Date:   7/21/2003 4:43:37 PM ( 21 y ago)
Hits:   1,923
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=582559

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

The following story focuses on a Marine who was recently killed in Iraq. He studied and promoted peace, and believed the Bush administration was not justified in going to war with Iraq. The night before he was deployed, he gave an annonymous interview with Pacifica Radio reporter Ingrid Drake. A shortened version of this story originally appeared on www.tompaine.com at http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8341.
Soldiers take an oath to obey their commander-in-chief but that doesn't mean they keep silent when they disagree with the actions of their government.

As the U.S. occupation of Iraq extends with no end in sight and the death toll for both U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians continues to mount, more voices of dissent from military personnel and families are surfacing by the day.

As of July 9, the Pentagon reports that U.S. troops have suffered 30 deaths from hostile action since Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, while 43 other service members have died in incidents unrelated to hostilities.

Nancy Lessin, co-founder of Military Families Speak Out, says more people are becoming outraged that the war against Iraq has turned into an occupation and is leading to high risks and death for deployed loved ones.

Lessin says her organization is receiving correspondence from active-duty military personnel in Iraq who say they oppose the current situation but have no outlet to express their beliefs.

"Now we have a situation where too many U.S. military personnel and way too many innocent Iraqis have been killed," she says. "And what we predicted to be true has come true, that there are no weapons of mass destruction. Everything we said was going to happen is coming to pass, and one of the most frightening aspects of this is that the people of this country haven't completely risen up in opposition to what's going on."

One Marine who was recently killed in Iraq never allowed himself to be silenced. The night before he was deployed to Iraq, he gave an interview with Pacifica Radio's Peacewatch program in which he discussed his strong commitment to peace and said the Bush administration was violating constitutional principles and misleading the country into an unjust war. Because the interview was given under the condition of anonymity, and out of respect for the current wishes of his family, the Marine will not be identified in this story.

His friends describe him as a passionate, intense person who had an insatiable appetite for knowledge, loved people, and strived for peace above all else - especially peace in the Middle East. He studied philosophy and peace with a particular emphasis on Middle Eastern affairs, particularly Iraq and Israel. In the months before being deployed to fight a war he did not believe in, he helped organize anti-war campaigns, mainly working behind the scenes.

Ironically, he wrote in letters from Iraq that he hoped to be home last week to celebrate Independence Day with his loved ones. He didn't return home from the Iraqi desert, but his words and writings, as well as interviews with his friends, leave a legacy of his beliefs.

"It is almost unimaginable to expect that this war is going to create a better peace for anybody with the exception of a very small percentage of people," he said in the radio interview.

With the country on the verge of war, he looked to the highest ideals of the country for inspiration.

"I believe in the United States. I believe in the Constitution," he said. "I think it's perhaps one of the greatest documents ever written. I believe in the idea that we the people are sovereign and we determine our own destiny. We have a democracy and the Bill of Rights and freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and due process. Until the world is such a place that we can really live without the military, individual Americans have to step up and they have to serve."

However, he said the Bush administration did not make a credible case for war with Iraq and was violating constitutional principles by sending troops into combat.

"The constant rhetoric of the administration is that there's going to be one person who decides when we go to war ... and that is such a blatant violation of every constitutional principle that our founding fathers came up with," he said.

"The Declaration of Independence talks about creating independence from England based upon the fact that their lives are being ruled and determined by one man. And it's completely undemocratic to allow one man to decide - or one woman to decide - when we go to war, when we fight, and when people have to sacrifice themselves. And the Constitution is very clear that it is Congress that declares war.

"But even beyond that, it's we the people that this nation is about," he continued. "It isn't about politics or personal agendas or political agendas or economic agendas. And I believe that this war is not the right thing for America because it hasn't yet been proven conclusively that there is a threat to we the people, and I think that is the sole determining factor as to whether or not this nation should ever go to war."

He was outraged that a legitimate public debate did not occur over going to war in which multiple views and options could be heard. He explained there were many options to avert combat, such as using money being spent for war to build a grassroots democracy movement in Iraq that would rival the Baath regime, or promoting democracy throughout the Middle East to show people alternative forms of government.

He said the administration was not talking honestly with the American public about potential consequences of a U.S. war on Iraq, such as the potential for urban combat, the psyche of the Iraqi people, the impact on the United Nations, and the fate of the Middle East.

"This could have repercussions in terms of the war on terrorism. It could have repercussions on international diplomacy. It could have repercussions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It could have repercussions in terms of our ability to get anything else done in the U.N. And even if we come out scott clean and victorious and there are no American casualties and everything goes the way it's supposed to go, what does that mean for the world order? It says that we basically can do whatever we want to do whenever we want to do it because we are the world's sole super power."

Although he didn't believe in an Iraqi war, he was a Marine and did not abandon his duty to deploy when his government called.

His friends can only imagine the torment that racked his soul and mind. He was at once preparing for and trying to stop a war. Yet he willingly offered himself as a bridge over the elusive divide between soldiers and peace activists.

On one hand he was a Marine, bound by oath and obligation to carry out the will of the U.S. government and, in this case, the Bush administration. On the other hand, he was deeply passionate in his pursuit of peace. In letters, he described the peace movement as "awesome" and said he hoped it would grow larger, never relent against the Bush administration, and help bring an end to the war.

His friends say he went into the military under the Clinton administration to gain credibility so that one day his beliefs on how to build a lasting peace in the Middle East would be taken seriously by those who make decisions. His friends say he never did anything half way, whether it was becoming a Marine or fighting for peace.

"He was never anti-American," says Jeni, one of his best friends. "He was just against this war and against the way it was done. He just did not feel that this was the right thing to be doing to these people and to that region. And to go in there and create more conflict when we need to be creating peace was wrong to him. He was proud of this country. He was proud of what it stood for, what it was founded on, and he knew that we could do better than this. He wanted to be one of the ones to do better. He wanted to influence foreign policy. He wanted his life's work to be influencing our government to create peace in the Middle East."

With chilling foresight, he also predicted that much could go wrong in a war with Iraq, saying the outcomes outlined by the administration were based on highly optimistic and rosy scenarios. He said it was unlikely that Iraqis would cheer the arrival of a U.S. occupying force, and that long-term urban combat could be a likely outcome.

"He really feared that we were getting ourselves involved in something that we had no idea what we were doing," says another one of his best friends. "I think what's happening is pretty much exactly what he expected to occur."

Yet, even while serving as a Marine in Iraq, he continued to pursue peaceful options. One of his commanders wrote a letter after his death explaining a situation in which he negotiated a peaceful settlement to a potentially deadly situation. A group of Baath Party officials were found inside a house. Because he spoke Arabic, he went into the house and talked with the officials until he negotiated a surrender. His actions potentially saved the lives of both U.S. soldiers and Iraqis.

His friends say he was a prolific writer and kept regular journals documenting his beliefs, and they are now thinking about publishing his journals.

Jeni, for one, says his life and passion for peace has given her hope and inspiration.

