13 replies to this topic

[sonja]

Published on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 by CommonDreams.org

A Failure of Imagination
by Bill C Davis

9/11 was said to be more a failure of imagination than intelligence - the implication being that no one could imagine planes being intentionally flown into buildings. (As it turns out there were several people who not only imagined it, but also knew it was a weapon of choice for some.) As we listen to Bush and his handlers do their infomercial for war in Iraq, the challenge again seems to be more to our imagination than to our intelligence.

Bush demands respect in direct proportion to his inability to earn it. His slip during his petulant address to the UN on September 12th outed him. As he patronizingly assured the assembly that he wanted the UN to succeed he said, "We want the UN to be effective and respectful...." One imagines that his speech writer intended him to say, "We want the UN to be 'respected'" but the bad actor blurted out the subtext, which was and is, "Be respectful." And it's easy to imagine that the subtext to "Be respectful" is "Just do what we tell you to do."

Bush warned the UN that if they aren't "respectful" they will become irrelevant. And recent history shows that according to the Bush cabal the Florida Supreme Court is irrelevant; voting rights are irrelevant; black voters are irrelevant; Congress is irrelevant; The Constitution is inconvenient and irrelevant and now the UN will become irrelevant. Even as we are told that all of this military leveraging is for the American people, we are becoming irrelevant. Apart from hoping that we lack the imagination needed to confront them, our main virtues to them are our vulnerability to being manipulated and our consumption of fuel.

After our experience of 9/11, we don't have to imagine thousands of Iraqi civilians being blown apart. We have a frame of reference for it. Even before we consider the civilians who could well become soldiers as the streets of Baghdad turn into battlegrounds, we should not fail to acknowledge that the actual soldiers in Iraq are sons and husbands and friends - they have potential for joy and love - and they will be devastated as they do what their cornered fate has bid them to do. Protect the regime and the homeland. It is no less than what our soldiers would be asked to do if our homeland were invaded.

It's sad to feel compelled to state the obvious - that human beings feel loss in Iraq as much as they feel loss here - that there are faces of grief there as well as here - that Iraqi citizens may well be holding pictures of their husbands, wives, brothers, sons and sisters as they search for them through smoldering rubble. We've seen those images on the streets of New York. We don't have to imagine it we just have to expand our experience to include - them.

As Bush wraps himself in a Christian cloak his actions and rhetoric again insult the integrity of his political hero's message. Love your enemy - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - Let he who is without sin cast the first stone - Before you worry about the speck in your brother's eye take the log out of your own. To Bush Jesus is a banner, not a person or a spiritual reality that has actual application in this world.

As Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush rattle off the laundry list of crimes that require us to invade Iraq one can imagine other countries at different times in our history who might have thought it would be time to take away our ability for self-determination. From the treatment of Native Americans, to slavery, to women not having the vote until 1920 - to capital punishment - there could have been and could be a country that might make a case for invasion. In fact, right now it would not be hard to imagine countries that believe we should have a regime change.

There are those who wonder if the 9/11 hijackers saw their mission as a pre-emptive strike. Imagine if each one of the hijackers, whose pictures we have seen often, were put on trial posthumously. Imagine the investigation of each internal evolution that put them on those planes and into criminal and political history. The most lethal weapons of mass destruction resided in the hearts and minds of those men. Their posthumous trials might well be the most valuable form of weapons inspection we could ever imagine.

At this exact moment we are debating the ostensible reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Critical thinkers here and around the world, using their imagination, resist these ostensible reasons. They imagine that our leaders are hyping dramas so they can make deals with Iraq's oil. If what they imagine is true, then the discussion turns sharply.

The invasion of Iraq becomes less about liberation and security and becomes more like a hostile takeover. To imply that our commander-in-chief would use our military as if it were a hit man for a corporate mob action has to remain, for most, unimaginable. The only response from the administration to this theory has to be red-faced indignation and outrage. Anything less would make them available for impeachment.

