John He Is As Are Americans At War
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
It has long been said, "war is the last [best] option." Human beings, in an attempt to appear rational, reason that of course, diplomacy is preferred. Man-kind [sic] says he will do all in his power to pursue peace. Once domestic tranquility is achieved, two-legged mammals will do what they must to preserve harmony. Then this logical creature claims he must defend himself against all enemies. He will fight for what is right. Man forgets; what is ethically essential to gain and retain peace is the principle, "War must never be an option."
John He Is As Are Americans At WarAs long as man muses, "if need be we will go to battle," then combat is not a possibility; it is a probability. Centuries of conflict have proven this theory true. Yet, humans continue to deny the validity of argument.
Mankind massacres; yet, endures. People engage in what they actually believe is inevitable, war. Feuds flourish. The desire to exert power supersedes the serenity people proclaim is their deepest desire.
When Presidential hopeful John McCain states the obvious, self-identified, peaceful Progressives raise their arms in disbelief. Humans willing to endorse a candidate, indeed, two, or three who choose to engage in combat are outraged by the notion that warfare is forever.
Those who lean left forget they follow leaders intent on the kill. Combative campaigners call a vicious act or attack triumphant.
Hillary Clinton told us of her desire. For the former First Lady, who belatedly quarrels with a war in Iraq, more troops must be moved to Afghanistan.
Barack Obama, like Clinton offers a conditional and tepid plan to withdraw soldiers from the land Saddam Hussein once governed. Obama also plans to shift the battle to Afghanistan if he becomes Commander-In-Chief. For each of the potential Presidents, war is absolutely an option. Physical combat is profound and preferred.
American Progressives see and hear John McCain state his belief, war is inevitable. These peaceful persons wince. Another person who promises to lead citizens of the United States as Commander-In-Chief, is perhaps a realist. He reminds "civil" rights advocates of a reality that hurts. Humans are not logical; nor is man-kind [sic] benevolent to all equally. Warm blooded beings languish in the wind of emotional battles, and shall do so through eternity, or so it would seem based on what was, and continues to be the traditional battle cry.
I've got to give you straight talk, my friends. This is a tough war we're in. It's not going to be over right away. There's going to be other wars, I'm sorry to tell you. There's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.
John McCain presumes what the Democrats propose. The locations may differ. The pronouncement is posed in a less ominous manner; nonetheless, a war is a war, is a war.
"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" . . . "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
Bomb, bomb, bomb, Afghanistan or Iran. Civilian casualties will not be collateral, incidental, or accidental damage. In a skirmish, slaughter is intentional. A Liberal offender is no less liable.
"I am still convinced withdrawal means chaos," he said, "and if you think things are bad now, if we withdraw you ain't seen nothing yet."
Ah, that which humans have never seen is what they dare to imagine, peace. Perhaps, if Americans were to withdraw, harmony will be possible.
The point is it’s American casualties. We’ve go to get American’s off the frontlines, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities, and then I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there for one hundred years or a thousand years or ten thousand years. What they care about is the sacrifice of our most precious treasure, and that's American blood. So what I'm saying is, look, if Americans are there in a support role but they're not taking casualties, that's fine.
"Fine," as defined, is the future for humans who engage in battles. The Arizona Senator, and Republican aspirant, does not actually differ from the Democratic hopefuls. McCain claims what has been true throughout history, and will be accurate forever, if the current crop of candidates, Republican or Democrat, does as declared.
America can endlessly occupy other nations without the loss of a countryman's life and citizens will not complain. For people who reside in the "land of the free and home of the brave" [sic], as long as all within the clan are comfortable, life is good.
McCain says nothing of the fallen foreign born. Nor do the Democrats decree all murders must stop. The Presidential hopefuls need not mention the millions of lives lost among the "adversaries." Self-interest is significant. Empathy is not essential. Indeed, compassion can hinder a being, a leader, and a nation intent on destruction.
It seems obvious, if citizens of the States are not sacrificed, as far as Americans are concerned, war can continue, and it will, perhaps be good for the country, for profiteers who manufacture weaponry, or at least, for John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and all others who allow for this option.
