GREG!!!!!!!!!

I posted a question in part I which I belive you jumped over as Rainbow so kindly noted, you must be so overwhelmed with all the posts so here I go asking my little question which seems completely away from your present conversation...

Last Friday you were talking about jets and all during the 9/11. I just wanted to know when this procedure was put into place?

Rachel, Greg answered in one of his posts to jwhop, I think it was... (Hi Greg Hi jwhop ) ...that the procedure was in place long before 9/11, but that after 9/11 they removed one step from it, so now they call it a "different" procedure. Under the pre-9/11 procedure, the FAA had to phone the military (NORAD, whose headquarters is located out here, inside Cheyenne Mountain, BTW). Post-9/11, that phone call is no longer needed and NORAD is to respond "automatically," if I'm remembering correctly what Greg posted.

Connie, Your last post here expresses so well the very things that weigh on my mind about the war preparations. We are not going to be able to count on much trust in the world at large for our American Ways if we take a "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" approach. Besides the insulting disregard for international differences in opinion, who says we're going to find the weapons Sadam has by going to war with him? We couldn't find Bin Laden when we went to war for that express purpose. The U.N. inspectors can't find Iraq's weapons with whatever information the American government has given them. What if we bomb the hell out of the place and those weapons of mass distruction get used by Iraq on whomever and/or remain "lost" and after the war still remain available to terrorists...more of whom will have likely been created by resentment about the U.S. military action...

It boggles the mind.

Maria

Can anyone bring any suggestion how to get rid of saddam... now he wants to have a debate with bush. He's a clever s.o.b isn't he. Sorry for the language.

how does one deal with such individuals as Saddam, Osama and the likes unless by force.

You know since 9/11, even with the speaches bush has given concerning the axis of evil, even after initial reactions toward muslims in america, there are always those who rise up and remind the people that hatred is not the answer.

I don't believe, in this time and age, with all that we have seen in past experiences of war, with all the information that we have. I can no longer believe that any gov'nt could so easily fool or control entirely the mass. maybe Hilter did. but we live in different times.

Resistance is much stronger today in america then the resistance that emerged in ww2 as well as ww1 which we often forget the atrocities that took place then too.

Just look at the world's reaction toward war, have you ever seen such a world wide turn out?

Maybe there is a conscious or subconcious knowing that (even if we would love to see saddam gone) this war is going to bring a lot of agony.

But you know, Bush will go to war, 95% sure, it will be swift as it was in afganistan and he will be re elected for his success.

well that other 5%, a miracle. With the world we live in, you never know. Saddam and Bush in a debate... go figure

Thanks Maria!

Hello moomflower

I would imagine there is a lot of activity at Selfridge considering they may have been activated. I have no experience with your ANG. My service commitment ended in the CA National Guard. On any given day there may have been a few active military personnel around. One weekend a month, the place was packed. And weekend warriors in times of peace isn't a myth at all, at least on one particular weekend a month. Further, the entire purpose of Guard units with all branches of the services is to maintain a trained reserve of military personnel to call upon in times of emergency. In the absence of an emergency, those persons in the reserve go about their lives and business, except for training on one weekend a month and 2 weeks of training a year. My two weeks of training a year was conducted at "Camp Hell" in the CA desert.

The F-16 has an initial climb rate of 50,000 feet per minute so, if one was launched down the runway, it could reach 29,000 ft in less than a minute. But you are misconstruing what I said. They aren't sitting on the runway, with the pilots strapped in and cleared for takeoff when the SCRAMBLE signal is given. Some of the pilots are in the chow line or in the bathroom, crews could be anywhere in a designated area including the chow line or bathroom (head) too. If you noticed, it took 6 minutes from the time those F-15's were scrambled from Otis AFB at 8:46am till they took off at 8:52am.

Oh, I don't think you're attacking me moonflower and you shouldn't think I'm attacking you either. But I don't remember David Shippers telling the White House anything. He attempted to contact Attorney General Ashcroft, who is the Attorney General with offices in the Justice Dept. and was more or less told to go through channels. Further, just because there was an entrenched bureaucracy at the CIA and FBI who had their own ideas about what is important doesn't mean there's a conspiracy to overthrow the United States Constitution. The whole purpose of the Homeland Security Dept. is to break these closely held bureaucracies up into cooperating entities. But I did NOT say he didn't attempt to warn the government about possible attacks, NOR did I say he lied---about anything.

So, we can agree that Shippers is a man of principle who did his best to be of service to his country. Why don't you believe him when he says Saddam Hussein has already attacked the United States on our own homeland at least 3 separate times and killed American Citizens, here? If Saddam has done that as Shippers asserts then Saddam has already committed acts of war and declared war on the United States. Why shouldn't we go after him? The fact these agents of Iraq weren't in military uniforms is irrelevant.

Not to be argumentative with you moonflower. If you believe Shippers about his contact with the people in our government, why are you ignoring the rest of what he said? Why shouldn't I say you are picking and choosing only those facts convenient to your antiwar position?

Axiom: The first casualty of war is "truth." All wars, everywhere.

It isn't my intention to attack you and I hope you will keep that in mind. When you characterized the President as a "madman", were you judging his character, judging his motives or practicing psychiatry without a license?
Why would you attempt to judge either of those things since as you say, only God knows?

Love,
jwhop

Selfridge has been that active ever since I was a kid, jwhop. I have a late doctors appt. but will get back with a reply to you later. I would also like to reply to you Rachael.