The other day, a friend from New York came up to the country and stood with a neighbor of mine looking out over a great Connecticut hill. The New York friend said, "It's a beautiful country." The neighbor said, "It could be." The friend looked at the neighbor for an explanation. The neighbor added, "If we put our foot down." It feels like a helpless concept: citizens, supposedly in the minority, putting our foot down to demand a beautiful country. 9/11 has stretched the limits of our imagination - and now the push for war in Iraq - what motivates it and how to stop it will make demands of both our commitment and our imagination.

http://www.commondre...s02/0924-02.htm

[MarinaK]

slucajno sam naletela na ovaj clanak:

da li neko ima misljenje o ovome ?

http://www.novosti.c...rubrika=Feljton

[sonja]

Vecina tih ideja nije novih a mogle su se procitati i u ovdasnjoj "real or virtual" stampi/vestima. I pored svega sto je receno o medijima u USA ipak se mnogo toga suprotnog i kriticnog prema oficialnoj verziji dogadjaja moze naci i procitati/videti, samo treba "procesljati" i naci raznovrstni izbor vesti. Stos je upravo u tome da svi znamo ili (vrlo lako mozemo da sanznamo ukoliko namerno ne ignorisemo cinjenice) ko su bili Bin Laden i Saddam, kakva je nasa spoljna politika i kakvim metodama i "saveznicima" se sluze nase specijalne vojne grupe i tajne/obavestajne sluzbe, kako se ponasaju i o cemu govore (o cemu ne govore) vlada i kongres, mediji, etc. Kao sto je bilo receno i za Srbiju neposredno pre i za vreme Milosevica, svako ko je hteo (hoce) da zna mogao je (moze) da sazna...

[Free Mason]

Opet nesto drugo sam primetio evo kod mojih fellow countrymena. Pre neki dan Nemacki ministar pravde je podneo ostavku navodno poredeci intencije Busove administracije u vezi Iraka sa onim Adolfa Hitlera, nasta je Rumsfeld u Poljskoj na pitanje novinara odgovorio kako je to doprinelo "poisoned relationship" te shodno Nemacka i USA odavno nepamte ovakvo distanciranje.
Moji fellows su to prokomntarisali kao presedan u diplomatskim odnosima. Oni bi kritikovali svoga/naseg predsednika ali ovakvi komentari koji dolaze sa strane, ma koliko bili harsh su jednostavno neshvatljivi.

Striking je onaj deo koji govori o ziteljima Iraka, ljudima kao ja koji imaju prava da se raduju i zive u miru kakav i da je. Po meni je apsurdno nametati neki "kvalitetniji" mir vojnom intervencijom. Da, da, nekakve zrtve se moraju podneti za dobrobit celog naroda.Ironija, kada svi znamo kakvi se interesi kriju iza svega sto rece sami smo krivi zbog nacina na koji zivimo.

In any case I don't want to be around when sh*t hits the fan, not me!!! :sad:

[sonja]

to Free Mason:

Korekcija: U pitanju je bila Nemacka ministarka pravde, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin. BTW ona je navodno rekla “Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It’s a classic tactic. It’s one that Hitler also used.” sto nije bas "far from the truth" niti potpuno isto sto i citat/headline "German Justice minister compares Bush to Hitler" kako je to ovde preneto, jer je IMHO naglasak na prvom a ne drugom delu.

_________________
The test of courage comes when we are in the minority; the test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority. Ralph W. Stockman

[ Izmena poruke: sonja na dan 2002-09-25 17:48 ]

[Free Mason]

Hvala na korekciji ja sam smatrao da su nazivi profesija samo u jednom rodu i da se ne menjaju...moracu da procesljam gramatiku:smile:

[revolucionar]

