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

Re: imperialist shell game

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.