"He stood for peace above all else," she says. "Even being a Marine. Even having to shoot a gun. Even having to shoot at the people that he knew had not wronged him. He stood for peace and he knew it was possible.

"I think it's really, really easy to get discouraged, and to get overwhelmed by what this administration is doing, and to feel like there is nothing we can do,” she continued. “What can we do? How can I save this world? How can I heal what our country is doing to the world? But I think that in [his] life and in his death, I'm learning that it is possible for me to make a difference. And I don't have to heal the world by myself. I've got plenty of help and all I have to do is reach out and seek it."

Chris Strohm is a freelance reporter and volunteer with the DC Independent Media Center. Ingrid Drake is a correspondent for Pacifica Radio's Peacewatch program. Additional reporting for this article was provided by Andrew Korfhage.


It just goes to show
by Red Hughs 5:48pm Mon Jul 14 '03



Hmm,

Just think - he could have killed some Iraqis who felt the same way before he died.

This sure is a sad example to show moderation doesn't get anything. Soldiers in Iraq must either fight the guerilla war or take extreme measures to stop it. Here, there is no middle ground.

Red

http://www.webcom.com/maxang

www.webcom.com/maxang



Never in history!
by JA 4:24am Tue Jul 15 '03



NEVER in the entire history of the U.S. has the U.S. EVER directly intervened -- with its military or its CIA -- in the developing/3rd world for the purpose of installing a democracy. Quite to the contrary: the U.S. has REPEATEDLY intevened to overthrow them in the developing/3rd world. For much of the 20th century, there were TWO "Evil Empires": now, one down, one to go!

Of course, the U.S. purpose in Iraq -- all along -- was/is NOT to install a democracy, but to install someone who will do what the U.S. government SAYS!

No less than Mark Twain said, after observing the first U.S. imperial and GENOCIDAL war, the Phillipino-American War at the turn of the 20th century, that at first he was an imperialist, believing that the U.S. could bring good to the world, but after the U.S. war on the Phillipines, Twain said that he "never wanted to see the U.S. eagle set its talons down on any other soil again!"

The soldier's sentiments expressed in the article are commendable, but his knowledge of U.S. history is sorely lacking. Had he been aware of the first paragraph in my comments, he might have decided to at least become a conscientious objector: he would be alive today, neither killing, maiming, wounding, nor being killed, maimed, or wounded for something he did not believe in. As Stevie Wonder sang, "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer."


PAUL KRUGMAN GETS IT RIGHT
by PAUL KRUGMAN 6:29am Tue Jul 15 '03


Pattern of Corruption
By PAUL KRUGMAN

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/15/opinion/15KRUG.html?ex=1059243829&ei=1&en=0...

More than half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq, which didn't have significant weapons of mass destruction and wasn't supporting Al Qaeda. We have lost all credibility with allies who might have provided meaningful support; Tony Blair is still with us, but has lost the trust of his public. All this puts us in a very weak position for dealing with real threats. Did I mention that North Korea has been extracting fissionable material from its fuel rods?

How did we get into this mess? The case of the bogus uranium purchases wasn't an isolated instance. It was part of a broad pattern of politicized, corrupted intelligence.

Literally before the dust had settled, Bush administration officials began trying to use 9/11 to justify an attack on Iraq. Gen. Wesley Clark says that he received calls on Sept. 11 from "people around the White House" urging him to link that assault to Saddam Hussein. His account seems to back up a CBS.com report last September, headlined "Plans for Iraq Attack Began on 9/11," which quoted notes taken by aides to Donald Rumsfeld on the day of the attack: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

But an honest intelligence assessment would have raised questions about why we were going after a country that hadn't attacked us. It would also have suggested the strong possibility that an invasion of Iraq would hurt, not help, U.S. security.

So the Iraq hawks set out to corrupt the process of intelligence assessment. On one side, nobody was held accountable for the failure to predict or prevent 9/11; on the other side, top intelligence officials were expected to support the case for an Iraq war.

The story of how the threat from Iraq's alleged W.M.D.'s was hyped is now, finally, coming out. But let's not forget the persistent claim that Saddam was allied with Al Qaeda, which allowed the hawks to pretend that the Iraq war had something to do with fighting terrorism.

As Greg Thielmann, a former State Department intelligence official, said last week, U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda. Yet administration officials continually asserted such a connection, even as they suppressed evidence showing real links between Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia.

And during the run-up to war, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, was willing to provide cover for his bosses — just as he did last weekend. In an October 2002 letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, he made what looked like an assertion that there really were meaningful connections between Saddam and Osama. Read closely, the letter is evasive, but it served the administration's purpose.

What about the risk that an invasion of Iraq would weaken America's security? Warnings from military experts that an extended postwar occupation might severely strain U.S. forces have proved precisely on the mark. But the hawks prevented any consideration of this possibility. Before the war, one official told Newsweek that the occupation might last no more than 30 to 60 days.

It gets worse. Knight Ridder newspapers report that a "small circle of senior civilians in the Defense Department" were sure that their favorite, Ahmad Chalabi, could easily be installed in power. They were able to prevent skeptics from getting a hearing — and they had no backup plan when efforts to anoint Mr. Chalabi, a millionaire businessman, degenerated into farce.

So who will be held accountable? Mr. Tenet betrayed his office by tailoring statements to reflect the interests of his political masters, rather than the assessments of his staff — but that's not why he may soon be fired. Yesterday USA Today reported that "some in the Bush administration are arguing privately for a C.I.A. director who will be unquestioningly loyal to the White House as committees demand documents and call witnesses."

Not that the committees are likely to press very hard: Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, seems more concerned about protecting his party's leader than protecting the country. "What concerns me most," he says, is "what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the C.I.A. in an effort to discredit the president."

In short, those who politicized intelligence in order to lead us into war, at the expense of national security, hope to cover their tracks by corrupting the system even further.


Convenient death
by Dracocephalus 8:37am Tue Jul 15 '03



Someone should look a little bit deeper in the circumstances of his death. Maybe I'm a bit paranoic, but doesn't this sound too convenient? One of the few proverbial Freedomfighters in Iraq, someone who speaks his mind freely about his government, critizes his president, gets killed. What a coincidence! Of the 150000 troops in the area one or two are killed each day. And he's one of those.... what a coincidence, indeed....

Nahh, I'm seeing conspiracies everywhere. It might have been just a ugly twist of fate..

Nevertheless, be wary,

Dracocephalus


More IndyMedia BS
by tinfoilhat 10:23am Tue Jul 15 '03



Once again, another bogus sounding story from your site. Who writes these fictional accounts anyway? I like how you add to the story by pretending this Marine was a big peace activist (and he joined the US Marines? Why not join the Peace Corps or get a job at the UN?). Since he spoke Arabic and could successfully negotiate with Baathists, I wonder why he was running around on the ground instead of sitting in some intel center monitoring Arabic radio traffic?

I'm sure it helps add to your story by saying he was killed.