Nekako mnogo se ova dogadjanja izmedju Amerike i Iraka gledaju kao nekakvo neprijateljstvo izmedju Busa i Sadama. Mnogi pri tom zaboravljaju da iza Busa stoji americka administracija i multinacionalne kompanije. Po meni, ovi dogadjaji ukazuju na sve vecu i vecu slabost USA. Oni svoje probleme trenutno resavaju na predatorski nacin sto znaci silom i agresijom.
Pitanje koje treba postaviti je sta ostaje od humanizma ?
Skoro nista, koliko ima humanizma u Africi toliko ga sigurno ima i u Americi. Vise ne postoji ni humanizam, ni ljudske vrednosti, ni perspektiva za covecanstvo... Zakon je novac i do novca se stize svim mogucim sredstvima. Jedan od nacina ispoljavanje agresivnosti je koriscenje savremene ratne tehnologije. Savremena tehnologija je izuzetno razvijena i mogla bi da omoguci razvoj u zemljama treceg sveta. To trenutno nije slucaj, cak je problem i na samom zapadu. Industrijska proizvodnja u zapadnim zemljama je u stalnom porastu, medjutim, na tom zapadu postoji tendencija da se unisti socialno osiguranje i sa tim penzijsko osiguranje. Reklo bi se da da ce ljudske zakone zameniti Darvinovi prirodni zakoni sto vaze za zivotinjski svet.
Kako objasniti da sa ovakvim hiper ekonomskim razvojem zivot pojedinca postaje dosta nepodnosljiv i tezak ?
Sigurno da je u svetu doslo do nekakvih promena. Agresivnost vladajucih elita je doslo do stepena gde je moguca pojava kolektivnog ili grupnog ludila. Zamislimo jedan primer. Amerika izbombarduje iracke civile samo zato sto hoce da kontrolise naftu. To je jedan vid agresije i ludila. Zauzvrat, zamislimo da amerikanci eksploatisu tu naftu i da postoje ljudi koji su protiv te americke politike. Resenje za te ludake je bombardovanje naftnih postrojenja. Da bi unistio neko naftno postrojenje potrebno je pet granata i jedna puska.
Da li ce ludilo i ljudska agresivnost da zameni razum i hunanizam ?
Kad se analiziraju predhodni komentari vidi se da ljudi nista nisu ukapirali i neverovatno je da kod ljudi postoji toliki stepen mazohizma. Izgleda da je ljudska priroda sklona svakom ponizenju, eksploataciji i kompromisu pod uslovom da je zadovoljna samo prirodna ljudska egzistencija.
Uz sve ovo ako se doda ekolosko unistavanje planete i to sve zbog novca i sto vise novca mnogi bi trebalo da se pitaju - kuda ide ljudska civilizacija ?

[Free Mason]

Much of this ce da bude poznato i nakon Huston-skog samita Americkih i Ruskih naftenih tajkuna. Prvi ovakav u istoriji dve zemlje, ove nedelje.

Sa dozom domace nesigurnosti, sa kojom Rusija, poduze kuburi, nece biti cudno da njeni nafteni puleni spas potraze van svoje zemlje. I nece biti prvi put da Rusi, predstavljajuci sebe kao spasioce, prodaju Sadama u zamenu za deo kolaca zvanog Iracka nafta i partnerstvo sa Washington-om.

Ruskih 5 miliona barela dnevno i Irackih 4 mogu biti dobar balans usamljenoj Arabiji koja dnevno proizvodi 8 miliona barela nafte.Zato i valja videti sta nam ovaj samit donosi. Ukoliko se ovaj matching ostvari to bi doprinelo stabilizaciji globalnog naftenog trzista.

[revolucionar]

Free Mason:
Ruskih 5 miliona barela dnevno i Irackih 4 mogu biti dobar balans usamljenoj Arabiji koja dnevno proizvodi 8 miliona barela nafte.Zato i valja videti sta nam ovaj samit donosi. Ukoliko se ovaj matching ostvari to bi doprinelo stabilizaciji globalnog naftenog trzista.

Sve su to lepe racunice kad bi se to ostvarilo bez vecih problema. To bi bilo moguce ostvariti na miran i inteligentan nacin bez upotrebe nasilja i sile. Ja sam cak cuo da bi iracka nafta doprinela stabilizaciji svetske ekonomije koja trenutno ulazi u recesiju. Nasilje protiv jednog naroda ce sigurno proizvesti nasilje protiv Amerike i protiv nafte.

[Free Mason]

Evo ovako, vise nema upitnika, barem ne kod mene. Sinoc je trebala da se desi vecera i nakon toga lezerna atmosfera ali ne da djavo.

