Booklady,

Thanks for the Roeper article, I hadn't seen it. I guess the thing that irritates me most is the fact that people who don't even live in the real world are being pointed out as experts in the field of international politics. I'm sorry to say that the next tier of "experts" are those that we've seen in left wing farce offerings that try to pass themselves off as a "news-service." One look at their offerings tells most people that the information they peddle is strictly anarchy and hard-core socialism. Making matters worse, they coddle what a lot of people call "intellectuals." To those who've actually been involved in international politics, these "intellectuals" aren't really of that ilk, but drop-outs, who see conspiracy and "1984" in everything. They live, and thrive, off people's fears, by offering every concievable conspiracy theory they can, to add to these fears.

I don't want war anymore than anyone else. To be honest, I'm dead set against it. The only problem is that Saddam Hussein has been thumbing his nose at the UN for over a decade, and we allow it to happen. In the process, the UN is losing any semblance of credibility. Instead of an organization that holds to it's principals, it's becoming a protector of despots. Not intentionally of course, but through it's constant desire to allow for peaceful settlement of issues that simply won't be put to bed through negotiations.

Had it not been for the US and Great Britain carrying on the fight to push Iraq out of Kuwait, they'd have annexed them, and would still be thumbing their noses at the UN.

Since it's obvious there isn't any evidence that will satisfy those who believe "war is wrong," for any reason, it once again falls on the shoulders of the U.S., and allies like Great Britain, and Spain, to carry the issue forward. If it isn't done, it will continue. Beyond Hussein as a benefactor, one need look no further than North Korea and Kim Il Sung, who blatantly builds an arsenal of nuclear capability, and openly speaks about how he will destroy South Korea, uses slave labor as a viable building tool for his economic programs, and tells the world they can go to hell, because he will sell his nuclear armanents to anyone in the world, including al-Qaeda, if they have the bucks to pay for it. Even China recognizes this man is a loose cannon. As for the UN, they say he's "not that bad." They say he's "misunderstood." Why? Because they know he will not abide by any rulings on nuclear proliferation they would make. What would they do? Plead with him to stop? Tell him they will cut off his supply of cocoa?

The answer is nothing. They would do absolutely nothing, and each time that tyrant sold another nuke to al-Qaeda, they'd say, "Don't do it again or we'll shake our finger at you!" If anyone thinks they would do more, let's look at his blatant statement that N. Korea is the leader in production of biological and chemical warfare materials. The UN delegates sit around the table in shock, holding their heads between their hands. Then, when they should react, they said, "If you stop, we'll ask the U.S. to remove some of their troops from South Korea."

Good God! We have 50,000 soldiers there at the 38th Parallel. On the North Korean side there are a million soldiers ready to attack the South as soon as the U.S. is no longer present. If he stops, they will reward him by handing him South Korea as a present? Are these people insane, or so insensitive to what is happening?

It's time for the UN to take a stand with Hussein. Do it now. If they do, they can stop Kim Il Sung and others like him in their tracks. He at least won't be able to move against S. Korea, without knowing there will be repercussions.

If the UN doesn't support the U.S. on Iraq, they will cease to exist as a world organization that has any relevance. They may as well pack up their entire organization and move it to Switzerland, whose "neutrality" was proven quite distasteful after the facts about their relationship with Hitler was uncovered. If you're going to lie about your role in world order, why not do it where they know how to do it with a straight face, and prosper off someone else's misery and death.

What people don't realize is that every rally against the war, every message against it, only gives Saddam Hussein another reason to think we haven't got the guts to make him abide by the resolutions passed. To me, that becomes nothing more than aiding and abetting the enemy.

It's time for Hussein to back off, live by the resolutions, or face the inevitable. He will be brought down. There will be no more negotiations.

Wolf

“Selective information”? Please! I didn`t even read all the article, just found it funny! Anyone who has a look at it, I think, will notice that my quotes mirrored quite accurately the intentions of the journalist. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0205-03.htm Obviously he was mocking at Powell. In any case, if I were Powell, I would also cover the Guernica...for the same reason as him.