Perchance, it is time for two-legged creatures; particularly those who profess a preference for peace, to assess them selves rather than rant against another perceived enemy. John McCain is but a mirror. He reflects what humans accept. The representation is real. If man-kind [sic] is ever to achieve harmony, if shared serenity is to become standard, every individual must declare, "War will never be an option!"
Promote a Peaceful Progressive Platform . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 12, 2008 at 03:00 PM in Afghanistan, Aggression, Brutality, Self-Defense, Change the World [Within], Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Exit Iraq Now, Hillary Clinton, Humans, Self-Destructive, Iran, Iraq War, Killing Machines, Military Missions, Philosophy, Violence, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], War, The Last Option, Why War? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Giuliani Attacks Ron Paul; Disputes Theological Theories
Ron Paul on CNN talking about the debate 5-16-07.mpg
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
I marvel at the ignorance, the ability to "ignore" information or the lack of knowledge expressed by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. While the Mayor may wish to accentuate his actions during the September 11, 2001 clean-up operations, how can he negate a lesson that we all learn over time. "What we do unto others, will be done unto us." Rarely, if ever does any being attack another without what they believe to be reason.
Even if the broadly "accepted" theory were true, "they hate us for what we have," I doubt the rage would be quite so deep. Often, people strive to obtain what they covet. America has "played" in the Middle East for decades. We want their oil. However, when humans feel victimized, they react. As theologians might remind us, it is "an eye for an eye" often motivates brutal aggression.
To state that he, Giuliani has never heard the contention Congressman Ron Paul made during the May 15, 2007 Republican debate is ludicrous. Where might the Mayor have been in the last six years? For that matter where was he as a child. Did Mayor Giuliani merely walk onto the scene of a crime against humanity and declare this is unwarranted, unprovoked, and unnecessary?
What some think of as "just," may seem unreasonable to another. The person inflicting pain thinks his or her behavior is apt. The individual or group attacked has a different perspective. The roles are often reversed simultaneously. Ultimately, we must acknowledge that every [wo]man has a reason for each reaction. If only we might walk a mile in the moccasins of others before we engage militarily.
Cable News Network contributor Roland Martin phrases a similar thought in this manner. "We need to understand history and how it impacts what is happening today." He offers a brilliant assessment of the recent rhetoric. Martin writes . . .
What has been overlooked is that Paul based his position on the effects of the 1953 ouster by the CIA of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.Ahhh, Mister Martin, I love your musings. For me, your words sing of truth. This text might be considered biblical in its proportions. The conclusion you offer is as Congressman Paul claims, the essence of his message. Were it not for time, Ron Paul would have liked to utter the Testament phraseAn excellent account of this story is revealed in Stephen Kinzer's alarming and revealing book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq," where he writes that Iran was establishing a government close to a democracy. But Mossadegh wasn't happy that the profit from the country's primary resource -- oil -- was not staying in the country.
Instead, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known British Petroleum, or BP) was getting 93 percent of the profits. Mossadegh didn't like that, and wanted a 50-50 split. Kinzer writes that that didn't sit too well with the British government, but it didn't want to use force to protect its interests. But their biggest friend, the United States, didn't mind, and sought to undermine Mossadegh's tenure as president. After all kinds of measures that disrupted the nation, a coup was financed and led by President Dwight Eisenhower's CIA, and the Shah of Iran was installed as the leader. We trained his goon squads, thus angering generations of Iranians for meddling in that nation's affairs.
As [Ron] Paul noted, what happened in 1953 had a direct relationship to the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979. We viewed that as terrorists who dared attack America. They saw it as ending years of oppression at the hands of the ruthless U.S.-backed Shah regime.
As Americans, we believe in forgiving and forgetting, and are terrible at understanding how history affects us today. We are arrogant in not recognizing that when we benefit, someone else may suffer. That will lead to resentment and anger, and if suppressed, will boil over one day.
Does that provide a moral justification for what the terrorists did on September 11?
Of course not. But we should at least attempt to understand why.
Think about it. Do we have the moral justification to explain the killings of more than 100,000 Iraqis as a result of this war? Can we defend the efforts to overthrow other governments whose actions we perceived would jeopardize American business interests?
