Recently I received a message on the List Serv I’m on at school. Have a gander:
If you are supportive of the U.S. Government's plan to attack Iraq, or you feel Librarians should stay out of "such matters," you may want to delete this email now
The purpose of this email is to put out a call for Librarian Blocks at the upcoming Feb. 15th International day of Protest. Not only could this manifest itself as a contingent of like minded people from the same profession marching behind banners saying things like: "Books not Bombs", “Shushhhhing the Warhawks,” but with the collective creativity of Librarians who knows!
As I was reading this, I wondered what kind of people I was going to school with, learning from. Before I had a change to regret my grad school decision, someone responded to the list. This is what they had to say:
For those who don't want to read another viewpoint please feel free to delete this now.
It is easy to protest against something, it may give you a sense of control where you otherwise feel helpless. It is another thing to provide the alternative solution. What is your solution?
I am tired of your lame protests.
And as I was returning from class today, I had to agree. The subways were full of dirty hippies with nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon then stand outside and freeze their asses off protesting something that hasn’t even happened yet. Against the war, are you? What fucking war? There is no damn war. Shut up about the war already, ‘kay?
But, okay, lets presume there actually will be a war in Iraq, and this isn’t all just political maneuvering on the part of our brilliant administration. Are you protestor types against war in general, or just this one in particular? If you are against war in general, I guess that’s noble of you, but incredibly naďve. War happens. There is no getting out of, especially if you’ve got a bunch of maniacs running the nations of the world (Bush, Saddam, Kim Jong Il take your pick).
If you are opposed to this war, why? Someone tell me.
Don’t say oil, that reason doesn’t make sense. Saudi Arabia has more oil than Iraq and is linked much easily to the groups behind 9/11. And even if it was about oil, oil is a pretty damn good reason to go to war. Why should we pay $1.79 / gallon when we could spend billions of tax dollars to install a puppet regime in Iraq and pay only, what, like $1.59 / gallon?
And don’t tell me about the starving children in Iraq. This rally is costing millions of dollars in organizational costs to the groups sponsoring the rallies, and millions more to the City of New York (and every other city hosting a protest today) in additional labor costs to manage the crowds and their eventual refuse. Why are you wasting that money on printing leaflets and renting loudspeakers when there are starving children? Stop being such hypocrites.
Besides, the only reason those kids are starving is because their government refuses to abide by U.N. resolutions. If Iraq decided to play nice and did what they were told, what they already agreed to, then the sanctions wouldn’t be necessary.
Really, someone give me one good reason why you are against military action in Iraq. I want to understand. I’m listening to the coverage of the rallies now, and I’m not hearing reasons. Each one of the speakers plays it off like they’ve got the support of the world on their side, but in a recent poll only 29% of respondents unilaterally oppose military action in Iraq. All the "anti-war" rhetoric has yet to convince anyone. In fact, not only are they not convincing me to join their side, but their yelling and wild accusations (sorry, budget cuts at the State University of New York have nothing to do with increases in military spending) are turning me off of the peace movement altogether.
To quote the snarky librarian above, “It is easy to protest against something, it may give you a sense of control where you otherwise feel helpless. It is another thing to provide the alternative solution. What is your solution? I am tired of your lame protests.”
The people involved in the rally here in New York got all up in arms because they were denied a permit to march. They were provided a permit to stand. The city’s reasoning was that it would be too much of a security hazard to have people wandering around. Somehow, the thin-skinned organizers of the rally took that to mean the city was trying to stifle them. I’m sorry, do you think the people of Iraq would be allowed a permit to protest their government’s policies? If an Iraqi citizen requested such a permit, they’d be stoned faster than Matthew McConaughey in a drum circle.
