Dear Everyone;
Some food for thought from some observations made by Butler Shaffer after seeing the movie V for Vendetta.
A quote: �chaos always defeats order because it is better organized�
Any kind of resistance to tyranny is bound to strike terror into the hearts of members of the established order. Thus were the American colonials and Mohandas Gandhi �terrorists� to the British; the Warsaw ghetto uprisings and the French underground movements �terrorist� actions to the German government; and the organized resistance of Algerians acts of �terrorism� to the French. Even today, the Iraqi resistance to the destruction and domination of their country is regarded as �terrorism� by the invading American state!
Anarcho-capitalistic Libertarianism forever!!! Down with the Neo-con Bushtapo!!!
Ron Getty
SF LIbertarian
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Derek,
All depends on the verbs you want to use.
Granted, the US is not trying to "subjugate and annex" Iraq.
It IS trying to impose and mold, a Western Culture upon a
fundamentalist Islamic one.
Whether it is not working very well because the people there don't
want it, or whether it is not working well
because 'extremist' 'terrorists' keep blowing things up and kiiling
people, I am not certain.
But working well, it ain't. The Chronicle had an article the other
day, showing that, by every measure, the Iraqi infrastructure is
less effective than it was before the invasion.
And at home, we've blown off, I've lost track of the figure, $300
billion(?) so far, huge chunks of the Constitution, and any respect
for what some might have presumed was our military might and
competence.
How bad do things have to get before it can be gracefully conceded
that the invasion was a mistake?
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
The difference between your examples and the war in iraq is that
the US
isn't trying to subjugate and and annex Iraq under US control.
Once the elected government of Iraq asks us to leave, I have no
doubt we
Dear Derek;
If the US isn't trying to subjugate and annex Iraq how's come we're
still there three years later as an Army Of Occupation?? And it
doesn't mean any difference if the Iraqis fighting back are called
freedom fighters - guerillas - insurgents - terrorists - hoodlums or
whatever they all want the same thing the USA out of Iraq -
yesterday!!!
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
The difference between your examples and the war in iraq is that
the US
isn't trying to subjugate and and annex Iraq under US control.
Once the elected government of Iraq asks us to leave, I have no
doubt we
will.
>
> Dear Everyone;
>
> Some food for thought from some observations made by Butler
Shaffer after
> seeing the movie *V for Vendetta.*
>
> A quote: "chaos always defeats order because it is better
organized"
>
> Any kind of resistance to tyranny is bound to strike terror into
the
> hearts of members of the established order. Thus were the
American colonials
> and Mohandas Gandhi "terrorists" to the British; the Warsaw
ghetto uprisings
> and the French underground movements "terrorist" actions to the
German
> government; and the organized resistance of Algerians acts
of "terrorism" to
> the French. Even today, the Iraqi resistance to the destruction
and
> domination of their country is regarded as "terrorism" by the
invading
> American state!
>
> Anarcho-capitalistic Libertarianism forever!!! Down with the
Neo-con
> Bushtapo!!!
>
> Ron Getty
> SF LIbertarian
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> U s government grant<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=U+s+government+grant&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=Libertarian+pa
rty&w3=California+politics&c=3&s=74&.sig=5K3E1g4nmGAVDNRdiNIwSg>
Libertarian
> party<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Libertarian+party&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=Libertarian+party
&w3=California+politics&c=3&s=74&.sig=GvNXevqD3Tr1DNuuPmVv5w>
California
> politics<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=California+politics&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=Libertarian+par
ty&w3=California+politics&c=3&s=74&.sig=e8QviIvjQi9cnDhgMOSVng>
> ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> - Visit your group "lpsf-
discuss<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss>"
> on the web.
>
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<lpsf-discuss-
unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Hard to say, Derek. Do YOU know?
By "Iraqi", do you mean a Shiite Iraqi opposing Sunnis, a Sunni
Iraqi opposing Shiites, a Kurd Iraqi opposing both, a fundamentalist
Iraqi, a europeanized Iraqi, a pissed off adolescent Iraqi, a
competent Iraqi soldier deprived of his former job, an Iraqi taking
revenge for the (probably) accidental killing of a relative by US
troops (three years ago, or yesterday), Iraqi thieves and hooligans
who blow up convoys just to get at European goods, or the real McCoy
Iraqis who are conscious followers of Bin Laden?
And why does it matter?
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
How many of those fighting back are actually iraqis?
>
> Dear Derek;
>
> If the US isn't trying to subjugate and annex Iraq how's come
we're
> still there three years later as an Army Of Occupation?? And it
> doesn't mean any difference if the Iraqis fighting back are
called
> freedom fighters - guerillas - insurgents - terrorists -
hoodlums or
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Thanks for clearing that up, Derek.