Love, Connie

Hi Sabra....

I only just started reading PART II...and so far, got as far as your second post...*sigh*....

Sabra, I'm sorry if you thought I was angry...please know that I WAS NOT...and AM NOT! ! ! *sigh* At the time, I thought you had forgotten or did not even realize what the Native Ameicans suffered at the hands of the US Gov't, I was merely pointing out to you, that it DID happen here....but not with anger toward you...and not even anger at what happened in the past...that is water over the dam...but that's not to say that I don't feel sorrow for what my ancestors experienced...*sigh*...

...and Sabra, I want you to know too, that I am so very sorry for the suffering your family had to endure, merely by being Jewish...

...please accept my apologies if I made you feel I was angry with you..'tis not so...

Now I've got a lot of reading to do...cuz I see another big thread in the making, here...*sigh*...

Luv,
Rainbow

Greg....thanks for pointing out how Hitler happened to "pick out the Jews" as targets for his revolutionary upheavel...*sigh*..

Hi Rainbow ,

I am not at all thinking that you are angry with me. Why should I? No apologies needed . I was just trying to make a point with Greg and then answer Terri. By the way, I would like to hear more about the "Trail of Tears" and on Tecumseh. Perhaps on another thread or in the newsletter. I think it is very important that that story is told and retold so we never forget. I also would like to hear it from your perspective.

Sabra

Sabra -
I just wanted to quickly say that I read your heatfelt and eye-opening response to my question - I just haven't had time yet this week to give it a "proper" reply - but I'll get there soon! Same with anyone / anything else I've missed here...

Love,
Terri

PS - Rainbow / Connie - Did either of you see the "Survival of the Spirit" piece that Chahles wrote for our February issue of Metamorphosis, about his experience with 9-11? If either of you (or both of you together?) would like to do something about natives, espeically your personal ancestors, I think that would be wonderful! And Sabra - when I read your family's story here, I thought the same thing, if you would like to re-work that for the newsletter please feel free. No, feel encouraged! Just let me know, so I can figure out which issues to get all these submissions that you are all going to make scheduled in

Eleonora,

I do appreciate your nice comments you made (along with everybody else's) regarding my family story.

But I do not appreciate when you said the following because I think there is no justification for you to say this:

In reply to:

---

The Holocaust of all the Jews murdered in that era has been kept in the forefront, so there is little need to talk anymore about it on this thread or any other forum.

---

The discussion began when Greg was making an analogy with the rise in power of the Nazi's. Sorry, but to me as I said in part 1, Nazism and the Holocaust goes hand in hand even if the analogy wasn't about the genocide. If somebody talks about the Nazi's then I have every right to talk about the Holocaust. If the comparison weren't made I would not have brought up the topic.

There are posts in this thread and the rest of the forum that are not at all germane to the topic. I rarely talk about the Holocaust and usually it is only if somebody else brings that topic up. But I think that what I brought up is related to this discussion. I also never try to overshadow any other atrocity. But I would think it would be awkward to list all the other atrocities every time I mention Holocaust especially since the allusion was to Hitler. I also never said or implied that the Jews were the only ones murdered.

Also, Terri ask me in this thread why I was taking this discussion personally. How would I have explained why I took it personally without bringing up the Holocaust? I explained by sharing a small and private short story about my personal life. When Rainbow talks about the Native Americans would you also say there is little need to talk anymore about it on this thread or any other forum. I hope not because I for one would like to have Rainbow talk more about it. As someone said on this thread previously, we come from different parts of the world and all of us bring different experiences and various perspectives.

I could have talked about my story here on this site many times, but I didn't not only because nobody asked me but also I don't like pushing religion or the Holocaust onto others. If Terri wouldn't have asked me that question I would have remained silent. Also from the very nice comments other members made here regarding what I told, it seems there was a genuine interest.

So, please don't tell me "so there is little need to talk anymore about it on this thread or any other forum". I do find that insulting and it is statements like that makes the Jewish population talk about the Holocaust all the more including myself. I don't think I have offended anybody with my story and if you (or anybody else) find it offensive, please let me know why.

As long as someone here makes a reference to the Nazi's, Hitler or anything associated with that regime or ask me a question regarding the Holocaust I will talk about it as much as I want to whether in this thread or any other forum. I will not remain silent, which is essentially what you are telling me to do when it comes to talking about the Holocaust in that statement of yours.

I wished my parents spoke more about it to me before they passed away since they rarely spoke about the Holocaust. That story I wrote was told to me only recently several years after they died.

I will only stop talking about it when others in this world of ours stop saying the Holocaust never happened and when I can be assured that other genocides of any kind will never again happen, ever.

Sabra

Greg

Please don't try making me responsible for the sloppy journalism practiced in the aftermath of 9/11. Of course I don't think planes disappear from radar when they turn off the transponder. They do however disappear from the air traffic control screens which are receivers for the signal they transmit. I merely posted as closely as possible verbatim what they reported. That's why I try to get my news from more reliable sources and turn on my truth filter whenever I'm reading the Times or watching the network news, especially CNN, which isn't often. I mean, take these reporters, PLEASE!

I don't think I gave the impression that Air National Guard units were assigned intercept duties to respond when NORAD orders fighters to scramble. I believe someone else mentioned that Air National Guard units were in the area and I responded that they probably weren't ready to fly and their pilots were elsewhere.