How are you goddamn Constitutional rights being violated? The founding fathers provided us the explicit right to gather peacefully, not to fuck up traffic. Trying to ensure that people with lives can go about their business today is not the same is trying to shut you idiots up. Because really, if they wanted to shut you up, you wouldn’t have gotten a permit at all.
by mg at February 15, 2003 4:11 PM
Speaking of Constitutional rights, a reporter for the local (public) radio station I’m listening to was trying to interview several police officers while they were trying to arrest people. She got upset that they wouldn’t answer her questions, and framed their actions as a violation of the arrestees Constitutional rights, having NO IDEA why those people were being arrested. Is it that much easier to assume you are being oppressed than actually getting some facts and doing your goddamn job?
by mg at February 15, 2003 4:43 PM
Considering the huge difference in the number of people who are protesting against going to war with Iraq and the number of people who protested against going to war with Afghanistan barely a year ago, I'd say it's safe to guess that many of these "protestor types" are against this war in particular.
As for protesters not providing convincing solutions, let's not forget that the pro-war people have been pretty much unable to provide a convincing problem.
by Mister Swill at February 15, 2003 5:26 PM
Why should we pay $1.79 / gallon when we could spend billions of tax dollars to install a puppet regime in Iraq and pay only, what, like $1.59 / gallon?
Because the U.S has no right to go into any country and install a puppet regime for its own benefit, no matter how much they don't like the leaders there now. The U.S is one country, there are 191 countries currently involved in the U.N. I personally enjoy the idea of democratically deciding world issues with as many countries as possible and not one country making world decisions for their own benefit.
This rally is costing millions of dollars in organizational costs to the groups sponsoring the rallies, and millions more to the City of New York (and every other city hosting a protest today) in additional labor costs to manage the crowds and their eventual refuse. Why are you wasting that money on printing leaflets and renting loudspeakers when there are starving children? Stop being such hypocrites.
Millions. Not billions, as the war will cost. Monumental difference.
budget cuts at the State University of New York have nothing to do with increases in military spending.
Not really the point of the argument, it's more on the basis of spending 40 billion dollars to kill one human being we don't like seems economically ridiculous, I think. That money has to come from somewhere, so when you look at cuts in funding in any sector at the same time, it seems a little fishy and the conclusion can be drawn easily.
These reasons being presented, I think the main reason I'm against the war is because going into another country and gunning a man down in front of his wife and his children because he happens to live in Iraq is wrong. Civilians die in wars like this and there will never come a point where that is justified. I will never support war, however, I would be a lot less opposed to it if the general consensus of the world's population was for it, and that just isn't the case yet.
by Dave at February 15, 2003 5:46 PM
I sense that you, like me, hold conservative views for the most part. That said, here's why I oppose any war in Iraq now: 1) Mostly, all I care about is my family's safety and well-being. I view everything through this prism. Does an invasion of Iraq increase or decrease the chance of bad consequences for us? I think it increases it, only because of the volatile and sneaky nature of our sworn enemies, fundamentalist Muslim fanatics. Saddam himself is actually a secular fellow Osama despises. 2) Any effort expended against Iraq or anything else is effort not expended systematically disposing of all those people who've repeatedly sworn to decimate our entire society, and are well on their way to doing so. Priorities. 3) You can't bomb Iraq while UN weapons inspectors are there. The same places they're interested in are the prime military targets. Duh. Imagine the flap that would ensue if we incinerated a couple dozen of them. And if you remove them there goes any element of surprise.
But I dig your idea about the oil prices.
by Anna at February 15, 2003 7:03 PM
How about an Anti-Protest Rally. I'll do it, naked in the cold. We'll have one banner saying, "please shut up. Thank you and god bless the world"
by LOCKHEEd at February 15, 2003 7:07 PM
I'll be there. I'm making my banner right now. It says "Lockheed, please put your clothes back on."