They're Swiss, I believe the reference claims?
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
Allen:
82.4% of the so-called insurgents are actually not Iraqi.
Derek
>
>
>
> Hard to say, Derek. Do YOU know?
>
> By "Iraqi", do you mean a Shiite Iraqi opposing Sunnis, a Sunni
> Iraqi opposing Shiites, a Kurd Iraqi opposing both, a
fundamentalist
> Iraqi, a europeanized Iraqi, a pissed off adolescent Iraqi, a
> competent Iraqi soldier deprived of his former job, an Iraqi
taking
> revenge for the (probably) accidental killing of a relative by US
> troops (three years ago, or yesterday), Iraqi thieves and
hooligans
> who blow up convoys just to get at European goods, or the real
McCoy
> Iraqis who are conscious followers of Bin Laden?
>
> And why does it matter?
>
> Allen Rice
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
> wrote:
> >
> > How many of those fighting back are actually iraqis?
> >
> > >
> > > Dear Derek;
> > >
> > > If the US isn't trying to subjugate and annex Iraq how's come
> we're
> > > still there three years later as an Army Of Occupation?? And
it
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Derek, Is it monday morning
quarte backing to know that
every Crusade began the
same way, easy victory of
shock and awe followed by
the slow and steady bleed
of occupation. Is it Monday
Morning Quaterbacking to
know that every single war
the US has been in was
started under false
pretenses and or US
governmant secret
provocation and or US
government prior
knowledge , including Pearl
Harbor and The Tonkin Gulf
and the Lusitania and the
Maine. Is it monday
morning quaterbacking to
know that the Constitution
demands a declaration of
War be made by Congress
and Congress should have
investigated, and held
hearings and held serious
deliberations about what to
do instead of letting the
President bully the congress
into a resolution.
Unfortunately you are in
company with other
libertarians, check out Mark
Seltzers website, he even
says he'd do the Iraq
invasion knowing what he
knows now, somehow, this
leads me to suspect that his
loyalties lie waaay east of
Philadelphia. Maybe the
expression should be
Monday Morning instant
replay.
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Derek,
No, these are the real time concerns that anyone not in the grip of
neoconservative hubris would have considered before invading Iraq.
And, either way, the question still stands:
"How bad do things have to get before it can be gracefully conceded
that the invasion was a mistake?"
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
Allen:
This is the MondayMorningQuarterback version of why we should not
have
liberated Iraq.
>
> Derek,
>
> All depends on the verbs you want to use.
>
> Granted, the US is not trying to "subjugate and annex" Iraq.
>
> It IS trying to impose and mold, a Western Culture upon a
> fundamentalist Islamic one.
>
> Whether it is not working very well because the people there
don't
> want it, or whether it is not working well
> because 'extremist' 'terrorists' keep blowing things up and
kiiling
> people, I am not certain.
>
> But working well, it ain't. The Chronicle had an article the
other
> day, showing that, by every measure, the Iraqi infrastructure is
> less effective than it was before the invasion.
>
> And at home, we've blown off, I've lost track of the figure, $300
> billion(?) so far, huge chunks of the Constitution, and any
respect
> for what some might have presumed was our military might and
> competence.
>
> How bad do things have to get before it can be gracefully
conceded
> that the invasion was a mistake?
>
> Allen Rice
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
> wrote:
> >
> > The difference between your examples and the war in iraq is
that
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Was this war sold to the American public as a way of bringing democracy to Iraq or was it sold by exploiting 9/11 fears using falsified WMD evidence?
Either way, would you advocate the invasion of all non-democracies that possess WMD? Should we start with Pakistan and North Korea?
-- Steve
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Derek,
Consider yourself indulged.
1) In order to answer this, I would first need to know who these
purported "Islamofascists" are. If you mean this contrived
portmanteau word to refer to Bin Laden and his crowd, it doesn't.
Fascist in my dictionary has overtones of being a centralized
dictatorship. Bin Laden, in that book you recommended to me (_Bin
Laden Speaks: Messages to the World_) is clear that what he is
after is a dispersed theocracy, under the guidance of God.
2) Here I deny the initial premise. I have never claimed that the
US should "pull all of our troops back to the United States, and
refuse to 'interfere' in any foreign disputes", so I not going to
waste time defending any such rigid ideology. Offhand, I think US
involvement in WWII was a good idea; possibly also Korea; I was
51/49 on the First Gulf War.
3) For myself, I cannot think of any instance where just
a "gathering threat" would justify "premptive action", if by that
euphemism you are actually meaning war. To engage in war would
require at least that:
i) an actual injury had already been done,
ii) the identity of the guilty party was known to a high degree of
certitude, and
iii) there was solid evidence that the behaviour would be repeated,
by the guilty party.
