Earl Bockenfeld's Radio Weblog : Only the mediocre are always at their best. --Jean Giraudoux

Updated: 4/1/03; 1:32:22 AM.

 

Looking for a Story? Check:
 
 


 
Work:
 

Great Sites:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Subscribe to "Earl Bockenfeld's Radio Weblog" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Comments by: YACCS

« chicago blogs »

 

 

Friday, March 07, 2003



What If The Peace Movement Succeed?

Here's an interesting, anonymous opinion piece in the Christian Science Monitor that asks the question, if the peace movement succeeds, what next?

Will you also demonstrate and demand "peaceful" actions to cure the abysmal human rights violations of the Iraqi people under the rule of Saddam Hussein?

Or, will you simply forget about us Iraqis once you discredit George W. Bush?

It goes on like this. To be honest, I have serious doubts about an unsigned, anonymous letter like this, which the CS Monitor says breaks their own standards. (What's this guy's job, anyway?) And I certainly don't believe that this argument is a good reason to go to war.

However, I think this is a good reminder to the pro-peace movement of the types of issues we have to keep in mind, and have answers for. I don't want us to forget about the people of Iraq, either. I don't think that bombing them will help -- it hasn't helped us remember the suffering in Afghanistan -- but I think that we need to back peaceful plans to deal with these types of problems.

Posted by Kynn at February 27, 2003 04:30 PM | TrackBack
 
Comments

I think that article has one major flaw. It's arguement is clearly aimed at peace activists, but ignores the fact that the same arguement applies to those who support a military solution to the situation in Iraq. Killing several hundred thousand people in Iraq and installing a new goverment will not in itself guaranty an improvement in human rights in Iraq, and there is no reason to assume it is impossible to improve human rights in Iraq without using war.

One might as well ask 'What if the war is successful'? Will the Kurds be protected? We've already agreed to allow Turkey to invade northern Iraq to disarm the Kurds. What will the new form of the government be? Who's interests will it serve? How much of the country will be left standing? Who'll pay to rebuild it? How will Iraq repay the loans to rebuild? South America is a good example of the kinds of suffering and poverty that might face the Iraqi people down the road if they are forced to go to the IMF to rebuild after the war. And all of this ignores the fact that hundreds of thousands of people will die if war is waged. These are not just imaginary people in a far off land, these are real human beings who will experience real suffering and death at the hands of the US. How will the survivors feel about the new US backed government if they have lost children, brothers, sisters, parents to our bombs? Iraq is currently a secular government. When war shreds the fabric of society in Iraq, it will fester and become a fertile breeding ground for anti-US sentiments and Islamic fundamentalism. Will Iraq wind up with a human rights record like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?

I certainly agree that peace activists should also march in support of international human rights. It is a very important issue because it sets the tone for what is acceptable in the international community.

The important thing to remember here is that we are talking about waging a war that will result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. I question the assumption that we have to deny houndreds of thousands of people the right to live in order to improve human rights in Iraq.

There are many international organizations working on the issue of human rights. If one wants to address human rights in Iraq I would say that is the place to start. Dropping bombs on people should always be a last resort.

Posted by: wb at March 3, 2003 09:01 AM

This is my letter to the CS Monitor's editor:

Your unnamed writer makes a powerful case for overthrowing the current regime in Baghdad, and he deserves to be questioned on his own terms; that is, what relationship does the Bush administration's push for war have to the hopes of the Iraqi people? If past performance is any indication, there is precious little hope for a resolution that will treat Iraq and its people as more than a photo opportunity, ready to be double-crossed at the administration's convenience. I'm sure that even this is preferable to the continuation of the current horrors, but it's a sad thing to pin a country's hopes on an American government as dishonest and cynical as this one has proven so far. To the Bush administration, other nations, even erstwhile allies, are targets of coercion, vilification and bribery in its quest for global dominance, and Iraqis should not deceive themselves as to the true nature of their moment in the spotlight. I wish them the best of luck, nevertheless, and remind him that the opposition to this American war is not in any way supportive of Saddam Hussein, but part of a global movement that questions the use of military force as a way to settle international disputes. I am under no illusion that this coming campaign can be averted, but the enormous and unprecedented popular outcry against it is a good omen for the future. Our grandchildren may yet say that in retrospect, Mahatma Gandhi was the most important man of the 20th century, not Hitler.

Posted by: Chris at March 3, 2003 09:25 AM

Alternatives between the status quo inspections and full-scale invasion are pretty scarce, but here's at least an attempt at one. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has a proposal for "A New Approach: Coercive Inspections"

http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/iraq/mathews.htm

as summarized by CEIP president Jessica Mattwews in her Washington Post piece "Is There a Better Way to Go?"