Do you remember the red menace, in North Vietnam? Supposedly, a communist Vietnam would threat all South Eastern Asia, would unbalance the Communist-capitalist world struggle, would probably lead to a communist Asia and perhaps even to a new world war; so a 12 years war started, millions died in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, and at times Nixon was on the brink of throwing nukes. In the end, Vietnam and Cambodia became communist regimes, Americans withdrew a poisoned and devastated country. Twenty years later Cambodia is again a monarchy, Vietnam is one of those strange “red-capitalist” asian countries which keeps good relations with the US, and no one threats anyone.
Do you remember Salvador Allende? He was thought to have thousands of Communist partisans awaiting to start a revolution. As Kissinger said “we can`t allow Allende to be the president just because Chileans have voted him in an irresponsible way”. So Pinochet arranged his coup, shot and tortured thousands, and kept Chilean copper under American control. But, know what? They didn`t find any token of an inminent revolution. Those communist partisans didn`t exist after all...
Do you remember the sandinistas in Nicaragua? They were said to be receiving support from Cuba and then the USSR: the reds were about to conquer Central America and then weaken the position of the US in that area of the world. So Reagan backed a “counter-revolution”, the blood-thirsty “Contras”, that started a civil war in Nicaragua. Then what happened? Well, eventually the sandinistas were defeated in clean elections...and the government went to conservatives. There was not any real menace.
Do you remember Iranian revolution? It was a new, major menace for Western world in an area, the Middle East, which is key for Western interest. So Western countries backed Saddam Hussein, which was an evil tyrant, but served our purposes. He was provided with all kind or ammunition, both legal and illegal, during an eight years terrible war. For what? For nothing. Islamic Iran has not caused much trouble, yet, and the enemy is now supposed to be Saddam.
Do you remember Afghanistan? The USSR invaded it, supposedly trying to reach the Indian Ocean and then threat the strait of Ormuz and the trade of oil for Western countries. So the CIA supported the “Taliban academies” in Pakistan, which were run, with American money, by an unknown Arab tycoon called Osama Ben Laden. The Taliban were very popular in those days, see “Rambo III” and you will see what I mean.
And so on and on... maybe the next will be N.Korea, maybe Saudi Arabia. Today, the Saudis are spending much of their year nacional budget in weapons made in Western factories. Good business, but maybe one day we will find out that our supposed-to-be friends are in fact evil crazy biggots. And in the meanwhile, all the economic efforts that should be aimed at reducing economic disparities, world poverty and environmental disaster, all those resorts are being wasted in billion-dollars-wars like the inminent one, so that Rumsfeld, Bush and the companies they represent (oil and military companies) can make “big money” in Irak

I never thought I would be defending Susan Saran-Wrap...but really, don't you think that most people who care about issues (regardless of political leaning) will choose to speak from the biggest soap-box they can? It's the people who BELIEVE famous people (be they Susan Sarandon on the left or Charlton Heston on the right) JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE FAMOUS who are the real fools!

What do we know about how carefully or deeply "stars" think about these issues? For that matter, who can say WHO'S a celebrity these days? Aren't newscasters, those supposedly impartial voices, celebs of a sort? Don't they exploit their positions to sell books, attend all the premieres, hobnob with the rich and famous?

Some celebrities are smart, some are clueless, just like those of us who DO live in what you call the "real world." I'll take 10 Susan Sarandons over one Rush Limbaugh--at least she doesn't claim to be providing "news." In this age of "info-tainment," I would rather call a spade a spade!

And just as an aside...here's a celebrity I aspire to be like--check out the list of books Art Garfunkel has read since 1968! http://www.artgarfunkel.com/library/library.htm

Carmen,

You keep re-hasing the past when there was a cold war. One side was communists, the other the Western world. We all know what happened during that era. It wasn't a secret. We readily admit we backed the battle against the Russians in Afghanistan, so what's your point? The climate of world politics has changed. You do a great job of digging up history and saying, "See? You guys always sided against (so and so)!" As for your statement about our battle in Nam against Communism, how long did it take before N. Vietnam took over? Isn't that an invasion?

Your politics is too far left for me to respect, and your theories are those of a radical view. Nothing deals with normalcy and really helping people, just establish the radical views.

Tara,

I respect your views. I always have. But Sarandon is no better than Mr. guns for everyone. I don't accept either of them as a spokesperson for anything other than radicals. One or ten, it makes no difference.

Art Garfunkel is an expert because he read a lot? I doubt it. I would venture a guess that there's several of us on this board who have researched, and studied issues germain to the subjects we discuss, and from both sides of the issue. Not from a chosen side. He's like everyone else, and formed his personal opinions back in the 60s, in relation to Viet Nam. He's never swayed from that polarity in his views, and if you take a good look at his readings, there's little that shows he even considered seeing issues from a different perspective. To me, he's dealt with personal tunnel vision from the beginning.