Elem, moj frend Irac, borac za ljudska prava zhacne pitanjcem oficijelne High Commissions Britone o njihovom stavu oko Iraka. Ne bi oni bili diplomate da nisu jednoglasni oko Blerkinog stava da je Irak zaista opasan po interese Amerike i UK. E sada sa njima covek ne moze da razgovara sa spekulacijama vec eto ja pomalo seretski priupitam sta nakon Sadama. Demokratija cveta, Irak se vraca na starih USD 4500 per capita i nema opasnosti po svet uz pretspotavku da Koreja i njoj slicne ne postoje.

Znam da ne vole moje abstrakcije ali u sustini i nisu imali sta da ponude. Irak za njih predstavlja kontinuiranu opasnost i mi moramo (prim. autora Britoni)da mislimo na Iracki narod, da se oslobodimo bremena Mr. Sadama, sankcije ne pomazu.

Nece da odgovori na pitanje. Ili izbegava. Dakle ponovim ja, Sta nakon intervencije?

E sad u pomoc pristize bratska Amerika, znas Amerikanci (ne vise Britoni, sad se ne pominju)bi da to srede, nema Sadama, ali zato nakon toga prepustaju Irak svojoj sudbini bas kao i Afganistan.Sadam ne valja a za kasnije videcemo, vreme ce reci.

Jos na sve to izjava, Amerika nece dozvoliti da joj se ponovi Sept 11th te ce da udari gde joj zgodno, eto pomisle da odnekud stize pretnja, i PAF nema pretnje a ni drzave verovatno.

Irac i ja ostadosmo u zagonetnom osmehu. Domacinima se bas i nije dopalo.

[Free Mason]

Sta kazu susedi?

Oni mladji na opasku da bi Ameri invazijom na Irak zauvek promenili Arapski svet, odgovaraju sa - So what?

Mozda ce biti gore ali ce ipak biti drugacije.

No da li cika Semko misli tako? Nada se US da ce stvari ostati iste, prica kao i njegov senior otac da bi trebalo izvrsiti reforme unutar Arapskog sveta no nada se potajno status quo siatuaciji. Goto je izvesno da bi bilo koji drugi NE-Sadam diktator bio prihvacen od strane MZSF (mesne zajednice sireg formata).

"Arapi su pre svega bili ponizavani i marginalizovani od strane sopstvenih rezima" pise Newsweek i dalje navodi kako su se" isti ti rezimi ogresili o sopstvene zakone da bi isti sluzili sopstvenim interesima i hirovima".

Navodi se da je "Islam oduuvek bio utociste za nitkove, diktatore koji opravdavaju svoje metode upravljanja, toboze zahtevima Islama, klasican primer navodi se je Sadam Husein, ganjao dugo u prvoj dekadi svog PreCednikovanja religiozne ucitelje, da bi na svoju/Iracku zastavu dodao Allah Akkbar u trenutku suocavanja sa Majkom svih Bitaka - US".

Eto razmisljam dok razgovaram sa ljudima koje srecem u mom proputovanju, ucenim Arapima, gde to nestima? Postoji li sansa ili svet nije spreman za reforme Arapskog sveta, da li mladi nakon odredjenog vremena gube volju da se upuste u bitku sa korenjem koje preti da ih zaustavi u daljem napretku?
Odgovore dobijam razlicite.Ali se svode uglavnom na ono "The day after".

A niko nije konkretan sta pod ovom lakonskom misle.

[MarinaK]

Cika Sam razmislja drugacije - blize se izbori 2004 :

Friday, Oct. 18, 2002. Page 9
Iraq, Emotive Visa Issues and 10th Anniversary
Letters In response to "War on Iraq: Who Needs It?" a comment by Robert Skidelsky on Oct. 10.

Robert Skidelsky makes many cogent observations regarding the motives for a military attack on Iraq by the United States. It is my opinion, however, that he omits the more fundamental political motivation for an attack against Iraq.

President George W. Bush is looking ahead to the 2004 election and pursuing military action against Iraq for the following reasons:

1. Military action focuses voter attention on foreign "enemies" as opposed to the weak economy;

2. American voters tend to re-elect an incumbent president during time of war;

3. Strong, independent presidents who are not afraid to use military muscle are appealing to a significant percentage of the American public, (you need look no further than Ronald Reagan and his invasion of Grenada and attack on Lybia, but the same holds true as far back as Theodore Roosevelt);

4. Finally, Americans just seem to love their military and the exercise of its power. We seem to treat it as another sporting event.