"[T]he children will pay for the sins of their fathers."The United States is certainly paying for the sins of our fathers. It is said that salvation comes through work. Salvation is motivated by love. Americans profess to believe, 'Love they neighbor as you love thyself.' Yet, often we do not. Thus, our country might reap as we sow.
Former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark often reflects as Ron Paul did. In a recent interview with Cable News Network Correspondent Wolf Blitzer, the two address the sanctions imposed on Iraq. Again, Americans accept, allow, and advance policies that are contrary to religious teachings.
On the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Lawyer, legal scholar, and Civil Rights Activist Ramsey Clark recounted American history. In a reflective speech, Clark recalled . . . . .
The most fundamental, dangerous and harmful violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on its fifteenth birthday is economic sanctions imposed on entire populations. The United States alone blockades eleven million Cubans in the face of the most recent General Assembly resolution approved by 157 nations condemning the blockade, with only the United States and Israel in opposition. The entire population of Cuba and every Cuban has had the "right to a standard of living adequate for health and well being... including food, clothing, housing and medical care" deliberately violated by the United States blockade.Are we to believe that causing hunger, illness, and distress equates to loving our brethren as we would ourselves. Such hypocrisy, I believe breeds the brutality that befalls us and did on that day of infamy. Congressman Paul and the Iraq Study Commission Report concur. There is little excuse for obfuscating the facts and for occupying another nation. What Americans do and have done is not democratic; nor will our behavior advance egalitarian principles.Security Council sanctions against Iraq, which are forced by the United States, have devastated the entire nation, taking the lives of more than 1,500,000 people, mostly infants, children, chronically ill and elderly, and harming millions more by hunger, sickness and sorrow. The sanctions destroy the "dignity and rights" of the people of Iraq and are the most extreme form of "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," which are prohibited by the Declaration.
Despite the cruelest destruction of the most basic human rights and liberties of all the people in Iraq, including rights to medicine, safe drinking water and sufficient food, the United States government, with the major mass media in near perfect harmony, proclaims itself the world's champion of liberty and human rights. The problem as Lincoln surely knew is not merely one of definitions. It is a problem of power, will, and accountability. The United States intends to have its way and serve its own interests, with Iraq, Cuba, Libya, Iran, the Sudan and many other countries whatever the consequences to the liberties and rights of those who live there.
The United States control over and its concerted action with the mass media enables it to demonize such countries, its victims, for "terrorism," threats to world peace and human rights violations at the very time it rains Tomahawk cruise missiles on them and motivates and finances armed insurrections and violence against them. At the same time, the United States increases its own staggeringly large prison industry, more than a million persons confined, including 40% of all African American males between 17 and 27 years old in the State of California.
Simultaneously the U.S. spends more on its military than the ten largest military budgets of other nations combined, sells most of the arms and sophisticated weapons still increasing worldwide while rejecting an international convention to prohibit land mines and an international court of criminal justice. And the U.S. maintains and deploys the great majority of all weapons of mass destruction existent on earth, nuclear, chemical, biological and the most deadly of all -- economic sanctions.
Man's inhumanity to man explains much of what we are witnessing today. This construct defines much of what we are part of and propagate.
I ask us all to imagine what the world might be like if Americans used the ingenuity we often speak of to originate peace and prosperity for all, equally.
If citizens of this gluttonous country did not build a nation dependent on petroleum, would wars be as they are. At least, the magnitude of these might be less. Man devises the fuel consuming machines that now drive him.
Granted, humankind might find another cause for hatred. Nonetheless, if we, the people create a world whose mission is balance, if we work to live in harmony with nature, and did not choose to fight our fellow man for fossil fuels perchance the perils would be fewer.
Those on the "Right," frequently considered religious, G-d fearing followers of Ten Commandments, might do well to honor the laws of the Lord Almighty.
'Thou shalt not kill.'
'Thou shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
Then the sanctimonious "religious right" might know as atheists and agnostics experience. Violate the Golden Rule; you, and your progeny shall be damned. If the Lord does not admonish you for your brutal behaviors or reprimand you for your voracity, your fellow man or woman will.