By the way, you're beginning to expand your conspiracy theory to lots of people who would be asking lots of questions and talking to the press if they had been ordered to stand down while the WTC and the Pentagon were being attacked. People like those fighter pilots assigned to protect the Capitol, their commanders and the air traffic controllers in 3 major cities who are not military personnel, just for starters. Unless, you think they are part of the conspiracy too.

Well, I'm glad you see the humor and happy to have given you a good chuckle then

jwhop

Hi jwhop

I don't feel that you are attacking me either. Thank you for answering my question regarding your experience. Regarding the ANG I don't know if all ANG bases are different but I know that as long I have lived in this area of Michigan, which has been since I was 3 years old, Selfridge has always been an active base. It may be training exercises as you stated. But the base is always manned. Planes are always there. Comforting to know that at least Michigan is protected from a hostile attack even if Washington D.C. isn't. Incidentally, the two F-16 fighter jets that were the closet to Flight 93 and ordered to go after that plane on 9/11 were performing maneuvers near Detroit. So I know we were protected that day if not the Pentagon. You can find that information at the ABC News site. Yes, there has been more activity at Selfridge lately. When it comes to fighter jets and scrambling I admittedly am out of my field of knowledge. However, what you stated about the guys being in the "head" or chow line I certainly hope does not apply to 9/11 or any national emergency. I would hope they could get in the air a lot faster to defend their country. That they didn't respond faster than they did lessens my confidence in our air force's ability to defend this country in case of attack. That is assuming it was just inaptitude on their part. As I told you before, I am not saying there was a conspiracy. A massive cover-up, yes. It would not be the first time our government has covered things up either. Watergate was a biggie in that area.

Regarding David Schippers and your comments. What I said was he tried to notify the White House and was ignored. So did two or three FBI agents. No you did not say he lied, so the way I worded that was not correct. My apologies. What I meant was it seemed as if you thought he was not being truthful about that which may have just been my perception. That is what I meant when I talked about how easy it is to misunderstand the written word.

Now as for what you said about me not believing Schippers when he talks of Hussein's attacks on America, and his weapons, which he also discussed. I never said I thought he was lying about that. I did not ignore that part of what he said. I have said it on this thread over and over and over again that I KNOW Hussein is a terrorist, I know he has a large stockpile of weapons, I know he is ruthless and everything else said about him. Some of you seem to assume that those of us who are against war, particularly this war, think Hussein is a nice guy, just misunderstood. Greg has stressed it, I have stressed it, it's not an either/or matter. It is not a matter of if you are not with us you are against us, or you are either on Bush's side or Hussein's side. That I said Bush was a madman, yes I did say that. Anyone who is willing to flirt with WWlll, who is determined to fight this war against the opinion of most of the allied nations, the UN and a vast number of world citizens, who is willing to take our rights under the Constitution away from us in order to wage his war, well... madman may be a strong term so I will just say something is not right there. He has also, managed to re-divide Europe. His dad's desire when he was in office was to have a free and united Europe. Oops, Jr. blew that one. The Clinton administration worked at that goal. Also if you read that report from the House of Representatives Task Force, GW is going against everything it states regarding the futility of a war with Iraq. Why? Because he has a good guy/bad guy mentality. Himself as the good guy of course. No grey areas at all there. Black and white world view. So, Rachel that Bush uses terms like "axis of evil" in his speeches it is because of his world view.

Jwhop, you can say I was picking and choosing only the facts that support my anti-war stance but you only have to look back through the posts and what I have said to know better than that. I can't form an opinion of any value or use if I only look at one side of the story. Every story has two sides.

As for my world view and my anti-war stance, I have lived long enough to know that wars don't solve a thing. And in response to what Rachel said about "hatred not being the answer" I would have to say that no, it isn't the answer. Love is the answer. If we had more love in the world there would be no need of war. Hatred is negative energy. As for things being "different" now than in Hitler's time, they aren't. They haven't been different all through history. You can lose your freedom in a blink of an eye if you don't guard it. The Constitution is the only protection we have in this country against the tyrants that are always waiting to take our freedom away from us. For any of our elected officials to tamper with the Constitution is paving the way for a future dictator and the loss of our freedom.

Love, Connie

P.S. I really tried to keep this one shorter, Ginny

Sabra

I just wanted to say that talking about the holocaust and keeping it in the forefront of the world's mind is the only way of preventing it from ever happening again. Never stop talking about it.

I don't know if any of you noticed or not but right here, in this thread in part 1 on page 2 near the bottom, someone came in and made a very racist remark to Rainbow about her "Indians" which also offended both Terri and myself who are part Native American. So that's why we need to keep talking about it, Sabra.

Love, Connie

Connie,

Thanks for what you said about why we need to keep talking about it. "Never Again!"

In these long threads I somehow missed that deplorable comment. That is a very racist and hurtful comment indeed made to Ginny about the Native Americans. Although I am not at all Native American, I do find that offensive as well.

I hope I can speak for others here when I say those kind of comments are non-productive and not at all welcome here for all it does is just perpetuates the hatred.

Sabra

Hey Sabra, for what it's worth I didn't get the sense that Eleonora was really telling anybody to stop talking about the holocaust, even though I see her wording looks like that. I thought she was glad that you've posted what you have, and was really just saying "yes, and here are some other atrocities that we should all be aware of that some may not be, because they are not talked about publicly as much as the holocaust."