As a domestic political move, an attack on a weakened Iraq is guaranteed to appeal to the majority of the U.S. electorate, as long as there is a quick, decisive win with very few American casualties.

Frank Robin
Austin, Texas

[MarinaK]

Evo jos malo Robert Fisk ovoga puta:
4 October 2002

It's the same old trap. Nato used exactly the same trick to ensure that it could have a war with Slobodan Milosevic. Now the Americans are demanding the same of Saddam Hussein – buried well down in their list of demands, of course. Tell your enemy that you're going to need his roads and airspace – with your troops on the highways – and you destroy his sovereignty. That's what Nato demanded of Serbia in 1999. That's what the new UN resolution touted by Messrs Bush and Blair demands of Saddam Hussein. It's a declaration of war.

It worked in 1999. The Serbs accepted most of Nato's Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-government in Kosovo, but not Appendix 8, which insisted that "Nato personnel shall enjoy ... free and unimpeded passage and unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

It was a demand that Mr Milosevic could never accept. US troops driving through Serbia would have meant, in these circumstances, the end of Yugoslav sovereignty.

But now we have the draft UN resolution which Presidents Bush and Blair insist the UN must pass. Arms inspection teams, it says, "shall have the right to declare for the purposes of this resolution ... ground and air-transit corridors which shall be enforced by UN security forces or by members of the UN [Security] Council".

In other words, Washington can order forces of the US (a Security Council member) to "enforce" these "corridors" through Iraq – on the ground – when it wants. US troops would thus be in Iraq. It would be invasion without war; the end of Saddam, "regime change", the whole shebang.

No Iraqi government – even a Baghdad administration without the odious Saddam – could ever accept such a demand. Nor could Serbia have accepted such a demand from Nato, even without the odious Slobodan. Which is why the Serbs and Nato went to war.

So here it is again, the same old "we've-got-be-able-to-drive through-your-land" mentality which forced the Serbs into war and which is clearly intended to produce the same from Saddam.

America wants a war and here's the proof: if the United States truly wished to avoid war, it could demand "unfettered access" for inspectors without this sovereignty-busting paragraph, using it as a second resolution only if the presidential palaces of the Emperor Saddam remained off-limits.

Saddam can open his country to the inspectors; he can open even his presidential palaces. But if he doesn't accept the use of "Security Council" forces – in other words, US troops – on Iraqi roads, we can go to war. There's also that other paragraph: that "any permanent member of the Security Council may request to be represented on any inspection team." In other words, the Americans can demand that their intelligence men can return to become UN inspectors, to pass on their information to the Israelis (which they did before) and to the US military, which used them as forward air controllers for their aircraft once the inspectors were withdrawn.

All in all, then, a deal which President Saddam – yes, Saddam the wicked, Saddam the torturer, Saddam the lover of gas warfare – could never, ever accept.

He's not meant to accept this. Which is why the Anglo-American draft for the UN is intended to give us war, rather than peace and security from weapons of mass destruction.

[Indy]

"The Daily Camera" prica o vezi izmedju americke hriscanske desnice, Izraela i (prizeljkivanog) rata protiv Iraka (Arapa, muslimana).

Christian Right too eager for Armageddon
By Tom Teepen, Cox Newspapers
October 18, 2002

ATLANTA — It wouldn't do to make too much of this, but it wouldn't do to make too little of it, either.

The long-standing support of Israel among American fundamentalist Christians is curdling in some quarters into an unthinking religious romanticism that moons for a general Middle East war, and the bigger the better.

And that has disturbing implications for the politics of U.S. foreign policy.

As many fundamentalists read the Bible, the creation of the state of Israel was the necessary step in animating a scenario that will lead to the second coming of Jesus and the triumph of heaven in the struggle against evil.

The return of Jews to their historic land will, in this prophetic vision, incite Armageddon*, the end-days war that will install the reign of the messiah.

Hence the uncritical support of Israel on the religious right, cheering, for instance, the election of the hard-line Ariel Sharon, for all the wrong reasons, after the Palestinians turned their suicide bombers loose to blow off the generous peace plan offered by Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

(ostatak ovde)

*A sta ako je prorocanstvo tacno? Brrr...