Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: imperialist shell game

Expand Messages
  • thekoba@aztec.asu.edu
    ... Mr. Bronke: It [the UN] can make mistakes too. ????!!! Mistakes???!!! You call the willful killing of two million civilians a mistake? Hello! I ve met
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 27, 2002
      >I appreciate your efforts. I've been trying to learn how Iraq didn't get
      >access to a simple substance like chlorine which is what I gather caused the
      >deaths of those children. I am not sure on how to feel about Congress
      >approving the attack in 98 without the UN Sec Council approval when we were
      >clearly orchestrating the inspections to gather information on non WMD
      >targets. Of course that info the Congress didn't have at the time. The other
      >argument which I feel is valid is that we keep pumping weapons in to Israel
      >when the UN Res 687 does appy reduction of weapons to the entire area. Some
      >of our advisors are in denial of that right now.
      >
      >I do feel that we just can't dismiss completely the UN. It can make mistakes
      >too.
      >
      >
      >Jim Bronke
      >www.USACritic.com

      Mr. Bronke:

      "It [the UN] can make mistakes too."????!!! Mistakes???!!! You call the
      willful killing of two million civilians a mistake? Hello! I've met
      you in person. I find it difficult to believe you are that callous or
      that stupid.

      As to your other statements, I have told you the UN does not represent
      the world's people, it represents imperialism. I don't care which branch
      of imperialism sanctions a crime or whether they coordinate with one another.
      The point of the peace movement is to stop the crime, not support one
      criminal over another. So, no, I don't give a rat's ass whether Congress
      asks permission of the Security Council before attacking Iraq or not.
      It will be no less wicked an act either way.

      What I want, and what every REAL member of the peace movement wants, is
      for there to be NO WAR, whether endorsed by the UN or just the USA.

      No peace activists endorse imperialist war. If you endorse the UN, you
      are endorsing imperialist war, and you are objectively in the camp of the
      war mongers, whether you know it subjectively or not. You and others like
      you who plug the UN in the name of peace and justice are either idiots or
      hypocrites and liars. Give me honest enemies like Bush rather than "friends"
      like you.

      --Kevin Walsh
    • thekoba@aztec.asu.edu
      ... There s the Korean War, that mistake that also cost two million lives. Still, even if we forget that little mistake , the Gulf War is quite enough. It
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 27, 2002
        >You are reading deeper in to my concepts than I am. I don't think the UN has
        >ever sanctioned a war except the Gulf War.

        There's the Korean War, that "mistake" that also cost two million lives.
        Still, even if we forget that little "mistake", the Gulf War is quite enough.
        It was no mistake to take on Iraq to secure cheap oil and the protection of
        Israel. It was an act of imperialist plunder to which the elder Bush and
        his allies were emboldened by the withdrawal of the USSR from the Cold War.
        When Brezhnev was rightfully pointing missiles at the imperialists, they
        wouldn't have dared pull a stunt like that, not in the Eastern Hemisphere
        anyway.

        Indeed, the whole reason the UN didn't sanction wars between the Korean
        War and the Gulf War was that the UN was divided between the imperialists
        and the socialists. Well the imperialists have won control over the UN,
        so it's only logical that the UN starts advocating imperialist wars and
        murderous sanctions to support imperialism.

        >some people are saying now that
        >Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "mistakes".

        The same people who dismissed Pearl Harbour as "random acts of vandalism".

        >I don't believe that war is
        >necessary or is the natural byproduct of the UN being involved. It is a way
        >of dodging the war bullet by forcing more diplomacy, however.

        The UN wants inspections of Iraq (but hypocritically not of Israel, Britain
        or the USA). Iraq shouldn't have to undergo that. This is in itself a
        crime against Iraq. If you endorse the UN position, you endorse crime
        against Iraq. The USA has admitted using inspectors as spies. Since the
        UN wants unconditional inspection, this will continue, and Iraq will
        essentially be forced to submit to having a hostile power have unlimited
        espionage privileges within its borders. If you endorse that, you are clearly
        an enemy of Iraq and of peace.

