source of this information comes from a web group which is also not for political discussion. The U.S. government apparently wants to start a draft which will begin on the 15 of June 2005, after Bush's re-election (if he gets re-elected). Males and females 18-26 will be subject to it. Canada has signed a treaty pledging not to take draft dodgers in like they did during Vietnam. The draft will not just be military, but also 'national service', meaning slave labour at minimun wage until the term of unvoluntary servitude (slavery) is up. In exchange, the released slaves will get the GI bill.
hm... this sounds so "conspiracy theory". Do you have any *official* sources? I have a hard time just taking the word of a bunch of people on a forum.

(here in Canada our government publishes proposed bills on their website... do you have anything like that?)
First say to yourself what you would be; then do what you need to do. ~Epictetus

Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Timothy »

klewlis, try this:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

I usually find this to be informative.

- tim

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques »

I think that information and resultant conclusion is utterly preposterous. Take, for instance, the fact that more recruits are enlisting and those who have already completed their tour of duty are reenlisting in the service. Here's an article from About.com.
Despite predictions to the contrary, Americans are continuing to volunteer for the military, and those already in are re-enlisting at a vigorous rate.

Early in the war on terrorism, many critics predicted the United States would have to return to the draft to man the forces. But in this 30th year of the all-volunteer force, the military continues to meet recruiting and retention goals.
As for Iran, hopefully the pressure which now surrounds them, in Afghanistan and Iraq, as you mention, will coerce them into changing their ways, both domestically and abroad, and thus avoid an invasion altogether. Of course, if there is an invasion, I highly doubt the kind of trouble which now Coalition forces are facing in Iraq will affect a potential occupying force in Iran; I believe this because most of the insurgents are coming from Iran, due to the fact the Iranian government treats the would-be terrorists who depart across the border into Iraq either with apathy or encouragement. Despite the logistical complications (well within the capabilities of the US military), securing Iran would certainly better secure Iraq and Afghanistan.

Still, I think Sudan ought to be the primary focus at this point. This, though, is another "damned if you do..." situation; if the US leads a force into the Sudan, it's a warmonger; if it doesn't, then "clearly" it just went into Iraq for oil. However, politics aside, I think the security of the very lives of hundreds of thousands of people should come long before opinion polls. Hence my support for our efforts in Iraq.

Which brings me to something I neglected to mention previously. I noted the secondary and tertiary practical reasons for completing the Gulf War in relation to the War on Terrorism (the most important reason, the liberation of the Iraqi people, not qualifying as a practical reason in the most conservative sense of the term), which were, thirdly, to attract all the international terrorists into one spot where they could be eliminated by soldiers in the field, and, secondly, to prevent the potential dissemination of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups. The primary reason for going back into Iraq, however, and finishing the unfinished job of the 1990s, was directly a consequent of Osama bin Laden's attack on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Here is an excerpt from a speech by Osama bin Laden on October 7th, 2001:
Millions of innocent children are being killed as I speak. They are being killed in Iraq without committing any sins, and we don't hear condemnation or a fatwa (religious decree) from the rulers.
The very first justification bin Laden gives for the attacks of September 11th is that it is retaliation for the the United States' constant attacks on Iraq, during the '90s after the cease-fire of the Gulf War in 1991. The No-Fly Zones which the UK and the US enforced required that they eliminate numerous military targets (from radar equipment to anti-aircraft gun turrets to missle launchers) which were placed by Saddam Hussein in the No-Fly Zones; moreover, at the borders of the No-Fly Zones, and from within at some instances, Hussein's military would attack the Allied planes patroling the Zones. Under the terms of the cease-fire, any attack on an Allied target by Hussein's military would break the cease-fire, and allow the Allies to retaliate. Even more importantly — such an attack would reinitiate the Gulf War into full swing. In essence, every time Saddam fired at one of the US or UK planes, it made it completely legal to invade the country again and unleash the fullest force of the Allied power against Iraq. But Saddam both knew we had neither the resources in the area nor the political will to start up the Gulf War again, and so enjoyed calling our bluff and mocking our half-hearted responses. We had to satisfy ourselves with merely eliminating the AA gun turret or surface-to-air missile rack.

Now, clearly Saddam hated these No-Fly Zones; they prevented him from having sovereign control over more than half of his country. Thus he would repeatedly appeal to the international community against certain "injustices," such as the killing of "innocent civilians" in his country, which he claimed the US and UK did deliberately. In reality, of course, neither United nation would do such a thing; and moreover, one of the supposèd deplorable "attacks" was actually staged by one of Saddam's own planes. That Saddam would kill his own people and then exploit their deaths for political gain is, as we are all well aware, not beyond the man's will.