by nancy at February 15, 2003 7:45 PM
There's in one victim, the human race of course, because the only one who is truly waging war is THOR and MARS, god's who must do their duty. So send the protestors up in a shuttle that explodes. Hmm. 844pm, diet of tobacco, cheap beer, and failed attempts at complete masturbation. Paxil destroys all libido. Getting late, and colder... Need to do something. Douchenation is coming over to my house soon. I told him, we needed him back on BadSemite. Yes. We need a Manhattan BadSam get together and soon. It will form a Cult, with money, and a pen that is mightier than any sword.... my nine is gonna die with me...
by LOCKHEED at February 15, 2003 8:46 PM
LOCKHEED AND DOUCHENATION WILL BE AT DIVE75 ON W75TH/COLUMBUS AVE. Be there. BadSamManhattanites... be there, and things will become new.....
by LOCKHEED at February 15, 2003 10:19 PM
Thanks for some intelligent answers. Listening to almost the entire rally, I didn't hear a single reasonable speaker. The comment about SUNY's budget, for example, was a reason one of them had against the war in Iraq (the only reason I brought that up). Everyone also kept bringing up the 2000 election, which come on already, even if you weren't wrong about anyone "stealing" and election, whether or not Bush deserves to be in office has nothing to do with whether or not Saddam Hussein deserves to be in office.
But, to your comments:
Mr Swill: You really think there hasn't been aby evidence of a "convincing problem." So why is there a U.N. resolution saying that if Iraq doesn't fully cooperate with the (now) ongoing inspections, they will face military action? As much as some of the members of the U.N. oppose a U.S. only war, most support a U.N. led action, if necessary.
Which is the same way I, and most Americans (more than 70%) feel. The problem with the protestors today is that they made it seem like there would be no reason to ever take action against Iraq. If this was a case of law, there probably wouldn't be enough evidence to convict without a reasonable doubt, but the circumstancial case is pretty damn overwhelming. I don't believe the current inspections will ever find enough direct evidence, since they haven't been able to find anything in 9 years. That doesn't mean there isn't a "smoking gun" is out there somewhere, we just need to look a little harder, something the U.N. seems unwilling to do (probably because then they'd actually have to take action, instead of sitting around making gestures).
The gas prices bit was a joke. I was just trying to express how silly it is to think this interest in Iraq is solely about cheap oil. The cost of the initital war, and the continued costs of peacekeeping would certainly outweigh any benefits in cheaper gas prices.
Any war will costs billions of dollars, no doubt. But the end result is that people in Iraq won't be oppressed, starving, and under constant threat from their own government. Going on the way we have for the last decade (sanctions), hasn't done anything to force Iraq to treat it's citizens any better. If a war, no matter the monetary cost, will A) protect our interests, while B) provide rights to the ethnic minorities, dissenters, and average man in Iraq, I think it's a bargain.
And Dave, you said you are against the war, no matter what. So, what is the answer? As the snarky librarian said, it is one thing to protest, it is something else entirely to actually have an alternate answer. What else is there to do in this situation?
by mg at February 15, 2003 11:35 PM
I just want to clarify first off that I am not a protestor. While I do have strong views on certain subjects, you won't see me with a sign and a megaphone any day in the future. I don't believe it's the right medium for a message to be delivered, and I agree with you MG, printing off flyers and wasting police force time is a waste of money that could be better served feeding the starving mouths out there. I wish protesters would go away too, but until everyone learns to listen a little more to each other, they aren't going to.
I also want to clarify that I am a soon to be 20 year old Canadian boy who hasn't seen the world yet and bases his opinions on what he has heard, rather than what his eyes have seen, so ultimately I know I'm usually talking out of my ass with whatever opinion I have on a subject.
This being said, I submit the following:
the end result is that people in Iraq won't be oppressed, starving, and under constant threat from their own government.
That is not entirely true. I've heard and read about so many horror stories of persecution following the insertion of the puppet regime in Afghanistan to draw this conclusion right away. If done carefully and through peaceful negotiation, I believe it is possible to help change the face of Iraqi political structure. I just don't believe it is our right to insert a government into a country we know so little about. If the main concern of the U.S led War on Terrorism was to free the people of Afghanistan and Iraq from persecution, it wouldn't have taken Sept. 11 to get the ball rolling. We don't care about the people of Iraq, we just want to feel safe ourselves. Anna put it poignantly above:
Mostly, all I care about is my family's safety and well-being. I view everything through this prism.