        Now suppose that the "inspectors" (American spies) decide to plant evidence
        of weapons of mass destruction or concoct some stupid incident where they
        try to enter a building on a weekend when no one's there and claim they
        were "denied entry" (which is what actually sparked the 1998 crisis).
        They then say President Hussein (or "Saddam" as they AND YOU disrespectfully
        insist on calling him) is not cooperating with the inspections. Continuing
        the inspections as they are becomes clearly impossible. Either the UN
        agrees to replace the inspectors with more neutral parties (which they
        wouldn't in 1998 and certainly won't now) or it has to find other means to
        try to get Iraq to "cooperate". Since they are already starving Iraq's
        children, more sanctions won't work, so there is only one option--WAR!

        Then suppose a miracle happens and they do send in more neutral inspectors.
        Bush won't be satisfied, and neither will the Democrats. The result is
        then--WAR!

        Pushing the UN resolution will not prevent war, just delay it and at a
        price of adding legitimacy to it as "international law".

        So I say, if you are interested in peace, don't tell people to endorse
        this criminal resolution promoting UN bullying of Iraq. Tell people to
        write their Congressperson or Senator and say:

        Dear bribed kike-lover,

        I can't match what AIPAC gives you, but I can vote you out of
        office, and I will if you vote for any warfare, sanctions,
        inspections or further hostile action against Iraq of any
        kind, whether done unilaterally or with a coalition or under
        the auspices of any international organisation, be it the UN,
        NATO, or any other group.

        Love and Kisses,

        A Real American (not a Jew lackey)

        If on the other hand you still insist that the UN deserves "another chance"
        desite its "mistakes", consider how likely you would be to be spared
        life imprisonment or the lethal injection booth if you made a "mistake"
        of much smaller magnitude than the UN makes everyday. Then again you can
        move to Jew York City and hope no one obliterates it with a well-merited
        hydrogen bomb...OOPS...just a little mistake.

        --Kevin
      • thekoba@aztec.asu.edu
        ... That tactic is very wrong. First, it isn t really a choice that is closest to us, as both are choices that are ultimately pro-war. The legislators who
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 27, 2002
          >
          >Whenever I have talked to my legislators I have often raised the issue of
          >Middle East arms reduction. Referring to Israel as well. I refer to the
          >duality of it. I generally am not for inspections, really, yet it is still
          >better than war. Since we don't have much choice in who we have as
          >legislators at least we can support those who come the closest to not
          >getting the world and the US in more trouble. I'm sure you'll agree that
          >Bush is heading us down the path of more terrorism. The more oppresswive our
          >overnment gets, the more pissed off the rest of the world will be. Gee we
          >only let just about everyone in the door that wants in.
          >
          >
          >Jim Bronke
          >www.USACritic.com

          That tactic is very wrong. First, it isn't really a choice that is closest
          to us, as both are choices that are ultimately pro-war. The legislators
          who support the UN option are not going to get the USA and the world in
          any less trouble, they will just have a different entity endorsing that
          trouble. Second, even if you endorse a candidate who only wants to bomb
          Iraq and not invade, or only wants to starve with sanctions, you are still
          endorsing war and killing, and you have placed yourself objectively in
          the camp of the enemy. Would you really think highly about someone who
          supported gangster B who only wanted to break an innocent man's legs rather
          than gangster A who wanted to kill him?

          The correct tactic is to denounce imperialist war without equivocation,
          whether it's popular to do so or not, whether there are any congresspeople
          who agree or not. To do otherwise invariably results in opportunism and
          tailism. The movement loses its backbone and bends with every reactionary
          breeze. Politicians don't act; they react. Right now they are reacting
          to the Jew media and the bribes from AIPAC. When people stand up to both
          and they know they can't win elections on any kind of war or sanctions
          platform, we've won. If we back the candidate whose proposals sound slightly
          less harsh, we've lost. If we stand on principle even if we can't build
          the numbers to convince the congresspeople, at least we are still fighting
          the imperialist war mongers instead of joining them.

          This is a critical time, and there is no room for defeatism. If your attitude
          is "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em", even if it's those whose rhetoric is
          not quite as harsh, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution,
          and you should close down your site, get the hell out of the peace movement,
          and find a less destructive hobby.

          I have no patience for those who plug the UN for any reason or who want to
          vote for people who do, nor can real anti-war and anti-imperialist people
          afford to tolerate the likes of you.

          --Kevin
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.