Of course, fanatics like bin Laden bought totally into these farces and tricks by the Mephistopheles of Baghdad. That's part of what he means when he references the "millions of innocent children." The other part relates to the UN and US sanctions placed upon Iraq, which, terribly, had the effect of starving the Iraqi people instead of gutting Saddam's political control, due entirely to Saddam's greedy hold on his country's economic resources, ensuring his maintained power; he would, of course, blame the suffering of the Iraqi people on the United States. The sanctions were Saddam's own fault, naturally; they might have been lifted before the end of 1992, had he complied fully with inspectors and willingly disarmed, and made a true effort to elevate the lives of his subjects in accordance with humanitarian law.

Bin Laden also mentions the second-most prominent reason for his direct attack on America:
To America, I say only a few words to it and its people. I swear by God, who has elevated the skies without pillars, neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine, and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad, peace be upon him.
In other speeches, bin Laden decries the presence of "infidels" on "Muslim" soil, that is, the stationing of thousands of standing US soldiers in Saudi Arabia who supported and flew the missions over Iraq during the '90s. Fanatics like Osama believe it is a deadly crime for any non-Muslim to even be present in Islamic territory, much less an army which ceaselessly attacks other Muslims (hence bin Laden's especial hatred for the House of Saud which assisted and continues to assist America so willfully).

It became very clear after September 11th, since bin Laden's two primary reasons for attacking the United States related directly to Iraq, ammounting to the fact that the Gulf War remained unfinished, (a third of less direct significance being America's support of Israel), that the job in Iraq had to be completed, and Saddam Hussein's blatant violation of international law and terrorism of his people no longer tollerated. Thus President Bush went to Congress, and beseached its approval to remove the vile dictator; and many months later, after giving Saddam Hussein nigh infinite time to change his ways and his country, the invasion of Iraq began again.
L. Amādeus Rāniērius · Λ. Θεόφιλος Ῥᾱνιήριος 🦂

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

User avatar
Jefferson Cicero
Textkit Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 6:55 pm
Location: Declivifluminia, Meridiana

Post by Jefferson Cicero »

Here is a link: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

I admit that the prediction of a possible 'Pearl Harbour' scenario might sound conspiracy theory-ish, but things like that do happen. They can range from Roosevelt's finagling with the Japanese to force them into a corner out of which they would have to come out fighting, to Bismarcks letter that caused the Franco-Prussian war, to Lincoln's letter to the Governor of South Carolina in 1861 which contained thinly vieled threats designed to cause a reaction, resulting in the incident at Fort Sumter. That sort of thing is done all the time, by war-mongers who wish to make those against whom they wish to wage an unjustified war seem like the aggressors in the eyes of the rest of the world, thus avoiding the blame for it, and presenting themselves as victims merely fighting a defensive war or as 'great liberators'.

However, I admit that 'another Pearl Harbour' was a strong phrase to use, and ill advised, because they can blame September 11 on whomever they wish.

As for forcing the Iranians to 'change their ways'. It ain't gonna happen. We can get tied down for decades trying to subdue the Iranian people, and eventually have to withdraw in disgrace anyway. We are going to lose the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars in the end no matter what, and we will eventually lose the Iranian war as well, because we have no idea what 'victory' is going to be, or how to recognise it if we achieve it. You can talk all you want about Hussein's alleged involvement in terrorism, but that has alrady been proven to be nothing more than a conspiracy threory itself, based on lies. He had no WMDs. He was no threat to us. The war was nothing but pure naked aggression. Meanwhile, the Patriot acts have destroyed what was left of our ancient liberties.

This could be the end of the road for the declining Empire and few have enough sense to see it. Our leaders are mad, and hubris is deadly to those who wield it against the rest of the world. A major defeat like that will the mean the end of America's global power and the end of U.S. world dominance, resulting in far less security here at home than we ever had before Spetember 11 or afterwards.

Justify this evil any way you like, and follow your leaders down the primrose path to 'peace, democracy', etc., etc. I will not participate in this madness.

I say what I say here not to be harsh or hateful. I merely wanted to inform those following this thread about the draft since the war was already being discussed in it anyway. I do not wish to offend or cause hard feelings.

Those who wish to respond to this posting of course may do so, but I will say no more on this subject here on this website.