References, Resources, Religious, and Human Rights . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on May 19, 2007 at 09:11 PM in Aggression, Brutality, Self-Defense, Elections, Ethics, God Bless, Iraq War, Oil, Politics, Presidential Politics, Price of Petroleum, Religious Right, Spread Democracy, Terrorism, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit] | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush Boasts of Military Service, Gerald R. Ford's ©
This morning I stood in the kitchen and watched the ceremony. Former President Gerald R. Ford was laid to rest. Dignitaries spoke in memorial. Of course, the current President of the United Sates was asked to address a mournful audience. His words surprised me and did not.
Days earlier, at the first official commemoration of President Ford, there were no signs of George W. Bush. Our nation's leader was busy planning his war. Finally, he decided to fix a strategy in stone. Sadly, the plan is surge. This decision flies in the face of a Ford proposal released last week. However, that matters not. George W. Bush trusts that history will receive him well. Bush will be considered steadfast as he "stays the course" regardless of success.
Thus, the junior George could not be bothered with ritual rites of passage when Ford's body first arrived for viewing in the Capital. For George W. Bush the thought of travel to Washington District of Colombia seemed far away. Young Bush always preferred Crawford, Texas. He longs for more time on the ranch. The death of a President is no reason to shorten a "working vacation."
When Bush junior was asked to consider the prospect of returning to the beltway and honoring the former President fully, he likely reflected on the recently reported interviews. For two years prominent journalist, Bob Woodward met with Gerald Ford. They discussed the situation in Iraq, the Bush plan or lack there of, and Ford's own former staff members, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The elder statesman, now citizen Gerald R. Ford had little good to say. He disagreed with the initial strategy and from his words; we could surmise the now proposed "surge" was not a welcome coming.
It might be assumed; Gerald R. Ford was reprimanding George W. Bush; he disapproved of the attacks on Iraq. Although President Ford insisted the interviews and his opinions not be made public until after his passing, oh, the timing of his departure left much to be desired in the Wonderful World of Bush. Perchance Bush contemplated and concluded, the gall of Jerry Ford. How dare this former statesman ridicule me publicly? How could President Ford question the judgment of a man that followed his lead? George W. chose a Cabinet reminiscent of former President Ford's. For forty-three, that demonstrated the ultimate respect for the man, Ford, and his choices.
Then there was the press, the punitive gesture from the former President.
In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.George may have been miffed. He may not have felt revered himself; thus, he would reciprocate. He would show no reverence. For a Bush boy like George W. one rebuke deserves another. By staying in Crawford, revenge would be his."Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.
"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."
The Ford interview -- and a subsequent lengthy conversation in 2005 -- took place for a future book project, though he said his comments could be published at any time after his death. In the sessions, Ford fondly recalled his close working relationship with key Bush advisers Cheney and Rumsfeld while expressing concern about the policies they pursued in more recent years.
"He was an excellent chief of staff. First class," Ford said. "But I think Cheney has become much more pugnacious" as vice president. He said he agreed with former secretary of state Colin L. Powell's assertion that Cheney developed a "fever" about the threat of terrorism and Iraq. "I think that's probably true."
Hummmph! Criticize my calculations, my management style, my strategy, and my men. The great George W. Bush would have none of that. The President, after much pondering might have resolved he would not attend the funeral until ultimately, by all rights and reason he had to.
There were six days of mourning; George W. Bush participated only for moments.
When George W. Bush did finally eulogize the man of character in the formal church observance, he spoke well of the Mister Ford. However, his words haunt me. The current President of the United States has never seen battle, though he sends thousands to fight and die for his cause. Our strong and strident leader, in his youth, and even now, while in office, has done all that he could to avoid the front lines. Then in memorial he says while standing in front of church audience, America, and the Ford family . . .
Mrs. Ford, the Ford family; distinguished guests, including our Presidents and First Ladies; and our fellow citizens: . . .Yikes! As I listened, I was struck. I stood still, my mouth wide open and eyes crinkled. I thought aloud, "Did George W. Bush just say that?" Could he speak so highly of a deed he never contemplated and still think himself an honorable man.Gerald Ford showed his character in the uniform of our country. When Pearl Harbor was attacked in December 1941, Gerald Ford was an attorney fresh out of Yale Law School, but when his nation called, he did not hesitate. In early 1942 he volunteered for the Navy and, after receiving his commission, worked hard to get assigned to a ship headed into combat. Eventually his wish was granted, and Lieutenant Ford was assigned to the aircraft carrier, USS Monterey, which saw action in some of the biggest battles of the Pacific.