To argue that our motives are to free the persecuted and feed the hungry is to argue blindly from the rage we have built up against Sadaam. It might be a side-effect from dropping our bombs on the people of Iraq, but it certainly is not the reason we are fighting, or else it would be called the War on Persecution. It's clear that U.S safety/paranoia is reason numero uno for the war. I don't think you would dispute this.
You also asked what was the answer to the situation that presents itself in Iraq. I believe we already have the answer. Constant supervision. Economic conditions based on compliance to a unilateral code created by the U.N, updated annually, monthly if need be. If Sadaam rolls over in bed, we should know about it. I don't see how he could pose a threat this way. Up to this point, we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. I don't want to jump the gun and say that this proves that our peace process is working because it is too early to tell, but it is a good indication that this may be the case. If we take our time and carefully monitor his movements, we have the intelligence to stop anything he wants to do before he does it. This intelligence is Defense dollars well spent, I believe. Bombs and guns are not.
It's almost 2am where I am, I'm starting to lose my train of thought. If I think of something later, I'll post it, but right now I want to sleep. I must say I am enjoying the discussion so far, however, and am eager to hear responses.
by Dave at February 16, 2003 12:50 AM
Okay, so DOUCHENATION and LOCKEED had a strange night, we got one call girl and she's coming in 20 minutes, and since Douche is really drunk, he cut himself with his knife, and his finger is bleeding profusely, he has no Health insurance, so I just applied pressure, with gauze and bacitracin, and I squeezed his finger tightly , bettin gthat it would clog the blood, Douch says, there will be blood all over Lockheedsa hand. I said, it should be clotted by now, just apply pressure.... turns out blood is on my hand on on his rag...oand ding dong...oh the petite blond blue eyed hooker is not at my door. I will cum tonight.
by LOCKHEED at February 16, 2003 2:02 AM
Well, this might be the very end of Lockheed's camraderie with Douchenation.
A shame. His phone didn't work, I tried calling, his finger was bleeding profusely, despite the gauze... and he returns home in the cold through Central Park(mind you that I write this at 536am), and he leaves me a vicious email, so unlike him, a beast, and I wept. I was concerned. But since his girlfriend wasn't home for the long weekend, he still hasn't learned the vital ability to comfort himself. Alas, perhaps the silverlining, now, he will learn the hard way what loneliness is, and does... BadSemites, please pray for Lockheed and Douchenations friendship. On another note, I had to deal with pimps twice, because the hooker kept fucking up the credit card. And finally to top that off. I couldn't cum. Nor get it up for more than two seconds. Oral, every position, and even anal. Alas, alex quixote trader errant of Midtown, the trader of woeful countenance will rise above this petty mess. I just my friend Douchenation will too.
by LOCKHEED at February 16, 2003 5:40 AM
Douchenation has a knife? Now, as to the UN weapons inspectors, they will fail because that is what the UN does. It is a joke, no more pertinent than a debating society. But if it wanted to be useful it would pull its inspectors out of harm's way, fire them and replace them with murderous bounty hunters. Who could then hunt down Osama, Dr. Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, Alec Baldwin and all their associates.
by Anna at February 16, 2003 5:51 AM
Anna, up late like me... I will watch the sunrise, a new day, and I pray that Douchenation makes the proper decision... Sister's of Mercy... they've destroyed something, but in Newtonian law, in this destruction, something equally proportional has been created. I just don't know what. Perhaps when the sun rises. I will know. And your love is dust... and your thighs are ruined you wanted to much...let's say you came back..some time to soon...