User avatar
Jefferson Cicero
Textkit Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 6:55 pm
Location: Declivifluminia, Meridiana

Post by Jefferson Cicero »

:oops:
Last edited by Jefferson Cicero on Thu Jul 29, 2004 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jefferson Cicero
Textkit Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 6:55 pm
Location: Declivifluminia, Meridiana

Post by Jefferson Cicero »

:oops:
Last edited by Jefferson Cicero on Thu Jul 29, 2004 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jefferson Cicero
Textkit Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 6:55 pm
Location: Declivifluminia, Meridiana

Post by Jefferson Cicero »

I apologise for the triple posting of the same message. When I pushed the button to post the message, I got no indication that the message had been posted, so I pushed again, and again. :oops:

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques »

As for the required public service bill, I think the idea is interesting, though it smacks of Communism rather bluntly. Germany has such a system, where every young man is required two years of military training. It's a fascinating way to discipline a people. However, America's gotten along without such a form of manditory service before; let us pray we may go on without it henceforth.
They can range from Roosevelt's finagling with the Japanese to force them into a corner out of which they would have to come out fighting, to Bismarcks letter that caused the Franco-Prussian war, to Lincoln's letter to the Governor of South Carolina in 1861 which contained thinly vieled threats designed to cause a reaction, resulting in the incident at Fort Sumter. That sort of thing is done all the time, by war-mongers who wish to make those against whom they wish to wage an unjustified war seem like the aggressors in the eyes of the rest of the world, thus avoiding the blame for it, and presenting themselves as victims merely fighting a defensive war or as 'great liberators'.
Umm... "war-mongers"? Lincoln and Roosevelt are warmongers? You name yourself "Jefferson Cicero;" I hope you don't mean to suggest an admiration for Jefferson Davis, who did indeed believe that Lincoln was a warmonger for invading what he believed was his country. The realty of the situation is that it was not legally possible for the South, or any State, to secede from the Union; there is no such provision in the Consitution, to which every State is bound. Thus Lincoln, the radically liberal Republican, brought armies against the Rebel Confederates to subdue their attempt at secession, and to liberate the slaves from their bondage. As for Roosevelt, he too, as Lincoln, was a great liberator, not a warmonger. The Japanese Empire was a warmonger, in its endless attacks on China and the surrounding territories, gobbling up the Pacific like an insatiable beast. They made the mistake of provoking the United States and bringing it into the Second World War. Truman, in addition, also qualifies as a "great liberator," for he had to make the terrible choice: kill thousands of Japanese at once and instantly end the war, or allow millions of Japanese and Americans to die in a long, drawn-out, and much more terrible war. He made the right decision. The United States freed the Japanese people, giving them democracy, and they became one of the most industrious and productive and free societies in the world. The same is just as true for Germany. I believe the same will be true for Iraq. From greatest hardship comes even greater liberty and prosperity.
You can talk all you want about Hussein's alleged involvement in terrorism, but that has alrady been proven to be nothing more than a conspiracy threory itself, based on lies.
Against you haven't heard; Saddam Hussein killed over a million of his own people, from the chemical weapon attacks on the Shi'ites and the Kurds, to the endless numbers of "suspects" he spirited away, much as Stalin of his own people during his reign of terror in the USSR. We've found the mass graves. He and his sons and their subbordinates were among the worst of the terrorists in the world. I believe terrorism should be stopped wherever it lies. All nations of liberty and peace have the obligation as free human beings to grant that gift to others less fortunate. So has it been granted to the Afghanis. So has it been granted to the Iraqis. So was it given to the Germans, the Japanese, the Bosnians. As they suffered in terror, now they grow in peace. I believe our actions of late have been fundamentally good and well-intentioned, just as they were sixty years hence.
Meanwhile, the Patriot acts have destroyed what was left of our ancient liberties.
*chuckles* Oh yah? Like... freedom of speech? But yet, you and I both are expressing our opinions in the most open and unrestricted of manners. What about freedom of the press? No, the press is still going strong, largely against the present Adminstration. Scanning the Bill of Rights, what else do we have ... there's still the right to bear arms, right to practice of religion, to protest; none of our soldiers force random families to house them; no one can be searched or have his property seized without a proper warrant; criminals and innocents alike on trial may have legal counsel, and do not have to speak if they fear it shall incriminate them ... seems to me they're all intact. I certianly haven't been "infringed" upon. Have you?
I will not participate in this madness.
The beautiful thing about our country: you don't have to. There is no draft. There is no torture. We live free, and you are free to live your own life. So are we all. May we be thankful for that.
L. Amādeus Rāniērius · Λ. Θεόφιλος Ῥᾱνιήριος 🦂

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

Post Reply