I wondered. Was President Bush promoting an action in response to a need for more troops? Recruitment numbers are down. Families are no longer asking their sons and daughters to volunteer for service. They are not proud of what our military might has accomplished. What is, is not what the Administration promised. Many active duty troops disapprove of the President and his plans. Soldiers have suffered at the hands of poor planning, flawed facts, and formalized folly. Young men and women do not revel in the idea of going to battle. The reality of not coming home is too great. What was George W. Bush intending. What will he do next.
Surge is the suggested strategy; however, many use, there are not enough troops to carry out the proposed plan. George W. Bush, always thinking ahead. Apparently, even in remembrance he is shrewd. If he deems enlistment attractive and honorable, perhaps more young men and women will do as he never did, sacrifice their lives in battle.
Ford Wears the Uniform. Bush Sends Those in Uniform to Die . . .
Technorati Tags
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 2, 2007 at 04:00 PM in Brutality, Self-Defense, Bush 43 Administration, Compassionate Conservatives, Gerald R. Ford, Iraq War, Loss of Life, Military Missions, Policy, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush Wins His War Against Saddam Hussein. Hang Him High ©
As a child, when one of our playmates was known to be typically stubborn, a bully, or infantile we would accept that he or she needed to have his or her way. When confronted with unnecessary conflict, those wiser and more evolved would look longingly at each other and say, "Let the baby have his bottled!" We would give in to immature desires and walk away shrugging our shoulders as we passed the selfish monster.
As adults, we forget. Frequently, we give in. When President Bush ranted and raved, "You are either with us [the United States led by this silly imposter of a man] or against us," we, as a nation, accepted that he was correct in taking that stance. We played along and "followed our leader." Grown men and women in Congress relented.
They decided against further diplomacy with Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein. Lawmakers signed on to policies not worthy of an elder statesman. Perhaps, our representatives were reluctant. They did not wish to do battle with a bully, particularly one known as "President of the United States of America." Thus, our legislators approved the Bush war and the hunt for Saddam Hussein was on. On December 30, 2006, it ended in a hanging. [See video above.]
In December 2003, Mister Bush mapped out his mission. He began by saying of Saddam Hussein,
"This is a disgusting tyrant who deserves... the ultimate justice."As Bush spoke, America looked on. Some smiled, others sighed; however, few did anything to stop the crude tirade.
To a majority of citizens in this country it mattered not that the punitive President's comments placed the United States in a precarious situation. Many American's seemed ambivalent. This superpower was choosing to stand alone, in direct opposition to policies, practices, and humanitarian philosophies promoted by the United Nations and our European allies, an organization and nation states that remarked openly, they could not and would not endorse the death penalty.
Nevertheless, we did or at least, our hedonistic, browbeating President Bush did. The junior Bush chimed on endlessly. He wanted his way. He would make his position known. George W. would not be happy until he got his way. To that end, the President declared,
"Let's just see what penalty he gets, but I think he ought to receive the ultimate penalty ... for what he has done to his people," Mr. Bush told ABC News.So be it; the boldface, belligerent, Bush Boy was intent. He would have his way. George W. Bush was determined. He would "stay his course." Nothing would stop him."I mean, he is a torturer, a murderer, they had rape rooms. This is a disgusting tyrant who deserves justice, the ultimate justice."
Mister Bush knows and speaks his mind plainly. Often he could be heard to say as he did on December 14, 2001
President Bush pledged anew Friday that Osama bin Laden will be taken "dead or alive," no matter how long it takes, amid indications that the suspected terrorist may be bottled up in a rugged Afghan canyon. The president, in an Oval Office meeting with Thailand's prime minister, would not predict the timing of bin Laden's capture but said he doesn't care how the suspect is brought to justice. "I don't care, dead or alive — either way," Bush said. "It doesn't matter to me."Nothing much matters to a bully or a baby, nothing beyond their wants. President Bush wanted an execution or two. Now, having completed one task, he smirks and moves "forward."