But she can speak for herself when she gets back!

Oh good, jwhop!

In reply to:

---

Of course I don't think planes disappear from radar when they turn off the transponder. They do however disappear from the air traffic control screens which are receivers for the signal they transmit.

---

Yes, for sure. I was just pointing out that it doesn't hold water to say that any part of the delay in responding to flight 77 would really be that they disappeared from radar. If NORAD wasn't tracking them continuously on radar, then we've sure been misinformed about NORAD's capabilities!

Yeah, a little chuckle is great for the spirit, ain't it!

In reply to:

---

By the way, you're beginning to expand your conspiracy theory to lots of people who would be asking lots of questions and talking to the press if they had been ordered to stand down while the WTC and the Pentagon were being attacked. People like those fighter pilots assigned to protect the Capitol, their commanders and the air traffic controllers in 3 major cities who are not military personnel, just for starters. Unless, you think they are part of the conspiracy too.

---

Not at all . Actually I do think there are probably folks in the FAA and the fighter commands who are asking questions that we are not hearing about, that may well surface over time. But I'm certainly not postulating a conspiracy that extends to that level! Although we may never ferret out the full truth of what happened from the maze of confusion and disinformation, my own thought about the most likely scenario is the one I mentioned before: that the FAA and fighter commands probably did exactly what they were supposed to do. The final item on the checklist to actually get planes in the air is confirmation for the scramble from the NMCC, which like every other part of the process is normally given as a matter of routine procedure. However, if the President, or the Chirman of the Joint Chiefs or the Commander of NORAD were to personally get involved in the process and say "hang on, don't scramble just yet, this is a critical situation and we're conferring with the President about it," or something like that, then the planes wouldn't leave the ground ... good soldiers don't second-guess the orders of their superior officers! And for those who were puzzled about it after the fact, I think that a firm reminder that there are important "national security" considerations that are outside of their "need to know" ... and that they are legally bound by security oaths not to discuss classified military operations ... that would be quite enough for most (both for duty & honor and the preservation of their own hides!) No broad conspiracy required.

FWIW, I do believe Schippers' story about Iraqi involvement in the Oklahoma bombing. And if you do too, you're a lot closer to believing in FBI/CIA conspiracies than you're letting on!

Love,
Greg

Hi Everyone,

I came across this article at ABC News earlier this evening. I found it interesting and thought I would post it here for you to read. It's a CIA psychological profile of Saddam Hussein. As they say " Know your enemy."

Feb. 25 Saddam Hussein may be a dangerous and brutal dictator, but don't make the mistake of thinking he's insane.

That's the assessment of Jerrold Post, a former CIA profiler who has developed a psychological portrait of the Iraqi leader by extensively studying his biographies, his speeches, his record of policy decisions, and interviews with people who have met him.
"This is not a madman. Let me be clear," Post said. "This is a psychologically whole person in terms of not being insane, but he represents the most dangerous political personality type, what's called malignant narcissism."

Post, who pioneered the CIA's use of the controversial discipline known as political psychology, believes Saddam's actions are guided by rational calculation which is potentially predictable rather than arbitrary whims.

"He is not crazy. He is quite understandable. And in order to deter a leader, to work in crises against a leader, you have to have a nuanced understanding of what makes him tick."

In the 1960s, Post started a pilot project inside the CIA for developing personality profiles of world leaders. During two decades with the government, he studied the leading international figures of the day, though he cannot talk publicly about the profiles.

He can, though, talk about his profile of Saddam, which he developed after he left the government.

Profile: Born to a Depressed Mother

Post believes the roots of Saddam's personality lie in his childhood as far back as his birth. "One cannot imagine a worse entrance into this life than Saddam had," he said.

Both Saddam's father and his eldest brother died while his mother was pregnant with him. Citing an account given by the family's neighbors, Post said she became "gravely depressed" and repeatedly tried to commit suicide and to abort the pregnancy. When Saddam was born, she did not even want to look at him, Post said.

The infant Saddam spent the first three years of his life in the care of a loving uncle, but was then returned to his mother, who had remarried. Her new husband was a distant cousin.


Difficult Childhood Leads to Wounded Self

According to Post, Saddam's new stepfather was psychologically and physically abusive to him, producing in the boy what Post calls "the wounded self" a fragile personality who is very sensitive to perceived slights.

"He's really very fragile under this arrogant facade. One of the important implications of this which is felt very painfully by his subordinates is how sensitive he is to slight. He cannot accept criticism of any kind," Post said.

"He is so consumed by compensatory self-adoration, messianic ambitions, grandiose self-concept," Post said, "that he has no capacity for caring for his own people. No capacity for the pain, the suffering of others."

Post believes Saddam's childhood and his treatment by his stepfather left him with a ruthless determination: "Never again will I yield to superior force."

"One way I think he has compensated for the violence done to him when he was so helpless was to be the perpetrator of violence to others," said Post. "He's used violence and a total readiness to do whatever to anybody as his way of controlling his environment."

Visions of Greatness

At the age of 8, according to Post, Saddam ran away from his mother and stepfather and returned to his uncle, who gave him an education and told him he was destined to be a great Arab leader.

Saddam took that to heart, Post said. "He sees himself as having this heroic role to play on the world stage, and that has haunted him over the years, because while he saw that, he never got that recognition in the world until the Gulf crisis of 1991."