...starving in some deep mystery... I need a Kind Powerful God. I do.
by LOCKHEED at February 16, 2003 6:28 AM
Uh, thanks for sharing your night Lock. Really. If anyone is curious what I did, I fell asleep on the couch around 4:30 in the afternoon, woke up around 10:30, for just long enough to post the comment above and move to my bed. I just woke up about 15 minutes ago, meaning I slept for a good 17 hours last night. Thats the stuff.
by mg at February 16, 2003 10:16 AM
I wasn't up late I was up early to check out the massive blizzard currently gripping my 'hood. And yeah that sounds like quite a night y'all had. Hookers take Visa?
by Anna at February 16, 2003 1:28 PM
Don't you think having the U.N. constantly involved in the operations of the Iraqi government (who have been so good about being truthful and respectful in the past) isn't going to solve anything? The U.N. inspectors were supposedly to have been in place constantly following Gulf War I, but were prevented from doing their job, and eventually kicked out of the country completly several years ago. Whether or not you think they've got "weapons o' mass destruction" (come on, does anyone honeslty believe they don't?), it's pretty obvious the Iraqi government has gone out of their way to prevent the U.N. from efficiently and effectively doing their jobs.
Would you suggest removing the sanctions while the inspections go on? Even if the Iraq government had an unlimited unflux of money, do you think any of it would go to those "starving children?" We are talking about a country where, even before GWI, the average family income for a year is equivalent to what a family below the poverty line here in the States makes in about a week.
So, basically, the sanctions will remain inevitably, since the inspections will continue inevitably. This is a lose-lose situation. A war, however, is a winning situation all around - American interests are protected, Iraqi citzens benefit by recieving increased international aid, and the overall stability of the region increases. Besides, does anyone think that military action now will result in more death than another decade of sanctions?
by mg at February 16, 2003 3:02 PM
You are still arguing under the assumption that we are going to war for some humanitarian reason, MG, and that just isn't true. Speaking only for my own country (but assuming that the story south of the border isn't a whole lot different), the average Canadian 15 years or older gave $74 to charity last year with over 75% of that going to domestic (religious, health, social services, etc) charities. Now, our average income was around $26,474. We don't give a fuck about what happens to people elsewhere in the world. We feel bad about it, sure, but when push comes to shove, we aren't prepared to give of ourselves in order to make the changes necessary. $74 dollars per person. That means that the average person who is arguing that we should go to war to free the people of Iraq spent more going out to a fancy restaurant than they did "caring" about other countries. Precedence shows that we don't care. So why should I believe that we are going to war because we want to change the conditions for Iraqi people? I see no proof of this. All I see is rage and a president who wants to shoot first and ask second.
Slightly off topic, but if the war happens, are you planning on enlisting MG?
by Dave at February 16, 2003 4:21 PM
I'm not arguing that is the sole reason, or even the most important of the many reasons, just that there will be a humanitarian benefit as a result of any war, even if only because whatever change in government takes place over there means full aid packages will be provided to Iraq. Because the reasons are not entirely altruistic doesn't mean they aren't valid, and that final results wont provide positive benefits to the Iraqis as well.
As for the $74 dollars a person figure, if that number holds true in the U.S., that means 22 billion dollars a year are donated to charity. Add to that the 20 billion provided in foreign aid (taken from tax dollars), and you've got a figure that is nothing to sneeze at. $42 billions of dollars (plus US tax dollars provided for social services within the country), means a lot of difference to the lives of people in need.
The president is NOT shooting first. It was the administration's initiative that brought the UN inspectors back. If Bush was really going to shoot first, he wouldn't have bothered. Don't let prejudices against the man blind you to the fact he has handled this situation a lot more diplomatically then it would seem on first glance.
As for whether I'd enlist, I've thought about it seriously since 9/11. If I hadn't made it into grad school this year, the military was one of the alternate options on my list. The United States has a standing military. If things develop to an ongoing war, I may enlist, but as it stands now there are more than enough professional soldiers that I am not needed.