Osama Bin Laden is still in his sight. President Bush intends to bully us [the American people] about until he gets his way. Our countrymen voted to oust Congressional representatives that sided with the ingenuous Bush. In their elation, US citizens forget that the Boy still has power. George W. Bush is still Commander-In-Chief. He is the "decider," and whatever he wants, for the most part, thus far, he gets.
Saddam Hussein is gone from G-d's green Earth. The kangaroo court that Bush said he rejected lived large in Iraq.
The president said that he did not want a "kangaroo court", and that only the Iraqi people should decide what punishment their former leader deserved.However, that did not happen.
Critics question the swift sentencing, execution of SaddamOnce the hearings concluded, the rush to judgment was finalized, all else was accelerated.
By Aamer Madhani and Tom Hundley
Chicago Tribune
December 31, 2006Saddam Hussein's trials and his march to the gallows were intended to be turning points in Iraq's history in which justice was delivered on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people killed by the dictator's brutal regime.
But for many human rights advocates and legal experts who followed the trials, Hussein's rapid conviction, and execution instead left them with doubts about the emerging Iraqi government and the fairness of its judicial process.
Hussein died on the gallows in Baghdad on Saturday, less than two months after an Iraqi court sentenced him to death for the killings of 148 Shiite Muslims in Dujail and just four days after the Iraqi appeals court upheld the verdict. Even some American advisers who helped set up the new judiciary after Hussein's fall reportedly were surprised by the speed of the process.
Few denied that Hussein was guilty of war crimes and atrocities against his own people, and many said the execution reflected the heartfelt desire of the Iraqi people. President Bush said in a statement that Hussein "was executed after receiving a fair trial - the kind of justice he denied victims of his brutal regime."
Yet, in the end, critics said, the flawed trials and the swift appeals process suggested that the system did little more than provide victors' justice, delivered by a Shiite-dominated government against a Sunni Arab who repressed Shiites for more than two decades.
The execution in the Dujail case also will minimize the impact of the second trial of Hussein on even more grievous charges of killing tens of thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq. The truth-seeking commission is to continue its case against Hussein's six co-defendants and come to a conclusion on whether the former dictator committed genocide and other crimes. But it is unlikely the proceedings will be as closely followed now that Hussein is dead.
"It was absolutely right that Saddam Hussein should be held to account for the massive violations of human rights committed by his regime, but justice requires a fair process and this, sadly, was far from that," said Malcolm Smart, director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North African monitoring program. "The trial should have been a landmark in establishment of the rule of law in Iraq after decades of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. It was an opportunity missed."
What might have been most jarring about the proceedings that led to Hussein's hanging was how quickly the appellate court came to its conclusion, said Scott Horton, a Columbia University law professor who has served as a defense attorney for Iraqi journalists accused of crimes in Iraq.
Horton said that in his dealings with the Iraqi criminal justice system, judges spent little time reviewing cases that were on appeal, even capital cases. On a trip to Iraq to represent an Iraqi journalist, he said he was stunned to see judges dispensing of serious cases in as little as 10 minutes and defense counsel playing the role of a "potted plant" during proceedings.
"It's still in the process of finding its way," Horton said of the Iraqi judicial system. "I think the big question that Americans should be asking is, `Are we are moving it to be more transparent and just or we moving it toward being fast?'"
The short time for the appellate proceedings in Hussein's case was in marked contrast to death penalty cases in the U.S., where condemned individuals often wait on Death Row for years while myriad appeals are considered.
Doug Cassel, an international law expert who worked with the United Nations in its investigation of atrocities in El Salvador, pointed out that while the Iraqi court took about nine months to hear a case that included hundreds of witnesses, thousands of pages of testimony and documentary evidence, the appellate court needed just weeks to review and uphold the sentence.
"The lesson that is sent to the world is that the United States talks a big game about due process, but in reality it doesn't really believe in it," said Cassel, now a law professor at the University of Notre Dame.
