It's deeply ironic that Eric Garris (in the article linked below) quotes Malaysia's former prime minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad as saying (in defending the decision to allow Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe the opportunity, eventually declined by Mugabe in the face of expected protests, to speak at the anti-war conference), "Everybody can attend. If he wants to say how good it is to be a dictator, he can."
It's ironic because Dr. Mahathir could have easily given the "joy of dictatorship" talk himself, considering that he wielded autocratic power in Malaysia for 22 years until making way for his hand-picked successor two years ago.
Garris -- who along with Justin Raimondo was an invited speaker at the international conference hosted by Dr. Mahathir, according to his article -- quotes Dr. Mahathir with a straight face and reports positively on the former leader's role in the event with nary a mention of his autocratic history. It makes one wonder about the integrity of AntiWar.com these days.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
P.S. - These two choice quotes from King George II, found at Wikipedia's entry on Dr. Matathir <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahathir_Mohamad>, were too good to pass up:
""(Malaysia's) Internal Security Act is a draconian law. No country should any longer have laws that allow for detention without trial."
-U.S. president George W. Bush, 2001
"We cannot simply classify Malaysia’s Internal Security Act as a draconian law."
-U.S. president George W. Bush, 2004
Dear Derek;
Here's another one for you as reported on antiwar.com
World Peace Forum Moves to Create International Peace Secretariat - Antiwar.com
It's about a global anti-war group whose goal is to give "the people" the right to decide if their government should go to war.
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianDear Derek;
All well and good - but due to our unique geographical position the
only peoples we need fear who could invade us is Mexico or Canada.At the present time I don't believe either is planning on an
outright invasion of the US.Mexico is of course using the "silent invasion" of immigration both
overt legal and covert illegal. Canada I'm not to sure about.This is why I still believe good old George Washington had it
right, " No entangling alliances."Free trade rules!!! Not free war!!!
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
wrote:
>
> Ron:
>
> Let's suppose that one agreed entirely with what you say. What do
you say
> to the problem that hostile autocratic regimes tend to be far
better
> militarily organized than any peaceful anarchic society that
relied solely
> upon voluntary contributions to finance a war and individual
efforts in
> fighting it? Seems to me, such a society would not last long
under the laws
> of the jungle (in a geopolitical sense)
>
> A response which I have heard, which I find very naive and
dangerous is
> "well, those countries would see how peaceful our society is and
thus have
> no reason to want to attack us because we are an important trading
> partner".
>
> I would love to live in a world where military was not necessary.
However,
> due to human nature and it's various vices, I don't think such a
world is
> possible. That's why I'm a minarchist, and not an anarchist.
That's why I
> believe the US needs to have allies in the world and stick up for
those
> allies when they are attacked or menaced.
>
> -Derek
>
> >
> > Dear Starchild;
> >
> > Any war - any where - at any time is the STATE using its
resources and its
> > people to kill another STATEs people and their resources - this
globally
> > speaking is wrong. You defend against aggression on your State
and your
> > people.
> >
> > Iraq did not have the resources to invade the US - Grenada did
not have
> > the resources to invade the US - Panama did not have the
resources to invade
> > the US - N. Vietnam did not have the resources to invade the US.
> >
> > When you go looking for trouble as a STATE you will find it and
this means
> > the use of the STATES people and its resources for an end
without a means.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > *Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>* wrote:
> >
> > I've pointed out in previous discussions of Iraq that according
to
> > some of the anti-interventionists' own numbers, many more Iraqis
were
> > dying under the sanctions that preceded the most recent chapter
of the
> > Gulf War, than in the war itself or the low-intensity conflict
which
> > has followed. This begs the question, why does there seem to be
so much
> > more opposition to U.S. government (USgov) policy on Iraq now
than
> > there was during the sanctions period? Two major reasons:
> >
> > (1) Iraq is much more in the news now
> > (2) It's easier and "sexier" to be against "war" than to oppose
> > sanctions (even though calling the opposition to Bush
administration
> > policy on Iraq "anti-war" is inaccurate, as I explain below)
> >
> > Most of the opposition to Bush administration policy in Iraq is
NOT
> > anti-war per se, despite the language generally used by people
on both
> > sides of the debate in the United States. An honest evaluation
of the
> > politics involved should acknowledge that it's not the war as a
whole
> > that's being protested (i.e. the actions of BOTH sides in the
> > conflict), nor is it even the military operations being
conducted by
> > USgov troops in Iraq that are the focus opposition. Rather it is
the
> > very fact that the USgov has a military presence in Iraq at all.
> >
> > If the USgov military role in Iraq were limited to a strictly
> > defensive one (attempting to safeguard the newly elected Iraqi
> > government, protect civilians and infrastructure, and so on), I
don't
> > think the level of opposition to administration policy would
> > significantly decrease. In fact opposition might soon increase,
because
> > without an offensive component to USgov military operations in
Iraq,
> > the insurgents would probably be able to consolidate their
positions,
> > and with secure bases, soon be in a position to kill more USgov
and
> > affiliated NGO personnel in Iraq, and it is American casualties
more
> > than anything that fuels the opposition (see reason #1 above).
> >
> > A true anti-war movement that was motivated primarily by a
concern for
> > human life might ask questions such as:
> >
> > (1) Where is war inflicting the most human suffering right now?
(Hint:
> > It isn't Iraq)
> > (2) Would the withdrawal of USgov forces from Iraq stop the war
there,
> > or threaten to make it longer and bloodier?
> > (3) Who is responsible for the worst abuses in the Iraq
conflict, and
> > how can we get the combatants in Iraq to adopt more humane rules
of war?
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< Starchild >>>
> >
> > On Sunday, December 18, 2005, at 02:16 PM, tradergroupe wrote (in
> > part):
> >
> > > How many children were killed under this and the previous
> > > administrations? Try 500,000. Or as a US Secretary of State
Madeline
> > > Albright said in a recorded interview after being asked about
those
> > > childrens deaths, "It was worth it".
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > - Visit your group "lpsf-
activists<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos;
> > on the web.
> >
> > - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<lpsf-activists-
unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
>
> --
> View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
>
> Illegitimis non carborundum
>SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>