That was the year that Saddam's forces defied the U.S.-led international coalition by refusing to withdraw his troops from neighboring Kuwait, leading to the Gulf War.

Profile Suggests Possible Fight to the Death

The important lesson for the future, Post said, is that Saddam will if he feels his cause is lost try to take down as much of the world with him as he can. In 1991 that meant setting the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire as he was forced to abandon them. But if there is another war and Saddam believes he is doomed, Post believes he might use weapons of mass destruction as his swan song.

Post doubts Saddam would consider giving up his rule and going into exile. "It is only power that drives this man and life without power is not life," he said.

But he does believe that Saddam might knowingly enter a war he knew would end in his own demise.

"He's not a martyr. He's very prudent. He doesn't want to have conflict. But when he has his back to the wall, that's when he can be very dangerous and lash out," he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/World/saddam_profiler_030225.html

Love, Connie

Connie..........thank you for sharing that profile...pretty eye opening....

..does anyone here know his chart? Or at least his Sun Sign? Just curious....

Luv,
Rainbow

Ps..Connie...Actually, I was surprised at that comment about Indians at the end of the first thread....but I'm sure people who feel that way, are far and few between... I hope so, anyway...

Hey Eleonora, I strongly share your perspective that

In reply to:

---

I respect all people, all over the world who marched in the cities of their countries to demonstrate against the American prospective war on Iraq.

Not that I would join any of those demonstrations myself, but those demonstrations are sending a strong message to American goverment that NO COUNTRY will be allowed to control the world politics unilaterally. That's a good thing, isn't it?

---

Yes! That IS a good thing. As you are saying here and others have said many times, anti-war protests are NOT, in general, supportive of Saddam. Certainly in the Arab world those who are vehemently opposed to a US attack on Iraq have more reason to hate and fear Saddam than we do in America, because in he is a much more real and immediate threat his physical neighbors. But despite that, they are even more afraid of unilateral US domination of the middle east (and ultimately the whole world).

Believe me, if I thought for one moment that invading Iraq and ousting Saddam would mean bringing American-style freedom, human rights, and government by the people to Iraq, I would be ALL FOR IT, despite the cost in bloodshed: there are things worth fighting and dying for. But I don't believe that for a moment, and neither does most of the rest of the world. What the American public has been only marginally aware of, and in many cases completely UNaware of, is the staggeringly large and ever-expanding role of the CIA (and its military/industrial complex supporters) in political and military operations aimed not at spreading democracy, but on securing "national interests" of this country. You cannot blame folks for this concern, this shadow side of the US has for decades openly armed and supported many dictatorships, with the pragmatic justification that those dictators "supported US interests" and that sometimes the compromises of practical foreign policy are just not pretty. Among the brutal and sometimes genocidal regimes that have been armed, propped up, and sometimes BROUGHT TO POWER by mostly-clandestine US CIA support have been the Shah of Iran, Marcos in the Philippines, Noriega in Panama, Chile's Pinochet and Indonesia's Suharto ... and that's a far from complete list.

Not a record to inspire confidence that we're just out to help, and not dominate. Especially when Bush's publicly stated intention is to install an "interim" military government to rule Iraq until a stable "coalition" government of the various vying factions can be crafted. Nowhere, to my knowledge, has anything been said about holding free elections to let the Iraqi people choose their own leadership.

Most of the world is afraid of unilateral US domination for exactly the same reason that I and a lot of other Americans are afraid of unilateral domination of our OWN country by the executive branch of government (aka the CIA/corporate/military/industrial clique) through war powers and civil liberties suspensions: the long and the short of it is that as you said NO COUNTRY - and even more so no powerful clique within any country - can be given unilateral power over everyone else ... regardless of what their intentions might or might not be.

Basically, if Bush wanted to gain MY support for the Iraqi invasion (which I'm sure he's concerned about ) ... and probably the near-unanimous support of the rest of the world ... all he would have to do is to say in some binding way, "hey, once we liberate Iraq from the tyranny of Hussein and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction, we will NOT retain any control over Iraqi oil, and we WILL sponsor immediate free elections of the Iraqui people. We will then provide ample foreign aid to help ease the recovery of the Iraqi people, and we will provide defensive military support for the new democracy IF AND ONLY IF they request it to protect them from conquest by powerful neighbors who might seek to take advantage of the power vacuum left by Hussein's absence, and otherwise we will leave them to their own self-determination with our blessings and goodwill." Would I support the immediate ouster of Saddam unter THOSE terms? You bet I would! But nothing of the kind has been said or remotely implied, and my guess is that it never will be. For THAT reason I fiercely oppose the peremtory unilateral attack on Iraq by a leadership clearly bent on controlling the region (including its oil and strategic position) and imposing its own will regardless of what anybody else thinks or wants. We need to begin cooperative dialog with the world community about how to deprive Saddam and other dictators of power WITHOUT imposing unilateral domination by the world's only super-power in its place.

IMHO.

Love,
Greg

Hello Sabra,

you've completely misunderstood my comments about Holocaust, I never said that those terrible things from the past should be forgotten...

Where have you read that? I just said that most of the people know lot about Holocaust (books, movies, history lessons), much more than about other genocides throughout the history of human kind.

We should not make one genocide appear more important than the other, because at the end human being is a human being, Jew or African, Armenian or Iraqi...