"...and out of respect for the current wishes of his family, the Marine will not be identified in this story."
BTW, the LAST Marine casualty is listed here as public knowledge: http://www.dod.mil/releases/2003/nr20030703-0172.html
You can find any of the Iraq and Afghanistan casualties on the DOD web site.

Sounds to me like the key points of your story are, "blah, blah, blah, BushHitler evil for going to war!"

"blah, blah, blah, Bush is immoral!"

"blah, blah, blah, Bush is a liar!"

The rest was just filler for your raging Bush Hatred... really pathetic...


My friend - this Marine
by SZ 10:30am Tue Jul 15 '03




At the risk of starting a flame war, I feel I must stand up and defend this Marine's thoughts to previous comments:

These comments are given because we were friends for many years (when we both went to grad school together, and subsequently lived together).

(1) He was WELL aware of the US history. Do not confuse his assertions about US normative values (democracy, liberty, the people as the masters of the country) with instances in our past where we have not lived up to those values.

He was arguing that our values were not in line with those actions. That was the very basis of his argument. It is not rational to argue that because the US has not always lived up to these values in the past, therefore, they should not be expected to live up to them in the future. Remember, what our values do is set the criterion via which we will judge future actions, they do not guarantee just outcomes.

(2) Every study of soldiers in a war zone finds that their motivation is not abstract concepts like "king and country" or even family back home, but attempting to keep their fellow soldiers alive and survive the ordeal. They form strong bonds with one another. The Marine felt a strong bond with his fellow Marines and could not bear the thought that one of them might die if he did not perform his duties. To him, becoming a CO was not an option because it might mean a fellow Marine would die because he refused to perform his duty.

Second, the Marine believed that for our civil society to function, its members had to act with integrity toward their promises. This wasn't abstract for him - it was very concrete. He had made a promise, taken an oath before the Supreme Law of the Land (the Constition) that we would serve if called upon to serve. As a citizen, he had every right to protest the war (which he did), and as a Marine he had given his word that he would serve his country, even if he disagreed with those who made the decision.

(3) He died when his vehicle flipped over while rushing to rescue fellow Marines who had been ambushed. There was no foul play here, but a tragic event in a tragic war. No Conspiracy theory here.

(4) As a final note - the some of you need to better understand and respect our citizens who have agreed to defend the nation, even with their lives. They deserve our respect and support, perhaps especially when we do not agree with the decision that put them into the desserts of Iraq.

To paraphrase John S. Mill - The man who will loves his life more than liberty will soon find that very liberty taken away, unless it is defended by better men.


tinfoilhat, you're disrespecting a hero
by SZ 10:46am Tue Jul 15 '03
zorzopulos@yahoo.com


tinfoilhat:

I know you're comment is meant to express some idea (in this case, that the story is not true). Well, I'm here to tell you it is. I went to his funeral on July 5th, cried with his family and watched while he recieved a 21-gun salute.

Yes, you can figure out who he was, but so what? His family didn't want to speak with reporters, and Chris respected their wishes.

On a larger note, he was making a VERY concrete argument:

(1) The Supreme Law of the Land (the US Constition) places the war powers firmly in the hands of Congress, the representatives of the People.

(2) Congress was derelicting their duty by handing that power over to the President with their October vote.

(3) It is certainly against the spirit of the Constition to have a "one man, one vote" rule, particularly on something as important as war. And this wasn't a defensive war, so one cannot argue that the Congress did not have enough time to discuss it - they did. They just didn't perform their duty.

(4) The arguments being used by the President for war were highly dubious. Facts on the ground now prove how dubious they were. Remember, this Marine had obtained an MA from American University (one of the countries finest graduate schools for international relations) with a focus on the Middle East. He could read and speak Arabic. Under no theory was he uninformed.

(5) Therefore, he did not support the war.

If you have a serious argument to offer, then please feel free to respond. If all you're going to do is bash the memory of a man far greater than most, spare me.


peace
by now 11:03am Tue Jul 15 '03



I am so bored with the angry attacks found in these comments. They attempt to guide the discussion into polarization. Thereby wasting the mind on offensive/defensive thinking. To these so called "right wingers," here is a homework lesson for you: go read Energy and Equity by Ivan Illich. Then come talk to us. Maybe, Anger by Thich Nat Hanh should alo be read at the same time. Until then... (here is my attack, so you can understand what one looks like) until then save your editorials for the USA Today. See the attack did'nt help at all did it. I had one grandfather die in ww2, another lived and two uncles in Vietnam. They all have renounced the military.

They can't tell us what to think, but they sure try to tell us what to think about.


No Marine Disrespect
by tinfoilhat 11:13am Tue Jul 15 '03



As a Marine myself I felt compelled to comment on this story. My motive is this: Usually the BS is thick and deep around here and I saw this as an attempt to make up a story about a dead Marine and spin it as an anti-Bush, anti-America story. Your response proves otherwise. I could care less what people say about America or how much they hate America... just don't make up stories to fill out your Anti-Bush agenda...


Why didn't he disobey?
by Tez 12:38pm Tue Jul 15 '03



If this guy believed in peace so much and realized the whole war was a fraud along with Bush, why didn't he refuse to obey orders or deploy?

The constitution is not just a bit of paper, its a living thing. You should live and behave as it directs. This guy seemed to think it was a bit a paper because he foolishy was being loyal to the military which has clearly been hijacked by the Bush Corporate Cabal of gangsters. It's your duty if you believe in the Constitution to disobey when a situation such as now exists arises. Actually that would be true for practically all military interventions.

And while we are at it, while don't all the people in the federal government who realize what is happening just stop working.


Swear oathe to obey commander in chief?
by Quo Warranto 1:11pm Tue Jul 15 '03



I don't think when you join the military you swear to "obey the commander in chief" as the story says at the beginnng. I looked up the military oathe once and They swear to "protect and defend the constitution"(Unless there is another one they take afterwards....???). The constitution says the President is commander in Chief of the armed forces but still the emphasis is completely different in that the main authority is still the constitution not the Prez. You also have the right in the military to disobey and illegal order...technically anyway.


TO: SZ -- RE: "My friend, this Marine"
by JA 2:18pm Tue Jul 15 '03



------------------------------------------------------------
THIS:

(2) Every study of soldiers in a war zone finds that their motivation is not abstract concepts like "king and country" or even family back home, but attempting to keep their fellow soldiers alive and survive the ordeal. They form strong bonds with one another. The Marine felt a strong bond with his fellow Marines and could not bear the thought that one of them might die if he did not perform his duties. To him, becoming a CO was not an option because it might mean a fellow Marine would die because he refused to perform his duty.

IS CONTRADICTORY TO THIS:

(4) As a final note - the some of you need to better understand and respect our citizens who have agreed to defend the nation, even with their lives.