But, that question is besides the point, as are all your comments. Everyone keeps screaming that the war is wrong, but I've yet to hear a single plan for a peaceful resolution.
by mg at February 16, 2003 5:22 PM
I've yet to hear a single plan for a peaceful resolution.
We aren't sending those weapons inspectors into Iraq to take some pretty pictures for us. We don't have the U.N because we want to be social buddies. If you haven't heard a plan it's because you don't want to hear one. Peaceful resolution is a longer, more thought out process than war. It takes time to develop peace. You won't see it tomorrow. War is the quickest, easiest solution to the problem, which is probably why the U.S-led regime choses to back it, but I don't see it as the right answer to fix the problem. Killing innocent people, whether for terror purposes or for political reasons is unjustifiable, and until someone can come up with a war plan that leaves the civilians out of it, I'm going to be against war and have faith that there is enough intelligence and compassion out there to make peace, even if it is a hard and long and aggravating process. Assasinate Hussein , I support that. He is evil. If you can find that little bastard Bin Laden, string him up by the fucking nose, he deserves it. But leave the innocent people out of it because not one human being deserves to die so that we can feel safer knowing that Hussein is gone and our enemies are neutralized. You don't deserve to die for that. I don't deserve to die for that. Some person neither of us even know about and won't hear about doesn't either. Period.
Anyways, I think I'm done with this discussion, I almost snarked on you a few times in this response (my temper flares here and there when I get a bit excited) and that's when I know I need to quit, because I enjoy your site and don't really want to leave this with a bad taste in my mouth. Your time is appreciated but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, because neither of us are going to provide an argument that is going to satisfy the other, I think.
by Dave at February 16, 2003 6:37 PM
Much like protesting and marching with banners, bickering about what to do with Iraq in a blog is pretty much pointless. It’s not going to change anyone’s mind on the subject and it shouldn’t. I’m not going to pay attention to some random stranger on the web. They’re just like the person holding a picket sign. What credibility do they have?? This stuff is all over the net pissing people off and fucking up traffic.
by MrBlank at February 16, 2003 10:15 PM
I agree Mr.B, this isn't going to change anything. But talking about porn gets pretty monotonous after a while. I hope this site never skews too heavily in any one directions, because I know that'd bore me, not to mention anyone else.
I really wasn't trying to change anyone's opinion though. I honestly want to hear some real alternate solutions. I listened to 6 hours of coverage from the New York rally yesterday, waiting to hear any sort of reasonable discourse. Despite the way I voice my opinions here, my mind is open to new ideas. But, just like all the people on the right who yell that anyone against the war is un-American (something I don't believe), the only thing I heard from the protesters is that anyone who believes military action was an option only did so because they'd been lied to by the "evil government." I'm sorry, but even I'm not that much of a cynic. And no matter how much you think Bush stole the election in 2000, what does that have to do with Iraq now? With cadre of advisors and cabinet members, do you really think Bush Jr is bringing the world to the brink of war because of personal familial grudge against Saddam Hussein? Let's be adults here and state how ridiculous an idea that is. But, that is the only kind of shit I'm hearing from the anti-war movement. I'm waiting, actually hoping, to hear something reasonable that I can get behind because I don't want a war.
And Dave, for the record, there are still idealists in this world, and I happen to be one of them. I believe that a regime change in Iraq would be beneficial not just to it citzens, but to stabalizing the entire Middle East. If it were as simple as just killing Saddam Hussein, I'd say do it yesterday. But political assinations are illegal (against the US's own laws) and that doesn't leave any option besides war. People may die today (Americans and Iraqis), but in the long run this will be to the advantage of the entire world.