El

Greg,

Yes! A democratic government in Iraq and government aid to help the people of Iraq restore their country would make me very much in favor of this war too. I object to the way the Bush administration has that John Wayne or Dirty Harry type of manner in dealing with the terrorists. It really puts them on the same level and only reaffirms to the Arabic people that the U.S. wants a unilateral reign over the Middle East. Also it would be wonderful if the U.S., along with our allies would change their Middle East policies to make it more just and equitable for all the Arab nations and Israel. All that you cited about the CIA is very true and it is no wonder the U.S. is hated so much by the Arabic people. Not to mention in most other countries of the world. It is not going to change though because we have the son of the CIA in office now. ( sorry jwhop, but I at least toned it down some )

All Americans were angry after 9/11. I think on that day and for a time afterwards we all wanted to go kick some butt. Sorry, it is the only way I could think of describing the feeling. Then you have to think about it and ask yourself what caused that? What went through my mind that day was this is the result of thousands of years of hatred and the need for revenge. Hate is destructive. Love and forgiveness is productive. Then I thought of all the ways we, in our own lives, were guilty of the same thing in the way we treat each other by not forgiving and needing to get revenge for our hurts or our ego.

Just wanted to let you know, on the terms you stated, I would be in favor of this war also, because Hussein is a tyrant and a menace to the world and we all know he has to go.

All of us aging hippies need a tie dyed T-Shirt so I put one on here.

P.S. Rainbow, that shocked me too when I saw that post. That comes from not letting go of hate. If we don't let go of hate and anger it is going to come out somehow. Mostly in an act of revenge.

Love, Connie

"I will only stop talking about it when others in the world of ours stop saying that the holocost never happened"

This statement has encouraged me to speak up on an issue that is very difficult for me. "the armenian genocide"

I am armenian, first generation canadian, my family is scattered between Canada, Egypt, Syria, Israel, France and Brazil. Armenian Diaspora. I am having difficulty telling my family's story, I don't want to go into the details which my grandmother told me before she passed on to the other side... but here is a brief idea of my story: grandma was only a child when her parents were tortured and killed in their own home during ww1 by the turkish army, she witnessed it as she was hiding where she was told to hide, and remained there many days to come, hungry, shaken and scared. She eventually escaped and was found by another family that took her in and together escaped the war zone by foot, villages were burned, churches destroyed, children thrown in the sea to drawn ...... I can't even begin to tell my grandfather's side, except that him and his brothers and sisters separated, some ended in Egypt, others in Iran, others as far as Brazil ...... grandma ended up in Syria, then moved to Israel, to then settle finally in Egypt. When Nasser came into power and started his nationalisation campagne, once again, they became targets of discrimination. WHY? because they were Christian. My mother's father had a business which was taken from him, shut down and caused him great stress which resulted in a sudden heart attack. I never knew him. My mother was only 14 when she saw him fall. Her mother, my other grandmother, took the four kids and moved to Canada alone, leaving all she had worked for behind. My father's mother, followed her son, my dad, to Canada along with grandpa. And it was in this land of the free that my parents met, grandma and grandpa lived with us and told us many stories from world war1 and the attrocities commited then.


And I have also decided to speak up (even though it is hard) and not stop talking...

"as long as people in this world of ours stop saying that the Armenian Genocide never happened.


http://www.armenian-genocide.org/genocidefaq.htm#What


http://www.armenian-genocide.org/

Hi Rachel,

It does feel strange to share those sensitive family histories, doesn't it? I had heard about the Armenian genocide on National Public Radio in some depth. But you're the first person I know whose family survived that onslaught, and I appreciate hearing about it from you. What's striking is how frequently humans have perpetuated these horrible brutalities on one another through the kind of ethnic scapegoating that is cynically used by tyrants and/or out of the desire of one group to take from another. The invading Japanese committed atrocities and war crimes against the Chinese in WWII as well, including the kind of unconscionable medical experiments the Nazis were conducting in the European death camps.

This is the "sin" we, as human beings, inherit at birth, isn't it? This horrible, bloody, brutal history is the legacy passed to us. "Here, kid, here's the world reality we humans as a group have created for you so far. How do you like it?"

I can't remember what I was going to say...other than Thank God for Peacemakers whenever and wherever and however they appear.

Love,
Maria

Hello moonflower

I understand you have lived near the Selfridge military base since you were 3 and can appreciate that you have seen day and night activity there. I can appreciate what you say in light of the fact that Selfridge is more than an Air National Guard base, which you didn't mention. Not that I'm attacking you for not mentioning that but Selfridge serves all five of our armed services, there are 50,000 people on that base according to their website.
http://www.selfridge.army.mil/

It's amusing that you think Air Force pilots and crews shouldn't eat or go to the bathroom while on duty. Perhaps you should post that "suggestion" on the "Stars and Strips" website with your email address and stand by for action.

I agree with you about government cover-ups. Bill Clinton moved heaven and earth to cover-up the true nature and identity of the attackers of the Oklahoma City federal building. He tried hard to blame it on patriot groups as a prelude to more gun control. He even tried to blame it on talk show host Rush Limbaugh to shut him up. We can thank Shippers for finally blowing the lid off that cover-up.