Hussein's execution also could deepen the rift between the U.S. and its key European allies. Capital punishment is banned throughout the European Union, where political leaders and human-rights organizations spoke out strongly against hanging the Iraqi leader.
Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush's staunchest ally in Iraq, opposed executing Hussein.
"We are against the death penalty," Blair said. "However, what I think is important about this is to recognize that this trial of Saddam has been handled by the Iraqis themselves. . . . It does give us a very clear reminder of the total and barbaric brutality of (Hussein's) regime."
In Italy, which has one of the strongest anti-capital punishment movements in Europe, former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi warned that executing Hussein would be counterproductive. Berlusconi, who supported the invasion of Iraq and sent Italian soldiers there, said the hanging was "a step backward in Iraq's difficult road toward full democracy."
The Iraqi leader so delicately placed in power by the US government postured for the Bush cause. Using a red-ink pen, Maliki sealed the fate of Saddam Hussein. "Justice" would be served swiftly. Plans were made for an immediate execution regardless of expert opinions.
Since Tuesday, when Iraq's highest court had upheld Hussein's death sentence, it was clear that his execution would arrive soon. The Maliki government had wanted to execute Hussein early Friday, U.S. and Iraqi officials said in interviews. But legal issues, security concerns and Iraq's political divide postponed the plan.Legal and security concerns delayed the delivery of the Bush dictum; however, only for days. Will we, as Americans continue to let a puerile, persecuting Bush have his bottle? When Congress concedes, and ultimately caves in under the weight of Bush's will, will we let that pass, again? Can we not come together in support of our soldiers? Might Americans practice the peace they preach.
This infant convinced America post September 11, 2001 that he would protect us [the United States of America.] He has not. Bush has made our borders more vulnerable. Citizens act as though they are defenseless. Thus far, we have accepted the haphazard behaviors of this powerfully placed man. Oh, yes, some may say they voted for Democrats against the war in this recent mid-term election. However, I must ask, can or will Congress do what needs to be done? We, the people must take the power back. Please, let us work together to impeach a man that takes pleasure in seeing another person in pain.
I think it is not an accident, I know it is not. Video of the Saddam Hussein hanging is all over the Internet. Mister Bush proclaims,
"Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself," Mr. Bush said in a statement from his Texas ranch.Thus, we want to see that it truly happened; we want to know that we are safe from this tyrant. Yet, what about the other one, the one that resides in the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue?
The slaying of Saddam Hussein . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 31, 2006 at 11:00 PM in 'Regime Change' , Brutality, Self-Defense, Bush 43 Administration, Congress and Bush, Iraq War, Paradox of Peace, Persevere. Stubborn?, Politics, Presidential Politics, Propaganda and Politics, Saddam Hussein, Spread Democracy, “Bring it on!” “Dead or alive.” , “Freedom” and “Justice” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
President Ford Proposes No "Justifying" Iraq War ©
Among the present peace activist, we might include former President and World War II veteran, Gerald R. Ford. Though the words are muffled and very difficult to hear, the transcripts are clear,
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."Gerald Ford spoke openly with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in 2004. The two agreed; the text of this conversation would not be released until esteemed author Bob Woodward released a book he was planning, or perchance upon the former President's passing.
The initial interview took place in 2004. Conversations continued into the following year. The irony is not lost on many. President Bush initiated the invasion; he found support among his advisers, prominent veterans of the Ford administration.
In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.The former President stated the conflict and the Administration's plan to attack was not just; he continued, ""I don't think I would have gone to war." The President, often considered the only Commander-In-Chief to lose a war, an idea that he vehemently disputed, stated, he "very strongly" disagreed with the current administrations "justifications" for battle. President Ford proclaimed,
n a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.National security, that is another perplexing issue. Now, even Republicans such as the renowned President Ford seem to accept, we are not safer since President Bush decisively chose to "spread democracy." Ford expressed his belief, there were other solutions. Being a bully is not and would not have been the chosen style of this loving lawman."Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."
President Ford Proposes Peaceful solutions . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 28, 2006 at 12:11 AM in Aggression, Brutality, Self-Defense, Iraq War, Presidential Politics, Spread Democracy, Violence, War and Peace, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
No Graceful Exit For The Bully George W. Bush ©
"The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it,
ignorance my deride it, but in the end, there it is."