by mg at February 16, 2003 10:38 PM
Both of you guys seem right on target to me. Whatever form today's discourse takes on, it always has a large element of preaching to the choir. Bumper stickers might as well be sold in sets: Anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-death penalty and vice versa. I once tried to get a guy I know to explain how he could oppose abortion under all circumstances, on simplistic Strictly Moral killing-a-human-is wrong grounds yet favor the death penalty. Somehow, he did. Sorry to be so long-winded, but the blizzard made it impossible for the paperboy to come. Sooo bored...
by Anna at February 17, 2003 7:16 AM
Holy crap, it would take me an hour to read the full thread. It is fairly clear that there is not a clear cut answer to this problem. As in most cases, this is not about right or wrong, you can argue both sides to death. This is about a decision. You can't go through life debating the pros and cons, you have to take action and deal with the consequences.
For this decision there are consequences to both sets of reasoning. Which one can we live with?
It still isn't clear to me why Saddam is worse than others, but it is clear that he is a bad mofo. I don't feel like being a baby sitter to the world but damn that is one big bully on the block.
So, what will it be? Which way will secure the most acceptable losses? That is the question.
by syd at February 17, 2003 10:29 AM
Sorry for the late entry into the discussion, but I've been out of town...
I remember this grand idea called the League of Nations. It was made after WW1 and was intended to help maintain international peace. Then Nazi Germany occurred and began its illegal arms build up. The League passed resolution after resolution demanding Germany to cease and desist but never actually could agree to do anything about it. Every country maintained that it just wasn't "their problem". Then Hitler started killing the Jews in Germany in what is now known as the Holocaust. Oh we knew about it and so did Europe but it still just wasn't our problem. Then he began attacking his neighbors in a bid for domination, starting with Europe and planning to go so much further but still the United States did nothing... it just wasn't our problem yet. Then we were attacked and entered into WW2 and we remember this as the "just war". Hitler was overthrown and his regime completely replaced because we knew that unless we could give the people a better life something similar might happen again.
So will Saddam be allowed to continue killing the Kurds and building up his illegal weapons while we pass resolution after resolution condemning him for this? Is war the only way to stop him from doing this or could we do it more peacefully? I still pray that there is a peaceful solution but I cannot think of a feasible one and I have yet to hear one in the news or from any of the anti-war protestors I've talked with.
by JC at February 18, 2003 2:08 PM
And look @ the Germans today. I used to feel horrible about the firebombing of Dresden as depicted by Kurt Vonnegut in... one of his books.
by Anna at February 18, 2003 9:24 PM
You don't feel horrible about it anymore?
I was in Dresden a couple years ago, nearly a decade after the Berlin Wall fell. And you know what? It looked like the city had been bombed only a couple years before. It looked worse than Detroit. And you know why? Because the Russians couldn't give a fuck about helping East Germany after WWII. West Germany, on the other hand, is beautiful, because Americans went out of there way to rebuild the country. Because thats what Americans do. It was in the world's best interest to a) destroy Germany, and then b) rebuild it better than before. Did it help the Germans? Hell yes. Was it selfish of America/Britian? Hell yes. But everyone won there. If given the chance, everyone could win in Iraq.
by mg at February 19, 2003 4:27 PM
You know Americans really aint that different from North Koreans. All falling behind their leader, all thoughroughly brainwashed about the fact that everything their country has touched turns to gold. Only difference is the USA apparently conforms to something called "democracy", which makes brainwashing acceptable.
So what they aint got no food? More Americans will die from having too much McFood than North Koreans from starvation. Both countries invest copious amounts into "defence" budgets while neglecting health care and transportation and environmental aspects.
If I was given a gun, and asked who i would shoot first- bush or jong - i would have a hard time deciding between them. You know, you'd think that the richest country in the world be able to realise that their aggresive foreign policy was the cancer and not the cure to terrorism, but i suppose if everyone is brainwashed then no one would bother taking the time. Anyway, you almost deserve acts like september 11 with your attitudes.
by TRN at February 20, 2003 5:55 PM
dude, shut the fuck up, seriously
by willtipton at June 26, 2004 11:03 AM