------------------------------------------------------------

OUR SOLDIERS ARE **NOT** "DEFENDING [OUR] NATION". THEY ARE KILLING AND BEING KILLED FOR BIG OIL AND THE ARMS INDUSTRIES OF WHICH PEOPLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND U.S. ADMINISTRATION HAVE *MAJOR* SELF-DEALING INVOLVEMENT.

BY GOVERNMENTS USING (4) AS CYNICAL PUBLIC RELATIONS, SOLDIERS ARE **MANIPULATED** INTO DOING (2).


On ABC-TV's Nightline, yesterday, when a U.S. soldier in Iraq was interviewed, he was asked if being in Iraq was worth dying for, given the negative and adverse response to
the U.S. occupation by so many Iraqis. (I was
surprised this question was even asked--and then even
broadcast--by a mainstream corporate journalist on a mainstream corporate U.S. tv news program.) The soldier hesitated, but thought and responded, "That's a tough question. But, I'll tell you what: my men are
worth dying for - to protect each other."

It reminded me of what Canadian "War" scholar (once broadcast on PBS-TV) and documentarian Gwynne Dyer said regarding recruiting and training young men (now women too) for war--especially foreign wars, not directly defending the homefront or an authentic direct danger to it:

"War.... They're NOT getting soldiers to defend notions of "freedom & democracy." [Especially where the U.S. had supported a dictator, or overthrown democracy in some particular country being invaded, and where, in general, the U.S. has *NEVER* intervened in the developing world to
install/establish a democracy in all of U.S. history.]
"That's the PR sales pitch. They are going to put soldiers in danger or harm's way and get them to defend, fight for, or even die for each other!"

------------------------------------------------------------

(1) He was WELL aware of the US history. Do not confuse his assertions about US normative values (democracy, liberty, the people as the masters of the country) with instances in our past where we have not lived up to those values.


I **REPEAT**: THE U.S. HAS ***NEVER***--IN ***ALL*** OF U.S. HISTORY -- ***NEVER*** DIRECTLY INTERVENED IN THE DEVELOPING/3RD WORLD FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING OR ESTABLISHING A DEMOCRACY.

QUITE TO THE CONTRARY, THE U.S. HAS EITHER SUPPORTED DICTATORS AND AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS OR *OVERTHROWN* DEMOCRACY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD -- EVEN ASSASSINATED (OR DIRECTLY AIDED AND SUPPORTED ASSASSINATIONS OF) DEMOCRATIC LEADERS IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD!

LIKE THE PRIMARILY WORKING-CLASS AND POOR -- DISPROPORTIONATELY BLACK AND BROWN GRUNTS (GROUND TROOPS) -- OF THE VIETNAM (OR EVEN KOREAN) WAR -- YOUR FRIEND, QUITE SADLY, BUT QUITE FRANKLY, DIED FOR *NOTHING*--BUT OTHER TROOPS STUCK THERE TOO IN THE VERY SAME MORASS OF U.S. GOVERNMENT LIES--IN TERMS OF U.S. "NORMATIVE VALUES".

OTHER THAN THAT, I STILL HIGHLY COMMEND YOUR FRIENDS REMARKS AND SENSE OF MORALITY. MY CONDOLENCES TO YOU AND ALL HIS OTHER LOVED ONES.

I HAVE AN OLDER BLACK FRIEND WHO WAS SMART ENOUGH TO NOT GO TO VIETNAM, BELIEVING AS MUHAMMAD ALI SAID, "NO VIETNAMESE EVERE CALLED ME NIGGER," AND NO VIETNAMESE EVER DID ANYTHING TO, OR THREATENED, HIM--OR THE U.S.. MY FRIEND IS PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY ALIVE TODAY WITH A LOVELY AND LOVING WIFE, TWO KIDS, AND A CHARMING HOME ON A QUIET RESIDENTIAL STREET.

MANY OF HIS FRIENDS WHO SERVED IN VIETNAM, FROM THE GHETTO THAT THEY GREW UP IN, WERE NOT SO FORTUNATE, AND THE STORIES OF THEIR EXPECTATIONS TO TRY TO KEEP THEIR HEADS DOWN AND MAKE IT THROUGH THEIR TOUR OF DUTY ALIVE OR IN ONE PIECE (PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY) WERE VERY SAD -- IN A COUNTRY WHERE THE ANTI-COLONIAL VIETNAMESE LIBERATION LEADERS WERE EVEN QUOTING EVERYTHING FROM THE U.S. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE TO THOMAS JEFFERSON ON THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM AND SELF-DETERMINATION.

YOU SHOULD BE HELPING TO ORGANIZE THE NEXT ANTI-WAR -- BRING HOME THE TROOPS! -- MARCHES. HAVE WE PROGRESSIVES JUST ROLLED OVER!???


Full of Crap
by tinfoilhat 4:33pm Tue Jul 15 '03



JA, you're full of SHIAT. Where are the Iraqi oil fields in US control with billions of gallons of stolen oil being shipped back to refineries and companies in the US for profit? What? Nowhere? Well how about that. Down the crapper goes one of your screaming arguments.

Another argument about the military being mostly minorities in the Vietname war, down the crapper again:
"Contrary to popular belief, blacks have not died in combat in disproportionate numbers, even in Vietnam. Two leading military sociologists, Charles Moskos of Northwestern and John Sibley Butler of the University of Texas, researched this carefully for their 1996 book "All We Can Be: Black Leadership and Racial Integration the Army Way."
They reported, "Black fatalities amounted to 12.1 percent of all Americans killed in Southeast Asia -- a figure proportional to the number of blacks in the U.S. population at the time and slightly lower than the proportion of blacks in the Army at the close of the war."
http://www.daveyd.com/polarticlesoldiersblack.html

Your comments about the US overthrowing democracy in the third world? Show me the proof...


Bush Is A Terrorist Under U.S. Law
by Patriot Act 4:36pm Tue Jul 15 '03



USC Title 18, Section 2331, (a new category) - "domestic terrorism" - has been created and means activities that:

"involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

Bush KNOWINGLY lied about Saddam's WMD to intimidate and coerce the public and congress to get his oil war in Iraq. Bush is, by definition of his own Patriot Act, a terrorist.

Mr. Bush, the country awaits your impeachment and free trip to Guantanamo.

www.votetoimpeach.org/


Knowingly Lied?
by tinfoilhat 4:42pm Tue Jul 15 '03



Bush "knowingly lied"? Where's your proof?


TO: tinfoilbrain
by JA 5:20pm Tue Jul 15 '03



tinfoilbrain: "JA, you're full of SHIAT."

JA: Oh! We've got a *real* 'intellectual' herrre!


tinfoilbrain: "Another argument about the military being *MOSTLY* minorities in the Vietname war, down the crapper again."