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
Allen:
If you would indulge me, I'd like to ask you a few questions.
1. How serious a threat do you believe Islamofascism to be to our
way of
life in the West?
2. If the US was to pull all of our troops back to the United
States, and
refuse to "interfere" in any foreign disputes,
A. Do you think the net suffering in the world would
increase or
decrease?
B. Would tinhorn dictators see this as a development
encouraging or
discouraging menacing behavior?
C. Would China and Russia see this as encouraging or
thwarting their
plans to expand their sphere's of influence?
3. At what point is a "gathering threat" enough of a threat to
warrant
pre-emptive action?
>
>
>
> Derek,
>
> No, these are the real time concerns that anyone not in the grip
of
> neoconservative hubris would have considered before invading
Iraq.
>
> And, either way, the question still stands:
>
> "How bad do things have to get before it can be gracefully
conceded
Neither North Korea nor Pakistan has attacked their neighbors in the last 30 years. If and when either of them gets to the point where an attack by them on either the US, US interests or US allies seems imminent, then a pre-emptive strike should be on the table. Both situations are unfortunately complicated by the known presence of WMD in those countries.
Ok, so it seems your criteria for invasion targets is:
1) not a democracy
2) have attacked a foreign country in last 30 years
3) unknown WMDs status(?)
Is Iraq the only country that meets these?
If not, how many of those other countries should the US be invading?
I don't know what you mean about "falsified WMD evidence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery
"The term Yellowcake Forgery refers to falsified classified documents initially "uncovered" by Italian intelligence which possibly depicted an attempt by Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime to purchase yellowcake uranium from the country of Niger, in defiance of United Nations sanctions."
-- Steve
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
"Does the _belligerent_ country under consideration pose a
demonstrable, hostile _threat_, and would [our nation's] interests
be furthered by a pre-emptive strike?"
Really? That's all? Why can I imagine Hitler using this rationale,
indeed writing it all down beforehand in that book of his that no
one read?
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
Those aren't my invasion criteria. You've collected a few remarks
and tried
to construct an arbitrary set of criteria.
Here is my criteria: Does the belligerent country under
consideration pose
a demonstrable, hostile threat, and would American interests be
furthered by
a pre-emptive strike?
That's it. Each case is to be taken on a case by case basis. To
have a
formulaic approach, that certain boxes have to be ticked, or not
ticked, is
unwise.
As far as who we should invade next? I don't see anything
requiring
imminent action right now, but Iran is close. North Korea, and
Syria
should both be nervous. Iraq was only the down payment.
By the way, we are only 5 days away from March 28th, which is when
Paul
Lovinger of the "War and Law League" here in San Francisco
confidently
predicted the US would launch a nuclear attack against Iran. We
shall see.
>
>
> > Neither North Korea nor Pakistan has attacked their neighbors
in the
> > last 30 years. If and when either of them gets to the point
where an
> > attack by them on either the US, US interests or US allies
seems
> > imminent, then a pre-emptive strike should be onthe table. Both
> > situations are unfortunately complicated by the known presence
of WMD
> > in those countries.
>
> Ok, so it seems your criteria for invasion targets is:
>
> 1) not a democracy
> 2) have attacked a foreign country in last 30 years
> 3) unknown WMDs status(?)
>
> Is Iraq the only country that meets these?
> If not, how many of those other countries should the US be
invading?
>
> > I don't know what you mean about "falsified WMD evidence".
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery
>
> "The term Yellowcake Forgery refers to falsified classified
documents
> initially "uncovered" by Italian intelligence which possibly
depicted
I'm not so sure about how liberal and
representative Kurdistan and Afganistan
are or will be in the future, if there ever
even is a Kurdistan, As for Germany,
Austria, Holland, The Nethelands,
Belgioum, and even Kosovo, and
kurdistan, and Afganistan, all these
countries were ruled by either liberal
democracies, liberal monarchies, or very
loose, almost anarcho capilist, empires
prior to world war one. If the US
governmnt had not tricked and forced
the citizens to fight in World War One,
the war to make the world safe for
Semocracy and end all wars probably
would have ended in a negotiated
stalemate, Germany would not have
been humiliated and bankrupted by the
treaty of Versailes, the borders of Iraq
would never have been created out of
thin air, and all the countries you
mentioned above would have probably
been spared the horror of Nazi Germany
and World War Two, so please please,
don't tell me again how wonderful and
liberating the US government's
fabricated foreign wars have been, oh,
and the long term verdict on Japan's
Democracy is not yet in, nor, for that
matter Korea's. China seems to be
liberalizing in it's own way, and Iran was
clearly set back by the CIA's mucking
whith the hated Shah, so Derek dear,
it's time to get off your pretty derrier and
turn off Fox news.