[PLUG-TALK] Anti-war vs war mongers. (ick)

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> You know, there's a big difference in "fighting for freedom" like we
> did in WWI/II and "fighting for oil" like this will be in the Persian
> Gulf.

I think that if you looked into your history, you'd find that WWII wasn't
about freedom at all and the U.S. didn't even consider entering the
conflict until the war started interrupting profits from trade with
England and France.

The "fight for freedom" argument is largely pasted-on after the fact.  
This is especially true with regard to the Nazi regime's treatment of the
jews.  Consider that when news of the death and labor camps first surfaced
in the United States, the New York Times printed it on page 8 of the
International section.  The threat to freedom was a non-issue (especially
considering the antisemitic sentiments of the general public of the day).

Also consider that the Nazi's "counter-terrorist" and
"counter-insurrection" tactics were largely adopted by the United States
to fight the same enemies after the war (namely, the communist,
anarchists, syndacalists, etc.).

> I understand the sentiment you have, and I would lay down my life to
> defend freedom.

I would argue that participation in an anti-war demonstration is very much
an act of defense of freedom.

> However, part of that freedom is that Dan has the "RIGHT" to protest
> what his government is doing. That's one of many RIGHTS the military
> fights to protect. So telling them to fuck off, while it might be
> within your rights, it's not proper to take away their right to
> protest either.

Agreed.

> Look at what we're fighting for. Saddam is a threat. Not a big one,
> but he is a threat. If he has weapons of mass destruction at his
> disposal, then he should be made to at least give them up. At least
> Adolph was trying to take over the whole world and exterminate certain
> classes of people. But then, Saddam has done similar things. When does
> it become something we should get involved in?

Personally, I see George W. Bush as trying to take over the whole world
and exterminate certain classes of people (namely, the dissenting poor).

The best solution is, of course, to have the U.N. support elections in
Iraq to determine whether or not the power structure of that nation needs
to be removed.  Saddam would agree (considering the alternative) and we
would know whether or not a military action would be in the perceived best
interest of the poeple of the region.

> This country is dependent on foreign oil. There's no getting around
> that fact. If we lose the ability to conduct commerce, then we lose,
> period.  Without fuel, our machine stops. People think we're in bad
> shape now, with 10% unemployment... Without fuel, we'd likely see 50%
> or better unemployment. Obviously, it's in our best interest to
> continue to be able to acquire oil, until such time as we find another
> fuel, and it becomes available in sufficient quantities to be
> feasible.

Which is worse, high unemployment or the violent death of thousands of
human beings?

This is a wealthy nation.  We can support ourselves through such a trial
as the migration from oil dependence.  It does not have to come at the
cost of tens thousands of foreign lives.

It very well might be true that the "American way of life" depends on
constant war (especially for oil and cheap labor).  But I see that as a
reason to change the way of life, not continue the slaughter and
oppression of human beings.

> I support our military to protect us from all enemies, foreign and
> domestic. Saddam is an enemy. He has proven that he wants to take on
> the US.

When, exactly, did that happen?

He wants to "take on the US" in the sense that he will not roll over and
do whatever the United States tells him to do.  For that, I can respect
any foreign sovereign.

The Office of Homeland Security and Information Awareness Office are
greater threats to the freedom of Americans than Saddam Hussein.  If the
military's mandate is to protect the Constitution from all threats foreign
and domestic, it should rise up against its Commander in Chief and the
U.S. Congress.

> However, I don't think we are justified, as yet, to attack Iraq.  
> Will there be a time when we should? Possibly. And then I will change
> my stance. Until that time, I support the men and women in our
> military, but I don't support Bush sending them to the middle east.
> The military is a pawn that gets to be the scape goat.

Well, I don't support the military.  I support the people who have,
through whatever circumstance, found themselves enlisted.  But I do not
support those who choose violence as a means for settling disputes.

Any offensive military operation is murder and any defensive operation
outside the borders of the United States of America must be supported
internationally and with the full consent of the people of the regions
occcupied.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org