JA: Did I say that? But then an 'intellectual' of your high calibre can't read anyway.


tinfoilbrain: "...their 1996 book "All We Can Be: Black Leadership and Racial Integration the Army Way." "

JA: Look, I don't care about your military recruiting book for minorities or how it attempts to spin statistics. SO GO ARGUE WITH SOMEONE ELSE. I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR YOU. GOT THAT?


tinfoilbrain: "Where are the Iraqi oil fields in US control...?"

tinfoilbrain: "Your comments about the US overthrowing democracy in the third world? Show me the proof... "


JA: THIS IS HOW ***SSSTOOOPID*** YOU ARE -- AND WHY I WON'T WASTE MY TIME DEBATING YOU. YOU'VE *NEVER* OPENED A BOOK, HAVE YOU? YOU'RE EITHER SOME IDIOT BLACK BRAINLESS PATRIOT REPUBLICAN OR SOME STUPID WHITE CONSERVATIVE, CHAUVINISTIC, JINGOISTIC YOKEL.

EITHER WAY: BYYYE!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(You know, I bet if you look up at the sky and angle your head right, you can probably *tune in* Iraq, tinfoilbrain! At least help the troops call home on a satellite phone.)


JA is really, really smart.
by tinfoilhat 5:36pm Tue Jul 15 '03



ROTFLMAO, why can't you clowns ever seriously attempt to debate anything that you don't agree with? WTF?

Yeah you did say that, "LIKE THE PRIMARILY WORKING-CLASS AND POOR -- DISPROPORTIONATELY BLACK AND BROWN GRUNTS (GROUND TROOPS) -- OF THE VIETNAM (OR EVEN KOREAN) WAR --"

I love it how you insult me by insinuating (wow! big word, hope it was spelled right) that I'm not intelligent... great tactic, just say "you're dumb and I can't waste my superior intellect upon your lower intelligence" and I'd be just as happy! It's what you mean isn't it?

AND NOW, FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE POINT TO THE ONE GALLON OF IRAQI OIL (PERSONALLY SHIPPED AND SAFEGUARDED BY THE POOR MISGUIDED SAPS IN THE MILITARY I MIGHT ADD) THAT WE STOLE FROM IRAQ AND PROCESSED BACK IN THE US? WHERE IS IT? IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL RIGHT? SO WHERE IS IT SMARTGUY? ROTFLMAO!!!!

Bush lied, huh? Hang your hat on that one I'm sure the Dems will get the White House back with that one!!!! LOL!!!

Isn't his "lie" kind of like your lover telling you that you're a great lay and then you brag about that to your friends?? LOL!!!


NO TIME FOR YOU, TINFOILBRAIN: GET IT?
by JA 5:49pm Tue Jul 15 '03




tinfoilbrain: " just say "you're dumb and I can't waste my superior intellect upon your lower intelligence" "

JA: THAT'S **IT**!!


JA, you liar!!! You keep coming back!!!
by tinfoilhat 6:53pm Tue Jul 15 '03



JA, you liar!! You got the time!!! You keep coming back for more!!! Please since you have time, answer my questions! Otherwise you get lumped in with the rest of the ignorant Bush Haters!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


Third World Democracy
by Esco 7:48pm Tue Jul 15 '03



tinfoilhat:

In 1953, the democratically elected, parlimentary government of Iran was overthrown by the CIA, at the behest and with the cooperation by the British SIS. The Shah was put in place, leading to the bloody repression and death squads, which in turn led to (you guessed it) Ayatollah Khomeini.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-chapter1.html


Between 1952 and 1954, the U.S. government attempted, and eventually suceeded in overtworing the democratically elected government of Guatemala. The replacement leader was picked by the CIA, and in the resulting years, approximately 100,000 people were killed or "disappeared".

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/cia-guatemala1_1.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/cia-guatemala3_1.html


The (barely) democratically elected president of South Vietnam was assassinated in 1963, when it was feared that he was loosing the faith of the Vietnamese people. This occured with the go-ahead (or at least foreknowlege) of the CIA and the U.S. ambassador to S. Vietnam, Cabot Lodge.

http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist277/DanielFiles/Coup.html


The democratically elected, left-wing president of Chile (Salvadore Allende) was assassinated in 1973 during a military coup, a military coup given the go-ahead by Henry Kissenger. The new president? Pinochet.

"More than 30,000 people were murdered, including President Allende, resisting the military coup of Sept. 11, 1973. Chile has the United States to thank for the dictator Pinochet who immediately took over the country and then thousands of people 'disappeared' and were presumed dead. Hunger and starvation replaced the community-based nutrition and food programs of the Allende government."

http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/chile.htm


There are more (in just the second half of the last century), like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Indonesia, etc., but I trust I've made my point.

I would like to state that it is true that none of the governments we eliminated were perfect. However, I don't think any government, anywhere is fit to rule (and I've yet to find one--including the U.S. government--that gives me pause in this judgement).


free book on Christian objection to war
by danhshubin 8:31pm Tue Jul 15 '03
peacechurch@jps.net


For a Free copy of Conflict of Ages, a book on Christian objection to war and military service, email your name and address to peacechurch@jps.net or go to the webpage: http://www.christianpacifism.com

The book is comprised of a study of the Old and New Testament, the early church fathers and apologists, and a history of both Christian militarism and Christian pacifism.

www.peacehost.net/peacechurch


To Esco -- RE U.S. SUPPORT FOR DICTATORS
by JA 9:29pm Tue Jul 15 '03


I know that the list of U.S.-overthrown democracies -- or installed dictators is too long to conveniently list in one post, but don't forget about

- Patrice Lumumba, democratic President of the Congo, who was overthrown and assassinated in a CIA-led coup in 1961, leading to the 30-year murderous, tyrannical rule of Mobutu.

- Then there was the likes of U.S. support for Papa Doc and Baby Doc (the dictarial equivalent of Papa Bush and Shrub) and their Tonton Macoutes personal Terrorism and death squad in Haiti. And Hatian Emanuel Constant, head of the CIA-trained death and *terrorism* squad FRAPH, a mass murderer and *terrorist* who was happily given political refuge by the U.S. govt--and who happily lives--right here in the land of freedom & democracy.

- And there was Syngman Rhee, the first U.S.-installed and/or -supported murderous dictator in Korea in the mid-late 1940's, the longest ruling dictator in a nominal *40*-year dictatorship in South Korea, largely overturned (not overthrown), first by South Korean students, later allied especially by the middle-class -- with *NO* help, and indeed usually *OPPOSITION* from the U.S. government. This was in spite of two major dictator massacres of the South Korean people--the Cheju Island Massacre (killing tens of thousands of Koreans) and the Kwangju Massacre (killing thousands in a small town/city)--South Korea's large and small 'Tienanmen Square Massacres'--supported by the U.S. government. Before and in between those massacres, thousands of Koreans were killed or assassinated by the U.S.-supported dictatorships. South Korea, an innocent victim of Japan and WWII, is still paying the price of WWII--still divided in a deal initiated by the U.S. with the USSR -- even as Germany is already re-united and Japan has been a thriving industrial nation who has received virtually untold billions of dollars in U.S. economic development money since WWII.

- Then there was the U.S. govt's most recent support for the failed military overthrow of the democratically-elected govt of Hugo Chavez in Venezuala.