Nothing personal moonflower but you keep missing or ignoring the essential element in the Shippers interview. It isn't that Hussein is a terrorist, a fact you readily agree with. It isn't that Hussein has attacked the United States. It's that Hussein, who IS the government of Iraq, has already attacked the Continental United States---3 times, which is an Act of War. Whenever I think I see inconsistencies in someone's position, I probe but it's not a personal attack. You seem to consider Shippers a credible source for information and freely quote his conclusions. Shippers says there are 3500-5000 Iraqi Republican Guards in America and that they are communicating with a certain phone number in Iraq. He further states they are up to something in the Oklahoma City area, have set up fake/dummy businesses that do no business, to give themselves cover. In short moonflower, Shippers thinks they are involved in a plan for another attack---here. Leaving aside the million or so Iraqi citizens Hussein has tortured and murdered, the Iranian troops Hussein used chemical weapons against and killed, the Kurds he gassed with chemical weapons and killed, not to mention the Kuwaiti's he killed when he invaded Kuwait, how many American civilian lives are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of saving Saddam Hussein's sorry butt? Because that's the bottom line and the final result if your antiwar policy is put into effect. Your position seems to be that it's OK for Saddam to kill his own citizens or any other citizens including American citizens here but you're against removing him because some innocent Iraqi citizens would be killed?? As I said moonflower, this is not an attack, it's a request for clarification of your antiwar position and it's limits. So, speaking of limits to your antiwar position, is there any attack of any nature on the United States that in your opinion would justify a military response?

I haven't taken a vow of poverty, so I'll have to answer the rest of your post later.

Love, jwhop

Rachel, thank you so much for posting your family's story of the horrors they endured through the Armenian holocaust. Your story, Sabra's and Rainbows are ALL worth retelling and keeping vividly in public awareness to remind us of the extent of man's inhumanity to man when political systems are allowed to operate from a premise of power and domination rather than cooperation and love. Clearly this is a paradigm of human interaction that we desperately need to change if we are to have any hope of a just and sustainable civilization. Why can we not realize ... not as "countries" or "races" or "ethnic groups" but as citizens of the world, that NO human beings have the right to dominate and control other human beings. NONE of us, EVER, for ANY reason. Unless we can get that idea out of our minds completely, I see little good in store for humanity.

Connie I haven't said much about your recent posts because I haven't found anything to take issue with! I love the way you are thinking about these things and the contributions you're making to the discussions. (And thanks for the tie-dye!)

jwhop you make some very good points about the coverups during the Clinton administration. Although I know there are a lot of Clinton fans around who will be unhappy to hear me say so, I don't think the Clinton administration was one whit friendlier to civil rights than the Bush administration is, or that Janet Reno was any less a Federal tyrant than is Ashcroft ... that administration just didn't have the scope for raw usurpation that this one has by virtue of the "terrorist" crisis!

You have only to look at the steamroller tactics that Reno employed on MANY occasions when she directed her Federal thugs to roll over both private individuals and organizations AND states' rights and laws as if the Constitution had never been written! Not only the Oklahoma bombing (about which massive evidence going far beyond just Schippers' testimony shows deliberate government complicity and coverup), but also the mass murder by Federal agents in their seige of the Branch Davidian compound and numerous other incidents, point to a Justice Department no less committed to siezing raw Federal power than is Ashcroft's. And who will forget the image of Federal Agents busting into an apartment with body armor and machine guns to deport the small and frightened Cuban refugee boy whose mother had died to bring him to freedom in the US ... in total disregard of the State judicial reviews which had clear jurisdiction in the case?

As I've said before, the coercive regime attempting to subvert the Constitution and change the American form of government to one of iron-fisted Federal control has nothing to do with republicans or democrats. For many administrations now, regardless of WHO occupies the nonminal positions of power, the coercive behind-the-scenes agenda has been primarily controlled by the same "establishment" of CIA and other intelligence bureaucrats in league with powerful corporate/military/industrial vested interests. The rhetoric is different, but in real terms you might as well rename both republicans and democrats "republicrats" for all the difference in their respect for the constitution and their honesty and integrity to the citizenry.

What puzzles me about you, though, jwhop, is that you seem to have a blind spot where party politics are concerned. As Connie's asked about several times in connection to Schippers' testimony especially, it appears that you easily see corruption, coverups and abuse of power where Democrats are concerned, but vehemently defend equally obvious and onerous coverups and abuse of power if it is Republicans! To me, that is blind partisanship carried to totally ridiculous extremes. I don't mean this as an insult, I'm honestly trying to understand where you're coming from that Party politics seems to be the be-all, end-all factor in your view of world and domestic affairs. It appears that your position is as simplistic and naive as "Republicans, good - Democrats, bad," end of story! Yet I know you are far more intelligent and perceptive than to believe anything so patently superficial and inaccurate. My observation, over a period of many months that we've discussed these issues, is that you are completely unable or unwilling to see any of these issues in any light other than Rebublicans versus Democrats, and that really puzzles me.

There is good and bad in both parties ... folks of integrity and scoundrels who are Democrats and who are Republicans. But this relentless drive toward expansion and consolidation of Federal executive power has been a consistent theme that has found expression through BOTH parties for a long time now. We're only talking about the actions of the Republican administration now because it happens to BE a Republican adminsitration in power at this coming-to-a-head stage of affairs. But if a Democrat were in office now instead of our dear Bush regime, things would be little different IMHO ... except for a bit of a different spin in terms of rhetoric and style. It's not the current political figurehead who is behind this, but an entrenched core of powerful interests that do NOT change from administration to administration. It's really frustrating when you so often respond to any of these issues by unfavorably comparing Clinton to Bush, or Democrats to Republicans. From where I sit, that misses the issues entirely, and only confuses the discussion by sidetracking it to party politics when that's not what it's about at all. When someone points to a Bush administration corruption or coverup, you answer by pointing to a Clinton administration corruption or coverup, as if partisan comparisons where the important thing here ... when they're acually the ;east important thing. The important thing is the seizure of power and domination, on both a domestic and a world scale, by a clique of powerfully entrenched interests. Does that make ANY sense to you, or is it all about political parties?