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42716-2003Feb7.html

 
Posted by: jerzy at March 4, 2003 01:09 AM

Frankly, accusations that the scare-quoted "peace movement" will simply forget Iraq if war is averted are a bit rich, considering that a large chunk of what is currently the peace movement was calling attention to the horrific humanitarian situation under the sanctions regime long before Iraq was the war du jour. Large chunks of the peace movement have, frankly, a far more consistent record of opposing disastrous humanitarian situations, and seeking remedies that didn't involve war, long before many of today's hawks suddenly developed an interest (real or feigned) in these issues. I, for one, refuse to be lectured to about the Memory Hole by members of a pro-war movement who appear largely unaware of what's happening in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Doctor Slack at March 4, 2003 06:22 PM


categories: Politics
Other Stories according to Google: Profiles in Peace : Local activists talk about what motivates them | index9b | We need an anti-imperialist peace movement ! | Victor Weisskopf: A Scientist's Odyssey - p. 4 of 4 | Shock and Awe | Of Centaurs and Doves: Guatemala’s Peace Process. By Susanne | IPI | In These Times * As the World Yearns | Anti-imperialist Movement | The Nobel Peace Prize 1977 - Presentation Speech


4:35:27 PM    



Good MmmmmmMorning, Kuwait, This Is Your Desert DJ

THE Americans may have more tanks than us, a lot more troops and more burger bars to feed them, but at least the British contingent has brought its own entertainment to this desert coalition.

Every morning, thousands of US troops are roused from their sleeping bags by two British DJs broadcasting from a makeshift studio in a metal cargo container, parked on the edge of one of the biggest and busiest camps in Kuwait.

While the British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS) is willing to rough it in the desert and broadcast with their gas masks to hand, their American counterparts are holed up in a safe, air-conditioned complex thousands of miles from the front line.

Modesty and military protocol prevent the Britons boasting about this in their daily broadcasts to a captive audience of 200,000 troops bedding down in the sand, but their presence has not gone unappreciated. Chris Pratt, the station manager, says: “When we bump into Americans in the queue to dinner or to the toilet, they tell us they listen to us rather their own American Forces Network because they not only prefer the music we play, but they respect the fact we are out here mucking in with them.”

Ask the Americans why they are not here, and a senior officer will mumble something about “force security issues” and change the subject.

Several British entertainers have already been on the telephone offering to put on a concert for the troops. From Hollywood has come a deafening silence.

If the British forces should end up in Baghdad shortly, then Mr Pratt, 47, a former civil servant from Angelsey, and his co-host, Sean Ridley, 35, a former Army officer, won’t be far behind with their record collection.

“We’re not being foolhardy or trying to prove how brave we are. It’s just that British forces out in the field regard us as a way of staying in touch with home,” Mr Pratt said.

Spend half an hour listening to the rival networks and you realise in this coalition there are two armies, living side by side, who barely speak the same language.

While BFBS pours out messages from families, friends and pets, and the football results, the American Forces Network laces all its programmes with a liberal assortment of propaganda and embarrassing tips about personal cleanliness.

In the space of ten minutes yesterday, an American presenter droned on about the need for troops to take time to meditate — “Make your mind your ally” — how not to choke your children by feeding them peanuts and more than you should ever need to be told about washing your “private parts”.

The American output is censored by the generals; the British output is not. Mr Pratt said: “We are civilians, not enlisted like the Yanks, and while we work closely with our military, they don’t give us orders because they trust us to do and say the right thing. We inform but we should also entertain.”

The two men were in Bosnia and Kosovo, and Kuwait before the vast majority of British troops arrived. Their experience is reflected in the expert way that they have decked out their grey container that is both a studio and sleeping accommodation. They even nipped into a local department store to add furnishings and fittings.

While public opinion is as divided as ever in Britain about whether this force should be here at all, the broadcasting community has already lent its support, with Virgin Radio and the BBC running special broadcasts for troops in the Gulf which are relayed through BFBS.

The goodwill messages from home that they have been asked to broadcast have nearly totalled six figures already.

[Via Times Online]


categories: Miscelleous
Other Stories according to Google:


1:15:41 PM    


© Copyright 2003 Earl Bockenfeld.



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website.

 



March 2003
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Feb   Apr

Story Categories:

Blogging

Body

Digital Media

Heart

Humor

Internet

Microsoft

Mind

Miscelleous

Politics

Outrages

Security

Software

Soul

Userland

Top 10 hits for spyware adware on..
Google
1.Spychecker - database of Spyware ( adware ) products lets you ...
2.Adware , Spyware and Advertising Trojans - Info & Removal ...
3.spyware .co.uk Your browser does not support frames. To view our ...
4.Spyware Watch (UK) - spyware , adware , stealware - stay aware!!!
5.Spyware Watch (UK) - spyware , adware , stealware - stay aware!!!
6.PC Hell: Spyware and Adware Removal Help
7.Adware and Spyware Information and removal tutorials. Free ...
8.Spyware Watch (UK) - spyware , adware , stealware - stay aware!!!
9.ZDNet: What is spyware ?
10.ZDNet: What is spyware ?

Help link 4/1/03; 1:28:52 AM.