We could on for many kilobytes just giving a brief example-by-example bulleted itemization.


Although, even PBS/NPR usually has U.S. propaganda news or national public affairs shows (on the PBS Newshour, or the Charlie Rose show, or the McLaughlin, etc., pundit shows), every once in a while they have to put on an *establishment* 'alternative' voice: just *yesterday*, Charlie Rose had the author of the new book "Rogue Nation", about U.S. support for dictatorial regimes all over the world--including in the Middle East. I haven't read the book yet, but just comparing interviews, the highly academically credentialed University of California emeritus professor, Chalmers Johnson (look him up on the Web for his list of academic credentials), was on NPR *once* and, unlike the Rogue Nation author, Chalmers didn't pull *any* punches, and I suspect that Johnson's book "Blowback: The Cost & Consequences of American Empire" is even better.

Also, the late *truly* investigative journalist I.F. Stone and George Seldes wrote a lot about this kind of stuff. And so have numerous other people of journalistic, scholarly and academic note. [Like University of Chicago Professor Bruce Cumings, the formost American expert and author on Korea.]

By the way, Martin Lee's "The Beast Re-Awakens" is out in paperback now!

Since no one can refute these people's research, they are just usually *banned/blacklisted* from American TV or corporate radio networks--especially the media's panel political pundit shows.

(Just as anti-Zionists, including anti-Zionist *Jewish* scholars and foremost experts, like Joel Beinin, Stanford Professor and Chair of the *North American* Middle Eastern History Association, or Lenni Brenner, one of the *world's* foremost experts on the history of Zionism and Israel, are banned/blacklisted, let alone people like anti-Zionist Jewish-American journalist Jeffrey Blankfort, or Professor, author, and Jewish Holocaust survivor Normam Finkelstein, or Noam Chomsky, or Edward Herman, etc.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yo, tinfoilbrain!: I didn't say that I didn't have the time. I said that I didn't have the time FOR *YOU*!!

...

And tinfoilbrain wonders why I have no time for him. He's not qualified to wipe my...,well,...shoes.


TO: SZ -- NOT TO BE COLD, BUT...
by JA 11:19pm Tue Jul 15 '03



As I said in a post above, I highly commend your friend's moral stand -- at least verbally.

But, I was wrong when I said that he died for nothing -- and I knew it, but didn't want to say so then. To be frank, again, your friend *DID* die for something.

In the first U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, young men and women American soldiers fought and died for the fabulously rich--and family *dictatorship*--Emir (of Kuwait).

In the current U.S.-led, Anglo-American invasion of Iraq young men and women American soldiers are fighting and dying for Cheney's Halliburton Industries, Lockheed-Martin, Chevron, General Dynamics, Dynecorp, Vinnell Corp, and all the other military-industrial complex corporations lining up to make a killing off of confiscated Iraqi oil. By the way, shouldn't the *'liberated'**Iraqis* decide who gets what contracts with their, presumably, *own* oil and rebuilding??? Maybe the 'liberated' Iraqis want their *own* people's enterprises to get reconstruction contracts and maybe *Iraqis* want to decide who gets oil contracts with their *own* oil.

You know, it's a tragedy anytime someone--especially in their late teens to late 20's--gets shot and killed. That's *way* too young for that to happen. *No one* at such a young age--in their late teens (fresh out of high school) or twenties (when they should be in college)--should be forced to shoot and kill other, especially innocent, people and/or be shot and killed themselves. I read about Vietnam, and afterwards went back and read about Korea: I decided that I would *NEVER* go to to war in a foreign land for the U.S. government--war is nasty business (in fact, America's #1 business) because too much govt lying is involved. And if I had a son/daughter, I would certainly *NEVER* let them go to war either--unless our country were directly attacked or clearly and directly threatened by another nation.

Anti-war activists, like me, *were* supporting our troops: we said, "Support our troops: Keep them home!"


Telling the TRUTH about democracy
by Someone from Brazil 11:50pm Tue Jul 15 '03



In Brazil we have a dictum: "the worst blind is the one who doesn't want to see"

When someone says: "Your comments about the US overthrowing democracy in the third world? Show me the proof...". Maybe someone who says it is either a liar or an ignorant. Maybe he thinks that the capital of my country is Buenos Aires. I am from a third world country and I know what the US plutocrats did my to my democracy.

Back to the 50s and the beginning of the 60 Brazil was a democratic country and the fastest growing economy in the world. But then in 1964 the US planned a coup and installed a puppet military dictatorship. We managed to get rid of the gorillas, but not before they murdered and tortured thousands of students and ruined my country. Today we work hard to pay our foreign debt of hundreds of billions of dollars, a "debt" that never existed because the military dictators robbed all the money and sent it directly to US banks.

Not only in Brazil, but in Guatemala in 1954, in Chile in 1973, in Argentina in 1976 (and the list goes on) the ruling elite of the US kidnapped our democracy.

Just one more thing to say - a message to all of you in the US that protest against the occupation of Iraq - please, keep your struggle. You are the proof for the Brazilian people and to the world that the US is still a great country, full of honest and decent people, and not just a gang of fascist, ignorant warmongers.


Thank you
by Torrit 2:11am Wed Jul 16 '03



It's good to hear that there is diversity in the opinions of our soldiers. This soldier sounds like a great person. I am sorry that he died. I hope that he inspires you and me do make things better.


Wow
by Omni 7:35am Wed Jul 16 '03



To get all that information about the US supported dicatorships so quickly, i really must commend you on your ability to have that information on the tips of your fingers. Also loved the comment about the worst kind of blindness is one that doesnt want to see, it really explains alot of other people's ignorant comments backed up extremely questionable logic, perhaps being it shocks them up to much that they lash out blindly? Could be the case here...


Ja - Why this Marine served
by SZ 1:51pm Wed Jul 16 '03
zorzopulos@yahoo.com



JA:

I think you need to understand a couple of things about why going CO was not an option for this Marine.

(1) When we took his oath as a Marine, he swore that he would respond to the call if his country asked. He did not swear that he would evaluate each action and determine whether or not to act. Naturally, that doesn't mean he didn't have his own judgements, and his judgement was that this was the wrong war at the wrong time.

(2) He also felt an intense sense of loyalty to his fellow Marines. They had trained together, lived together, gone to each other's weddings, etc. They were this close because they relied on each other to keep the group alive. Once again, this isn't abstract, but very concrete. If they were in a war zone, they needed to have absolute trust in each other's abilities.

(3) He was not willing to let down his fellow Marines. They were counting on him, and he could never except that some of them would die if he could have a role in trying to save their lives. Thing of the strong bonds you hold with family, would you choose to ignore danger that could save their lives? It was not part of his character to abandon his fellow Marines and then watch the body bags coming home and wonder aload how many fewer it might have been had answered the call. A nice home in the suberbs were not worth the torture it would have inflicted on his soul.

He knew this wasn't the right war, but he had made that promise - a promise on which other people's lives depended.

