bangla2000 Home b2k Interactive  Home all   bulletins New Members Sign Up b2k Members Sign In
Sunday, July 22, 2018 BD

Anything Group

Bulletins Participate in the Bulletin
Enter Your Opinion
Click to add Emoticons.
blush confused cool cry eek frown biggrin
evilgrin supergrin kiss lol smile love mad
redface rolleyes sweat tongue trippy winky alien
devil happy indifferent nerd ohwell sick tired

Bulletins Bulletin : Published and Discussed
Date: Thursday, March 20, 2003
From: Sabrina
Anti-war rants!!

Some things to think about... (in case anyone is
sleeping through the night these days)

<> wrote:

> Sorry for the mass email but I couldn't sleep last
> night because I needed to
> unload a lot of my feelings about the war and I
> thought it would be best if
> I put it on paper just to get it out of my system.
> But after writing this,
> I felt I had to share it with some people. Read it
> if you want. Otherwise,
> no hard feelings. They are just my own personal
> views on the war.
> Some of us might be frustrated with the fact that
> the United States will be
> going to war without the support of the UN Security
> Council, the UN General
> Assembly, and quite possibly, the majority of the
> world population. But I
> am quite certain that the Bush Administration would
> not engage in this war
> if it did not believe in the end, they would emerge
> politically triumphant.
> In fact, public opinion is already starting to swing
> and I find it hard to
> imagine that Bush will not somehow emerge from this
> as a national hero.
> How can that be? There are tons of people against
> this war. How does the
> government seem to effectively convince the general
> public that we've been
> wrong all along? We all enjoy the benefit of free
> speech and free press.
> Don't we get to hear both sides of the argument and
> choose for ourselves
> where we stand? The government can't control our
> minds! No, not exactly.
> The government can only control public opinion if
> public opinion doesn't
> realize it's being controlled. Control is a game.
> And the government, like
> any player in a game has certain strengths and
> weaknesses, but let there be
> no mistake, the objective of the game is to acquire
> and retain control.
> So the government can't simply tell people, "this is
> how it is, now accept
> it." There must be a debate. Two sides, fighting
> each other. You need
> this for legitimacy. But the trick is to create a
> debate that appears
> controversial at first, but will ultimately fall in
> your favor. To do this,
> the government must control the structure of the
> argument itself. To
> illustrate this point, what if the abortion debate
> was only discussed in
> this context:
> "In the 21st century, here in the United States,
> barring cases when the
> health and safety of the mother or child is at risk,
> do you believe aborting
> a child is ever good for the child?"
> Just answer yes or no. It's a simple question. Yes
> you believe sometimes a
> child is better off dead. Or no, you believe a
> child would always be better
> off being given a chance at life. I think to most
> pro-choice voters, this
> question sucks. It sucks because as soon as you
> answer this question,
> you've lost. You just trapped yourself in an
> argument where the abortion
> debate centers around the well being of the child
> and not a woman's right or
> the definition of human life.
> Or try this:
> Do you believe the world would be a safer place if
> Iraq were stripped of its
> weapons of mass destruction?
> Of course right? That's why UN Resolution 1441 was
> unanimously passed.
> Iraq should NOT have weapons of mass destruction.
> Well if you agree with that, here's the next
> question:
> Should we disarm Iraq through peaceful inspections
> or military force?
> Peaceful inspections right? WRONG. We just got
> suckered. By answering the
> question, we just entered into an argument over how
> best to disarm Iraq
> instead of justifying an all out war against a much
> smaller and weaker
> enemy.
> Think about what's going to happen. The United
> States attacks. The
> military completely takes out Saddam. The new
> US-backed regime uncovers an
> arsenal of hidden weapons and the Iraqi people,
> particularly the Shiite
> Muslims and the Kurds are celebrating their newfound
> "liberation". The
> United States has proven all you tree hugging,
> bra-less hippies wrong.
> They proved the whole world wrong. Iraq did have
> weapons of mass
> destruction! Saddam was deceiving us! And now
> America will rebuild Iraq
> and freedom and democracy will prevail. Go BUSH!!
> Okay, let's now quickly
> go after Syria. And then Iran. And if we can get
> UN inspectors to first
> take away N. Korea's nukes, then we might go after
> them too.
> Do you see where I am going with this? UN
> Resolution 1441 distracts the
> public from asking the questions the administration
> does not want to answer.
> The administration wants us to focus on Saddam and
> his weapons of mass