I'm really curious.

Love,
Greg

Hi jwhop and all,

There is a lot to digest here tonight. Rachel, Both Maria and Greg have pretty much expressed how I feel about the things that happened to your family. I'm glad you talked about it for the reason that both you and Sabra stated, so that it never, never happens again. Also, as you both said , so no one can say it didn't happen. There are still people in this country who hold the opinion that every battle won for the white man was a victory, while every battle won by the Native Americans was a massacre. Native Americans were more than just herded onto reservations, they were also slaughtered at will. Native Americans were fighting to keep their way of life instead of having someone else's idea of how they should live be forced on them. As El pointed out, there is hardly any nationality or race that has not suffered at the hands of tyrants. That's why we have to be ever watchful and protect the Constitution. It's our guarantee of freedom from tyranny.

Jwhop, they can go to the bathroom but they have to raise their hand and ask for permission. Thanks for the laugh. Actually, I was assuming they didn't all have to go at once. As for chow, if there is a national emergency in progress, they will have to grab something and eat it on the run.

Being a non-military woman, I just assumed that all National Guard Bases were like Selfridge. So I claim ignorance as my defense. I didn't withhold that information from you on purpose. Guess that explains that weird plane my husband and I saw flying over in front of our car three weeks ago. It was low because it was landing at Selfridge and we had never seen one like it before. It looked like it could have been a Stealth but my husband was not sure because he never saw a Stealth up close. Normally around here we just see the regular jets and cargo planes.

I just read Greg's post about the party lines so will state my case on that. I hate labels like liberal or conservative but if I have to give myself a label I guess I am what they call a Moderate. I am the person in the middle keeping the liberals and conservatives in line, or at least from killing each other. I am an Independent voter, I vote for the man and his record and not the party. I just wish I had more of a choice rather than the best of two evils as it is now. I agree with Greg, when it comes down to it, the party doesn't matter, it's the man and what he represents. Democrats can be just as bad as Republicans and vice versa. Clinton did some good things, he balanced the budget, the economy and employment was good, and he gave us a whole new definition of sex. I was not crazy about him though. Also I agree with you, he covered up a lot while he was in office.

Regarding Schippers and what he said about the Oklahoma City bombings and Iraqi Republican Guards in this country planning another attack, I believe all he said about that. We have a large Arabic population here in SE Michigan so I wouldn't be surprised if we had a few of those here. In fact, the Detroit area is a hotspot for FBI agents since 9/11. We often hear something in the news about an arrest. There was just an article in today's paper that was just heartbreaking. A Yemen truck driver was caught in a terror sweep, wrongly accused, and being a truck driver, he lost his job. The judge threw it out of court calling it "Orwellian charges." I will get that article and post it later. Now the man is returning to Yemen. He said "I don't feel safe here. I think all Muslims are under suspicion." On the other side of coin, the FBI broke up a phoney charity organization here run by two Saudi Arabians. They were collecting donations to aid children and instead sending the money to a bank in Jordon to aid terrorists. They arrested one of the men and are looking for the other one. For that reason it would be real hard for me not to believe Schippers. I might add that had Ashcrofts bill gone into effect, those American citizens that thought they were donating to help children would have been arrested for aiding terrorists.

My anti-war policy you talked about is based on my worldview that has pretty much been formed throughout my life and especially from my Theology studies at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit. I taught 8th grade catechism which is why I took the classes. But I won't require you to take any vows of poverty in order to reply to the rest of my post. I don't think killing is right period. So war for me, is only as a last resort. I think there are "just" wars ( WWll for example) but on the most part, most wars are "unjust" and can be avoided. I do not want to save Saddams "sorry butt". I thought I had made that point clear so many times in my posts. He has to go. As I said before, he is a boil on the butt of humanity. I listened to Pres. Bush's speech tonight and from what he said, it sounds like he read mine and Greg's wish list. He spoke of a democratic government for Iraq and allowing the Iraqi people to elect their leader. I was very happy to hear him talk of a Palestinian State where those people can live free and independently in peace and where Israel can live free of terrorism and in peace. Thank you God! I also liked that Bush spoke about letting go of hate so that all people in the Middle East can live free and without fear. I think he will sway the anti-war group among us and the Europian countries to now support him in this war. Just this morning Greg stated that would win his support for this war and I agreed with him. There will be casualties among the innocent people of Iraq, that is unavoidable in war. However, to free the Iraqi people and all the people of the Middle East from the tyranny of Hussein, is what I see as a "just" war as long they are all free to elect their government without interference. It's not going to be easy to pull off because they don't trust the U.S. I hope and pray we do pull it off. So there, are you happy now, jwhop.

Oh by the way, if you read this on Wed. evening, tonight on Nightline they are going to talk about moral theology and just and unjust wars with the real theologians. I am only an amateur theologian. That will give you an idea of where my viewpoint is coming from.

Love, Connie