----

I'm not asking you to agree, but I am asking you to understand. We are all very lucky to have people with as strong a sense of honor and duty that they are willing to die to protect us all. That is why it is important for us, as citizens, to ask tough questions and keep their interests in mind when deciding on issues of war and peace.

I know you mean well, but do understand that these people have taken on a burden that very few do, and sometimes make the ultimate sacrifice. For that, they should be honored and supported. When you say "but he should have just ignored his duty" insults those that see the world on multiple levels - a normative level about what the US ought to do, and a practical level of their own responsibility to live their lives in such a way to help bring it about. I know you don't mean it as an insult, but you are saying that those brave men and women somehow made the wrong choice. They did not - their leaders may have made the wrong choice, but they kept their promise to answer the call of duty from their country.

Do you really want to support the troops? Go to the funerals, speak with returning veterans, thank them for their sacrifice, and work like mad each day to change the country's leadership.


The truth
by King Mob 3:10pm Wed Jul 16 '03
kingmobsa@yahoo.co.uk


The tragic death of this soldier is yet another life wasted in a war that most of the world sees as one that was unecessary. Having the perspective of not being American or British, in this case, one is able to see beyond the fear that this war was sold on, that Hussein had links to Al Queda, that Hussein helped plan 911, that he still had weapons after being disarmed by the first UN weapons inspection team, whose concealment expert was Scott Ritter, a US Marine himself for 12 years. It is now 10 years later and at least half a million children later, plus this invasion's casualties. Added to that is the figure of US dead in Iraq, which nows exceeds the number lost in the Bush's daddy's war.

This story is real. This man's death was even reported in my country, South Africa.

How terrible it is that our world now cowers in the shadow of oblitiration in a real sense, even though we are in the 21st Century. How profoundly sad is it that the fear even makes people claim the this story is a fabrication by "Bush Haters". My heart goes out to the friends and families of every single soul that has died in this war fueled by fear and I am heartened by the sense of unity among those who are true patriots, not only of the United States, but of the world. It is that global unity that took to the streets of the world to oppose this war. In my country, one man - Nelson Mandela - knew the truth about how fake this invasion was and he stood up and said so. Viva True Patriots! Viva!


READ IT AND WEEP
by CAPTAIN_REAL_ESTATE 7:38pm Wed Jul 16 '03


I am posting this here because people need to realize that the U.S. armed saddam and are now complaining about it. if you dont belive me, go to the NSA archives and see the pics and documents.....i posted this in response originally to horowitz's attack on liberals for their war stance. still no reply from david or his editors.. please spread this to anyone who will listen.....




People Against the American Way
By: David Horowitz View Article

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7783

Date: 6/1/2003 6:43:09 AM
Name: captain_real_estate
Subject: ****DO YOUR RESEARCH NEXT TIME, DAVID*************
Comment:

"You’ve got to admire the tenacity of leftists. The same people who were colossally wrong about the war on terror (in both Afghanistan and Iraq); who clamored for America to sheathe its sword when America itself was under attack; who defamed America and its supporters as enemies of freedom even after the wars that led to liberation - these same people, now that history has thoroughly embarrassed them and refuted their claims, are … on the attack!"
*****************************************




It is Mr Horowitz who has fallen victim to the right wing's revisionism. It was Rumsfeld and Cheney, who as the directors of major companies ARMED Iraq during the 1980's. The U.S. paved the way for the rise of the Baath party and Saddam as early as the 1960's. Later, Rumsfeld met with Saddam and provided arms, intelligence and funding while Iraq openly used chemical weapons against iran during the iran-iraq war. Who was wrong about Iraq? The right wingers. Now we have to go in and fight another war against BLOWBACK, just as we did against Bin Laden, the Taliban (formerly called "freedom fighters" when they fought the Russians) in afgahnistan. In addition, Rumsfeld was on the board of directors of the company who sold two nuclear reactors (light water) to North Korea! That is the twisted story of our foreign policies. Who was wrong?

"our man in Baghdad"
One former official told UPI that he personally had signed off on a document that shared U.S. satellite intelligence with both Iraq and Iran "in an attempt to produce a military stalemate." On doing so, he said, "I thought I was losing my mind."
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0316/mondo1.php

"Shaking hands with Saddam"



PHOTOS, FILM AND DOCUMENTS SHOWING RUMSFELD MEETING WITH SADDAM IN 1983, SELLING DUAL USE TECHNOLOGY AND PROVIDING ARMS AND INTELLIGENCE, DESPITE HIS USE OF WMD AGAINST KURDS AND IRANIAN TROOPS. WHO IS WHINING NOW? RIGHT WINGERS!
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm
The recent disclosure that reports claiming Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger were based partly on forged documents has renewed complaints among analysts at the C.I.A. about the way intelligence related to Iraq has been handled, several intelligence officials said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/internat...cial/23CIA.html

U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says
By James Kirkup
London, May 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.
Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ''a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ahJS35XsmXGg&refer=top_...
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/022703a.html

"the two faces of rumsfeld"
Rumsfeld was on the board of directors of a company which sold nuclear reactors to north korea. While this was part of a agreement to provide nuclear power in exchange for north korea's promise not to pursue a weapons program, rumsfeld was on the board of directors and had a chance to stop the sale. instead he allowed the sale to go through and now whines about it.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/051103G.shtml


Ex-U.S. official says CIA aided Baathists
DAVID MORGAN
REUTERS NEWS AGENCY
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042203B.shtml






other excellent sites for research:
www.fas.org
www.globalresearch.org
www.janes.com


TO: SZ . DON'T BE CHUMPED!!
by JA 9:14pm Wed Jul 16 '03


SZ, you're repeating yourself -- AND YOU ARE PROVING GWYNNE DYER RIGHT ON HOW ALL YOUNG RECRUITS AND SOLDIERS ARE MANIPULATED BY GOVERNMENTS INTO FIGHTING IMPERIALIST WARS, ESPECIALLY THE YOUNG AND THE POOR ENLISTED TO FIGHT WARS FOR THE OLD AND THE RICH! (SEE: JA 2:18pm Tue Jul 15 '03, ""RE: My friend,this Marine").

Maybe you can find Dyer's video documentary "WAR" at a good library or a really good video store in the documentary section to see how recruits and soldiers are molded. Drill sargeants don't drill soldiers on the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the principles of democracy, or int'l human rights laws and conventions, or previous U.S. genocidal and imperialist wars. Like what George Washington or Andrew Jackson did against the Native Americans, or what the U.S. did in its first foreign imperialist (and genocidal) wars in the Philippines (read what Mark Twain had to say about the Philippino-American war).

You just explained that your friend was not really fighting for "freedom & democracy" or to "liberate" the Iraqi people--*for* the *Iraqi* people. YOU JUST POINTED OUT THAT YOUR DEAR LOST FRIEND WAS FIGHTING IN IRAQ--OR ANYWHERE ELSE THAT THE U.S.WAS NOT REALLY THREATENED, BUT SENT HIM--FOR HIS *FRIENDS*!! That's not a good reason to go kill people--especially for the rich and the corporations, let alone "to serve our country."

