Re: "peace group" sabotage
- Dear Eric,
Right on! Sock it to them! This confirms my
suspicions that much of the "peace" movement in
North America and Europe are nothing but Jew
saboteurs. It's amazing that this "It's OK
to occupy Iraq but do it under U.N. auspices"
has any credibility. That speaks volumes on
how severely the American left has been
brainwashed by these enemy agents.
In other news, Arizona Congressman J.D.
Hayworth has launched a petition drive to
demand that Columbia University fire Dr.
De Genova. Given that this university is in
New York rather than Arizona, one wonders
why Mr. Hayworth is so interested in it.
I am gratified that Dr. De Genova's explanatory
comments don't contain the slightest hint of
an apology. I think he will probably lose
his job over this before all is said and
done, but at least he's going down fighting!
Jonah Goldberg wrote a lengthy column on
why De Genova is anti-American. Naturally
one must take statements by someone named
Goldberg who claims to be an expert on what
is and is not American with a grain of salt :-)
>I recieved a letter from the "peace group "move on"
>which you can find below. They are calling on peace
>supporters to urge the UN-ization of the planned US
>occupation of Iraq.
>I responded to them in a calm and reasonable way,
>though that was difficult, considering what they were
>saying. (I said "with due respects, and of course I
>think no respect is due them, but maybe this will help
>get them to think." If not, they've been warned.
>I hope my remarks get beyond the small coterie that
>presumably runs their group.
>With due respects, this is outrageous. Iraq is a
>sovereign state. Handing it to the UN or occupying it
>with US troops are both colonialist "solutions". They
>belong back in the 19th century.
>The government of Iraq is in Baghdad. It is under an
>illegal attack. Iraq is now being criminally invaded.
> The government in Baghdad is leading a stiff,
>stubborn resistance, with the obvious support of the
>An advocate of peace must oppose ANY plans or
>programmes that aim at building on or benefitting from
>this illegal aggression and the proposed occupation or
>that serve to legitimise it.
>The call we should raise is for the US and British
>aggressor troops to be withdrawn IMMEDIATELY.
>Iraq's future is a matter for Iraqis, not for the UN
>or the US.
>Bringing the UN in will only give a kind of
>international-law-stamp-of-approval to the
>Anglo-American illegal aggression and subsequent
>colonialist occupation. It would amount to the
>resurrection of the colonialist system of League of
>What else are you going to propse? Maybe putting
>Black people in chains so their future can be arranged
>--- "Eli Pariser, MoveOn.Org"
>> Dear MoveOn member,
>> The war with Iraq continues. No one knows if it
>> will last weeks,
>> months, or years. Even after the fighting stops in
>> Iraq, the fallout
>> from this war could span decades. We can only hope
>> that it ends
>> quickly, with an absolute minimum loss of life.
>> Even as the troops march towards Baghdad, a big
>> controversy is brewing
>> over what will happen when the war does end. The
>> like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard
>> Perle envision a
>> longer U.S. occupation of Iraq, directed entirely by
>> the Pentagon and
>> with only minimal participation by other countries
>> and the U.N. Their
>> scheme calls for setting up a provisional government
>> in which
>> Americans head each of the 23 ministries. In
>> essence, they want to
>> win the peace the way the U.S. has pushed for war:
>> The U.S. State Department, the C.I.A., Prime
>> Minister Tony Blair, the
>> major humanitarian relief organizations, France,
>> Germany, and most of
>> the rest of the countries in the world disagree with
>> this plan.
>> They'd like to see the reconstruction of Iraq as a
>> international effort lead by the U.N. And many of
>> them believe the
>> Pentagon plan is a recipe for disaster.
>> The decision on how post-war Iraq is to be managed
>> will be made in the
>> next several days, and the Administration is split.
>> The consequences
>> will play out in Iraq and around the world for
>> generations. By writing
>> a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, you
>> can help to sway
>> the balance away from the unilateralism that has
>> done so much damage
>> and toward a collective rebuilding process.