Please don't hold him up as an "astute scholar" because he ain't. He's just another person with a POV. Until he can write a white paper that is considered a resolve for a world situation instead of a POV, he's no better than any other kibbitzer who puts their two cents in, and has no idea what the hell they are talking about, because they've never taken the time to discover the ramifications of what actions they suggest are proper.

I don't want this war to happen. What I would like to see is humanitarian efforts actually work. I'd like to see the Doctors and workers in the World Health Organization be able to go into any country, and treat the poor, and know that they will be safe from harm. I'd like to see the nations of the world who have assets they can use not only feed people, but teach them how to use agricultural equipment, and give them the equipment, to insure they can feed themselves in the future. I want to see aid get through to the people instead of ending up in the hands of the elitists who run these nations, and reserve it for themselves, or sell this aid, to line their pockets. I'd like to see every man and woman have a right to vote, in every nation, and see free elections, where they can choose from viable candidates. I'd like to see the UN actively pursue goals that would guarantee these things. I would like to see the UN say that any acts of genoicide will be dealt with harshly, and swiftly, not turned into a political volleyball, to determine how much money each nation can get from the U.S., or someone else, to back their intentions. I would like to see a World Court that really held the values of people above political ambition.

And above all, I'd like to see every human being treated with the dignity they deserve.

But, since some people will scream that despots like Hussein should stay in power, to avoid "war," there's not a chance in hell we will ever see a world where my dreams will happen. Especially if we wait, while the UN sits on it's hands, and offers lip service and aid to these tyrants, all in the name of peace.

Wolf

Wolf, I am sorry I wasn't clear about why I put that link in my post...I don't know what Art Garfunkel has said about war with Iraq, or if he's said anything at all (publicly).

All I meant was that I would like to have read as much as he has. I meant it to illustrate the point that we CANNOT KNOW what celebrities do with their time--they may read trash novels and shop all day, or they may read literary classics and keep strangely fascinating lists of all the books they have ever read. Either way, they are just people with views, be they vapid or compelling, that they can express from especially large soap-boxes.

I never said he was an "astute scholar." (Heck, how would I know? It's entirely possible he read all those books and didn't understand a thing in them!) And none of us know whether or how his views on war have evolved since the 1960s and 1970s. More importantly, why should we care? He's just a guy who reads a lot and wrote some catchy tunes.

But the reality of this, I believe, is that NONE of us can detach ourselves from our "personal tunnel vision." I teach an undergrad class on social policy, and I tell my students that I will have succeeded if I confuse the hell out of them at some point during the semester. If the walls of our personal tunnels become a little more transparent, even for a second, we're making progress. To denigrate someone's firmly held and carefully considered views because they don't match up with your own would be the worst possible course of action...because as none of us can know what the future holds , it's in everyone's best interest to hear and consider all sides.

Tara,

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to infer anything against what you had indicated. I was referring to Garfunkel's stand against Viet Nam nearly forty years ago, not attacking what you said. I should have seperated that issue.

Yes, he's well read. But so are you, and to be honest, I value your opinions much higher than his, because you've made your way through life, knowing what it's all about. I have been, and always will be, in support of your standards. When you say something, I listen carefully because I know there's a lot of thought, and knowledge that goes into it. I would rather see people aspire to be you than Art Garfunkel. You've never made a statement to my knowledge, without thinking about the ramifications of what you say.

My problem is with those that have so much, tell others how they should do things, and hang onto every nickel they have, without finding a way to help others.

As much as I disagree with some of the things Ted Turner says, I am in awe of the way he has gone about backing what he says, with every source he has available. As an example, his stance that he wants to help people in the world, but not by giving them a handout, but a helping hand. His theory is a bag of flour just feeds them a few meals. The equipment to begin farming gives them a chance to feed themselves. Maybe it's time for Sarandon and the rest of these pretenders to put their money where their mouths are. Turner has, and when he dies, his legacy to the world will have been more than half the nations on this earth, who pretend to be concerned about the welfare of the people of this world.

Here's a link to info about Sarandon's comments in DC - http://www.susan-sarandon.com/RallyAgainstIraqWar.htm

Please note! The #1 claim made by the people who protested against an Iraqi war was that Bush wanted to commit "genocide." It would have made more sense to realize that Hussein has systematically used every tool he can to commit genocide against Iraqis. Where is the logic in such an absurd position?

