Re: imperialist shell game
>You are reading deeper in to my concepts than I am. I don't think the UN hasThere's the Korean War, that "mistake" that also cost two million lives.
>ever sanctioned a war except the Gulf War.
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
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 thatThe same people who dismissed Pearl Harbour as "random acts of vandalism".
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "mistakes".
>I don't believe that war isThe UN wants inspections of Iraq (but hypocritically not of Israel, Britain
>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.
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
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.
>That tactic is very wrong. First, it isn't really a choice that is closest
>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.
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.