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

[alex]

Sorry, but I just felt I needed to make a few comments.

Jeme A Brelin  plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 02:51:00 -0800 (PST) wrote:

>I didn't write that he was trying to eliminate the poor.  He needs the
>poor so that his ilk can keep wages low and consumer goods cheap to
>produce (and therefore keep profits high and the power flowin').

>I wrote that he was trying to eliminate the dissenting poor.  His power
>evaporates when working people show their power and demand something
>better than profit allows them to have.

This is why we have the right to keep and bear arms. The Founding
Fauthers were afraid that in the future someone would try to become a
dictator and therefore made sure that, by the Second Amendment, we would
be able to repel any such attempt with force of our own. With out that
right we are nothing more than sheep waiting to be led to slaughter.

>I've got a sign that I made January 2001 that I bring out whenever an
>appropriate gathering is assembled.  It reads:

>INTERNATIONAL ELECTION MONITORING IN 2004

>We don't have it here and our elections are a shambles.

INTERNATIONAL ELECTION MONITORS IN FLORIDA DURING 2002 ELECTIONS!

>"Our economy" is a fiction.  What is REAL is our wealth in natural
>resources (great farm land, etc.), technology, and man-power. 
>Producing food and shelter and health-care does not have to be done at
>a profit to be done successfully.

So, we should be like Britain and Canada and all the other countries
that have socialist type governments?

I'd love to pay the high taxes, get the crappy health care, or live on
the dole all my life because there's such high unemployment. 

>First, consider the source.  The DoD logo in the upper left of that
>document shouldn't fool anybody.  That's not a DoD document (though
>likely the blurbs were taken from DoD documents).  This document is
>being propagated by the Pro-Israeli lobby (the American Israel Public
>Affairs Committee).

And where in this whole document 
http://www.aipac.org/saddamhusseindod.pdf 
does it specify that the Pro-Israeli lobby is responsible for it's
production?

>I don't read anything in that document that is shocking or surprising,
>given the position into which the United States has pushed Iraq with
>constant bombing, threat, and embargo.  Those are the words of a leader
>trying to rally his people against an agressor that has beaten them to
>the ground.

These are the words of a man who has repeatedly ignoured requests by the
almighty U.N. to disarm. All the U.S. and Britain have done is attempt
to enforce those requests.

>I don't think he's a fair, just, and democratically appointed leader of
>the Iraqi people, but I don't think George W. Bush is a fair, just, or
>democratically elected leader of the United States, either.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm........ I seem to remember that Algore was the one who took
it to the Supreme Court, not George Bush.

>He wants to take America OUT of the middle east.  Personally, I think
>we should oblige the man.

No, he wants to take out America.

>And if you're an enlisted man, you're likely poor, socially
>dysfunctional, of low intelligence, or all three.  Military service is
>pitched to young men and women as a last-chance if you can't get into
>or afford college. It's a half-way house for the lost youth of this
>country.

And I may not be rich, any saner than any-one else, nor have an I.Q. of
more than 130, but, I do believe in serving my country by my life or by
my death, in whatever manner necessary.

>In a political struggle, a path of absolute non-violence is the only
>way to assure victory on the best possible terms.

>When you resort to violence to achieve ideological ends, you only
>ensure that the most brutal, aggressive, and physically powerful force
>wins.  In a political struggle, the opposite is usually desired.

>See the struggle of the Indian people against British rule in the early
>part of the last century for an example of victory by non-violent
>opposition to brutal, violent tyranny.

And see Prime Minister Chamberlain for what happens when you don't take
a stand for what is right and what is wrong. True peace only comes when
one side utterly defeats the opposition. 

Also see North and South Korea. Do you think we would be looking at that
situation now if we had utterly defeated them?
I think not. I've been to Korea and the DMZ and it is nothing but a
cease-fire, not a true and lasting peace.

True, the winners often write the history, but, would you rather we step
up to the plate now or do as Bill Clinton did and just lob a few Cruise
Missiles and hope that that will distract them?


Alex McCreary