And *how* did they become such tight friends. The *government* put them into boot camp where, just as in a college fraternity, they were put through hell together--*initiated*--so that they could be force-bonded with each other. They later are put into other hells, so that they can be force-bonded some more--to fight for each other!

American soldiers were kept waiting in the Kuwaiti desert for a *LONNNG* time before the war actually started. This had less to do with military logistical preparation than with creating a fighting tension in the troops. This was pre-war 'initiation'--another hell to put them through--so that your friend, his military buddies, and the other troops would be force-bonded some more--and so that they would be in the blazing *HEAT* and the blinding, biting *DUST* storms, and kept tense so long that they would *prefer* to fight and even, if 'necessary', *DIE* to just get it overwith! And as MLK and Malcolm X pointed out, these same troops--regardless of color--that are forced together to fight for the rich--come back home and all go to their mostly racially segregated neighborhoods in most of this country.

Perhaps the first American soldier to be killed was a young Black man. His father didn't believe in the war either. Remember how his father held up his son's picture in front of the family house and blamed *BUSH*--**NOT** *SADDAM* and **NOT** *BIN LADEN* for taking his son away, and how his father said that there would forever be an empty seat at their family's kitchen table because of *BUSH*.


SZ: "Thing of the strong bonds you hold with family, would you choose to ignore danger that could save their lives?"

JA: I just told you above that I would *NEVER* go fight in a foreign war for the U.S. govt against another nation in the first place, *NOR* would I let any hypothetical son/daughter of mine (and by implication, I suppose, any other family member) do so either--unless our country were directly attacked or directly threatened with attack by another nation. Saddam *NEVER* threatened the U.S.; Afghans *NEVER* threatened the U.S.; but Kim Jong-il *DID* (but only if we didn't stop threatening *North Korea*), but the U.S. govt never went after him! *THAT'S* how you can tell if another country really *is* a danger to the U.S.--because the U.S. will *NOT* attack it then, unless that *nation* actually attacks or declares war *first*.


SZ: "He knew this wasn't the right war, but he had made that promise - a promise on which other people's lives depended."

JA: SO HE PROMISED HIS *FRIENDS* IN THE MILITARY, NOT ME!! I DON'T/DIDN'T WANT HIM OPPRESSING AND KILLING OTHER INNOCENT PEOPLE (OR ENABLING THAT), especially NOT IN MY NAME!! I DID *NOT* ASK HIM TO DO THAT. I DIDN'T ASK HIM OR HIS MILITARY BUDDIES TO "SACRIFICE" FOR ME!

AND **NOW**, *GUESS* *WHAT*!?: THE GOVT **NOW** SAYS THAT OUR TROOPS WILL BE STAYING **INDEFINITELY**! WHO'D'VE GUESSED THAT THEY *WOULDN'T* HAVE BEEN HOME IN 6 EASY WEEKS!?


SZ: " When you say "but he should have just ignored his duty" "

JA: You are *fabricating* a quote that I never made, and I don't appreciate that. Please make your arguments without fabrication. I find that offensive. I am quite capable of speaking for myself. What I said was what I typed.


SZ: "insults those that see the world on multiple levels..."

JA: If they understood "the world on mulitple levels" they would understand how they are being used as pawns and canon fodder for the super-rich and their multinational corporations--corporations which increasingly have *no* particular nationality (so *who* are *they* serving, except their super-rich investor friends, like the Bush's and the Saudi Bin Laden family and the Kuwaiti royal family, in other countries). The soldiers, like your friend, would realize that they are being *CHUMPED* with indoctrination and group initiation about "duty" and "service to your country" and "fighting for freedom & democracy" in countries--like *KUWAIT* and *SAUDI ARABIA* or, before that *KOREA* and *VIETNAM*!--where the U.S. supported and armed *DICTATORS*.

American troops usually see (the world) in *DENIAL*. And why not!? Who wants to openly see themselves as oppressing another people. And a government that makes pretenses to democracy is not going to tell its people or its soldiers, "*Let's* go *fight* for the *rich* *Emir*!", or "*Let's* go *fight* for *Chevron* and *Halliburton*!"


SZ: "Do you really want to support the troops? Go to the funerals, speak with returning veterans,..."

JA: I have no connection to the military. I have no known way to contact, let alone speak with the families of soldiers in Iraq. But, you obviously do--SO *YOU* SHOULD DO THAT! AS I SAID ABOVE, YOU AND ALL OF US SHOULD BE ORGANIZING FOR MORE ANTI-WAR MARCHES, AND *YOU* SHOULD BE SPEAKING AT THEM, NOT ROLLING OVER AS THE PREVIOUS ANTI-WAR ORAGANIZERS/LEADERSHIP HAVE DONE. I WAS THE *ONLY* PERSON TO PUBLICLY PROTEST WAR-MONGER AND SUPPOSED PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL WRITER CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, WHEN HE WAS INVITED TO SPEAK AT THE ANNUAL MARIO SAVIO MEMORIAL LECTURE AT BERKELEY. I INTELLECTUALLY SHOT DOWN TERRY GROSS AND TODD GITLIN: DO A WEB SEARCH FOR "TERRY GROSS: NPR WARMONGER".

I *DID* MY PART--AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO--AS A REGULAR GRASSROOTS ANTI-WAR PROTESTER AND MARCHER (EVEN IN THE RAIN AND COLD)--AND *I* DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY FAMILY OR FRIENDS OR ANYONE I KNOW IN IRAQ.

I TRIED TO KEEP YOUR FRIEND AND ALL HIS FRIENDS, AND ESPECIALLY ALL THE BLACK AND BROWN TROOPS (WHO *MIGHT* COME HOME TO SEGREGATED NEIGHBORHOODS AND POLICE BEATINGS)--AND THE *MANY* *MANY* MORE INNOCENT IRAQIS AND THEIR CHILDREN WHO HAVE AND WILL DIE--ALIVE. IT WAS--AS THE BLACK FATHER SAID--BUSH AND CHENEY AND RUMSFELD AND RICE AND POWELL AND WOLFOWITZ WHO KILLED YOUR FRIEND.


This is too much
by Jeni 12:14am Thu Jul 17 '03



I really can't believe what I see here. How is it that this has become a forum for judgement on the character of this Marine? SZ knew him, I knew him, and we loved him. If you people understood what kind of man this Marine was, you wouldn't be asking these rediculous questions. Of course this story is real. Of course he would never have escaped his duty. Of course he signed up under a very different administration, and was not happy with the current situation. This man loved peace. He was tormented by the pain our govt. is creating in the world. He loved peace with his entire being, and he knew this war would only result in more global unrest. Maybe you all should take the time to listen to the interview, to hear things in his own words before you go passing judgements on a person's character. I promise you, this Marine was no 'jarhead'. He was an intellectual, a musician, a warri
 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.17 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=582559