Lots of problems with this whole thing. No matter what the U.S. does, we'll always be the fall guy for someone else's point of view. It's getting old. Maybe we should let people like Hussein run over nations, and let N. Korea arm every terrorist there is. Maybe we should just draw in our horns, and protect America, and tell everyone else, "Tough luck! You're on you're own." I wonder how long it would take for nations to come whining for us to help them because a "bully" wants to beat up on them. Especially after they gave in to all his demands, and it didn't work. I wonder how long it would be before we were called "greedy" because we'd pulled the ATM cards from so many world governments.

Maybe we should pull out of the UN, it isn't going anywhere anyway.

Wolf

I heard a quote something to the effect that the US seeking UN approval for bombing Iraq is similar to a guy renting a hotel room BEFORE asking a girl to the prom.

Madridmanjim,
I prefer to believe that it's more like the U.S. is saying: Hey, U.N., Fish or Cut Bait! But, sadly, the analogies don't end there! In the tradition of a very bad play, the U.N. has appointed none other than Iraq to head of the U.N. Commission on Disarmament! What Irony!
The government of Iraq, Hussein, who obfuscates his way into not sharing info requested by Blix, will now head this Commission? it's like giving a bank robber the keys to the bank's safe! I'd laugh myself silly if it wasn't so horrible

Then, the U.N. appoints none other than the government of Libia, who were responsible for the deaths of innocents over Lockerbie, Scotland a few years back, to head the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

It may be useful when discussing Palestinian-Israeli claims to what was once the area of the British Mandate to recall that the partioning was done in violation of the UN's own charter.

Chapter One, Article Two of that charter purports to guarantee the right of self determination to all peoples. No such referendum--such as that of the 1980s to determine if Gibraltarians would prefer to be governed by Spain or England--was held.

AFter the UN voted to partion, The Arab nations asked the UN to submit its decision to the World Court for a ruling on the legality of the partition. They were denied.

That the Palestinians lay claim to more than than the Israelis believe they are entitled to is not surprising. Why was a referendum appropriate for deciding the England vs. Spain issue for Gibraltarians, but none held for the Palestinians? Were the Palestinians simply regarded as somehow less than human, without rights, and not worthy of UN recognition under its charter?

It's ironic that the UN, supposedly an organization that promotes peace, in this case sowed the seeds of a half century of continuing conflict. It's this fundmental injustice to the Palestinians that still drives it.

May the Lord have mercy on us
I am a godless, so imagine which degree of disperation I have reached to say the former...
First it was South America, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, Grenada, now Venezuela. Then the Balcans, then the Middle East, when the Sha was kicked out America (and others) prompted Saddam against Iran.
Then it was the Balcans, and the First Gulf war. Then Central Asia, the oil by the Caspian sea, the influence in Uzbekistan (and other republics), and the war in Afghanistan. Now it is Irak, again. Next what? Syria, North Corea? When will America stop this crazy imperialist rally and face the REAL current problems of the world?
The White house and the Pentagon have clearly stated that they contempt any effort to solve the current environmental world crisis: Greenhouse effect simply doesn`t exist.
They don`t care much about starvation or underdevelopment, because you know, the greatest threat today is "The Islamic boogey man", I mean Terror. They thumb their nose at non proliferation treaties, which the US do not follow any longer.
They keep for themselves the right to say who is right and who is wrong, and laugh at the "bleeding hearts" who hesitate to start bombings of provoke a long-lasting famine in any country they choose.
Now UN are a bunch of stupid rogues because they don`t bend at once at the farce that Powell displayed last week. So to hell with International law!
I was raised in a world where a very subtle balance prevented two different empires to eventually conquer the world. In 1989 I rejoiced, because I thought there was no reason for war, not any longer, and after all a terrible tiranny had just been defeated.
I see I was a stupid.
Booklady, who should lead the Commission on Disarmament? The US, who have multiplied their war budget several times in only four years? The US, who have lately broken all the non proliferation treaties? They, who have been the country which first created, developed and massively used MD weapons?
Blix says the Iraki government is helping the UN inspectors. Listen to him. It is Powell and Bush who say they don`t believe the Irakis (for what reason? and anyway, why should their opinion count on this issue?).
I don`t know where will all this lead us, but I am sure nowhere good. May God have mercy on us.
Or may the damned stock change CRACK again, damn it!!