> destruction and focus the debate on how best to
> disarm Iraq rather than
> focusing the debate on why Iraq is a United States
> enemy that needs to be
> bombed and incapacitated.
> If the possession and use of weapons of mass
> destruction is so dangerous to
> the world, why did we support Iraq's use of them
> against Iran and against
> the Kurds in his own country during the 1980s? Why
> didn't we try and disarm
> him then? Why is his possession of WMD "suddenly" a
> threat to the United
> States today and not then?
> Iraq is geographically surrounded by heavily armed
> enemy states. Why is it
> that his neighbors, the ones most vulnerable to
> Iraqi aggression, and the
> ones who would most benefit from a disarmed Iraq,
> not leading the call to
> war? In fact, why is it that nobody is asking the
> question, "Why the fuck
> would Iraq want to go clear across the other side of
> the world to launch an
> attack against the United States anyways? Unlike
> Osama bin Laden, Saddam is
> a secular dictator not interested in the greater
> Islamic cause. Sure he'll
> send sympathy money to suicide bombers but he's
> certainly not going to wage
> war against Israel and the United States. That's
> suicide. That's why we
> spend money on defense: To assure to every nation
> that an attack against
> the US would be violently punished. The only viable
> enemy we can have are
> underground terrorists hidden and scattered all over
> the world, not
> dictators with huge palaces and large stores of oil.
> Then there's the so-called humanitarian cause. Free
> the people! If we
> really wanted to liberate the Shi'ite and Kurdish
> people from Saddam's
> tyranny, why did we allow their rebel forces to be
> annihilated back in 1991
> after urging them to overthrow Saddam and promising
> to provide military
> support? Why did we order our military to stand
> down as they witnessed
> Iraqi military forces using American helicopters,
> slaughter Kurdish
> refugees? Why did we impose harsh economic
> sanctions that we knew would
> starve his people while Saddam continued to enjoy
> the wealth of his
> dictatorship? Why do we "suddenly" want to liberate
> them now? Is it any
> wonder why these people, as much as they hate
> Saddam, have such distrust for
> the United States?
> Finally, there's the issue that bothers me the most.
> Given how different
> the United States is responding to the inspections
> process versus the rest
> of the world, isn't it reasonable to believe that
> the US has NOT shared all
> of its intelligence with the UN or the UN
> inspectors? Isn't it reasonable
> to believe that if the United States actually helped
> the UN weapons
> inspectors actually find the remaining WMD, which
> the US is so certain
> Saddam possesses, that the outcome would actually be
> UNFAVORABLE for this
> administration? After all, Saddam remains in power,
> the oil-embargo is
> lifted, and ALL of his post-embargo oil contracts go
> to Russia, China, and
> France while the US gets nothing. All the
> administration is left with is an
> economy that is still in the toilet and a terrorist
> network that is still at
> large. Doesn't this create an incentive for the
> United States to propose a
> weapons inspections program that it wants to see
> fail?
> I had trouble sleeping because I was so frustrated
> with how reporters,
> journalists, public leaders, and even world leaders
> have all seemed to fall
> into this semantic trap. I just needed to write
> these thoughts down:
> politics and government is not about peace and
> freedom, it's about power and
> control. At a time when Americans were trying to
> understand how the
> atrocities of 9-11 could take place, Prince Abdullah
> of Saudi Arabia urged
> the administration, to think about how Arabs often
> view the United States
> and its support of Israeli violence and repression.
> Rather than engage in
> the debate, the government completely rejected it
> and posed its own
> question: In the war between good and evil, you are
> either with us (the
> good) or with the terrorists (the evil) - again,
> another question that
> suckers us into their argument. What I'm urging you
> to do is to fight back.
> When you hear people debate the disarmament of
> Iraq, remember, that's what
> they WANT you to talk about. Liberate your own
> voice. Don't let them
> sucker you in. YOU take control of the questions.
> This government is
> supposed to be accountable to YOU, not the other way
> around.
> Ask them this for fun: Can a nation reasonably
> dismiss the will of the
> United Nations if it believes its national security
> is at risk? I think
> you'll see the irony in this question and few
> pro-war hawks will find an
> easy answer. See how they like it when you control
> the debate.
> Thanks for reading this. I feel a little better
> already.
> Adam

People Discussion
(Friday, March 21, 2003)

vai ato ki kilcche :(

Copyright Bangla2000. All Rights Reserved.
About Us  |  Legal Notices  |  Contact for Advertisement