>> We've made it easy for you to send a letter by
>> providing some detailed
>> talking points below. Here are some tips on how to
>> make the most of
>> (1) Your newspaper's letters page should give you an
>> email address or
>> fax number to use, or you can try this website:
>> (2) Your own words, written from the heart, are
>> always best.
>> (3) Brevity is the soul of wit.
>> (4) The key to publication is to pounce on something
>> specific you've
>> seen in the newspaper -- especially an editorial or
>> op-ed article.
>> The issue of post-war Iraq has been in the news a
>> lot lately -- try to
>> cite a specific article when you write.
>> (5) Be sure to include your name and address, and
>> especially your
>> phone number when submitting your letter. Editors
>> need to call you to
>> verify authorship before they can print your letter.
>> They don't print
>> your phone number.
>> (6) Please let us know when you've sent your letter
>> by going to:
>> Here's why big parts of our own government, and the
>> governments of
>> many other countries, oppose having the Pentagon
>> reconstruct Iraq:
>> * Many major relief organizations believe that it
>> will be difficult
>> or impossible to help starving or malnourished
>> people in a
>> Pentagon-controlled Iraq. Relief has never been a
>> priority for the
>> Pentagon, and in many cases the U.S. simply lacks
>> the expertise to
>> distribute food and medical aid effectively. (For
>> more info, go to:
>> * At the State Department, officials worry that not
>> including the
>> U.N. in post-war planning could heighten tensions
>> between the U.S. and
>> other important allies. A recent L.A. Times article
>> quoted one
>> Administration official as saying, "We're on the
>> verge of further
>> alienating allies. . . And it looks like we're going
>> to do exactly
>> what we promised we wouldn't -- take small groups of
>> exiles with
>> limited influence in Iraq and bring them in as the
>> bulk of a
>> transition government." (The article is linked to
>> * Many Administration officials worry that a
>> U.S.-led reconstruction
>> effort will be regarded with suspicion or even
>> hostility by Iraqis,
>> who have already shown that they do not welcome
>> foreign intruders.
>> (Washington Post, April 2, 2003) In other words, if
>> lead by the U.S.,
>> an Iraqi government may simply fail. That could
>> leave Iraq in the
>> hands of another Saddam Hussein.
>> * British Prime Minister Tony Blair worries that if
>> post-war Iraq is
>> not in the hands of the U.N., other countries may be
>> reticent to play
>> a significant role in the reconstruction of the
>> country. According to
>> the L.A. Times, "Blair sees the move as critical to
>> winning support
>> from donor nations and to preventing a political
>> backlash and new
>> terrorism from an increasingly angry Arab world."
>> Your letter doesn't have to go into these details.
>> Here are some key
>> points you can touch on:
>> * A U.S. occupation of post-war Iraq could incite
>> hatred in the Arab world, and could breed more
>> * Major humanitarian organizations believe the
>> Pentagon's leadership
>> could put relief workers and starving and
>> malnourished Iraqis at risk.
>> * U.S. control of the reconstruction process will
>> further alienate
>> our already estranged allies, and could create a
>> permanent rift
>> between us and the countries we rely upon for
>> cooperation in the war
>> on terrorism.
>> * The amount of money available for the rebuilding
>> of Iraq will
>> depend on the degree to which other countries feel
>> included in
>> the decision-making process. A U.S.-only process
>> could lead
>> potential donor countries to drop out.
>> * The U.N. is equipped to build democracies; the
>> United States
>> government has neither the expertise nor the
>> long-term political will
>> to see such a process through.
>> Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon want a U.S.
>> occupation of Iraq.
>> That could have disastrous consequences, not only
>> for the U.S., but
>> for the future of democracy in Iraq. As Prime
>> Minister Blair said,
>> "Iraq in the end should not be run by the Americans,
>> should not be run
>> by the British, should not be run by any outside
>> force or power. It
>> should be run for the first time in decades by the
>> Iraqi people."
>> --Carrie, Eli, Joan, Peter, Wes, and Zack
>> The MoveOn Team
>> April 3rd, 2003
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more