~ Winston Churchill [Statesman, Author, Prime Minister 1874-1965]
A glimpse into the younger years of Baby Bush's life speaks volumes. Without a deep desire, few of us ever change. We may leave old habits behind. Those behaviors take a toll on our physical well-being. our psychological transgressions might also cause us to pause. We may wish to tweak our choices. Nevertheless, the substance of who we are lingers and often looms larger.
There are exceptions. Some totally transform themselves; still these individuals are few and far between. The need must be stark. When a person is born with a silver spoon is his mouth and is handed many more, he can and often does continue to do as he has done. The past is often the present and we see ample evidence of this. Consider this character . . .
He walks in the classroom cool and slow. He scans the room, though his eyes barely move. The students shift in their shoes. They wonder what he will do next. Fellow pupils shuffle about looking for a safe place to stand. Perhaps, they should hide from this threatening figure. They would if they could.
Once students find a comfortable corner, they cower and try to calm their beating hearts. The posture of those in the room is stiff.
Everyone fears this fellow, though he is their classmate. He is a peer; he is one of them. Yet, he is not. Actually, this big man on campus is not with the other pupils. He is above them, at times, below them, or so they fear.
Each of the students' suspects, given the chance, this young strapping dude will single them out. He will throw them to the ground, punch their stomachs, strike their heads, and slap them silly, though no one has seen him do this.
Those that have encountered this intimidating character choke back tears. They wince as he taunts and teases. They hold their breath as he pounds their tender spirits to a pulp.
This young man believes he has earned the respect of his acquaintances. He has a gang that follows him wherever he goes. They praise him, promote him to the status of "our leader." However, in their heart of hearts they too fear him. They know he is not a friend. This instigator is not trustworthy, nor is he a true companion.
Those that seemingly admire this fellow, do not. They appreciate his power, his prowess, and the will with which he makes his pronouncements. Nevertheless, his associates tremble at the thought of being close to their ally. Their guide beguiles and is belligerent. Let us not quibble. This chap can control a room, a street, or a neighborhood. He can and does accept a challenge; in truth, he creates them.
He is a rebel [with only a self-proclaimed cause], a rabble-rouser. This youthful testosterone driven male, is a fighter. He flees from no one. It is said that he can win any brawl. Once finished with his opponent he exits gracefully. Yet, he cannot. No one can! The concept of a "graceful exit" is an oxymoron. Nonetheless, morons, such as this bully think the notion is apt. They plot and plan for ways to leave a situation with sophistication. Yet, they have none.
Contemplate the position and posturing of George W. Bush and his desire for a "poised non-pull-out withdraw" from Iraq. The President of the United States bullied his way into battle. He declared, "You are either with us or against us." Like a cowboy, in a class "B" Western movie, Browbeater Bush exclaimed, I want Osama Bin Laden, "Dead or Alive!" Our fair leader worked to spread democracy by calling for a regime change, by toppling the "tyrant," his definition of the "evil" Emperor, Saddam Hussein. Big Bad Bush chose to unilaterally attack a nation struggling to survive. Much as classic bullies do, he picked an opponent significantly weaker than he.
President Bush gathered a group of people that said "Yes" to his every whim. Many were provided for him. Daddy too had lived a life of luxury. Like "W," he never needed to think beyond the opulence that was his world. If he wanted to further his investment in oil fields, he would. He did.
The senior developed an entourage of experts all ready, willing, and waiting to employ or impose their neoconservative values on those that were hoping for freedom. Papa George spoke of the "New World Order" and the Baby planned to take profound actions to ensure it.
Father and son both prefer and preferred bullying patterns of behavior. When, accidentally they appointed individuals that did not side with them, they roughed them up and ultimately eliminated them. The story of Colin Powell is a sad one.
As George Bush's first term nears its end, Powell's tenure as top diplomat is approaching its nadir. On the high-profile issues of the day, he seems to have almost no influence within the administration. And his fateful briefing one year ago before the U.N. Security Council—where he attached his personal credibility to claims of Iraqi WMD—has destroyed his once-considerable standing with the Democrats, not to mention our European allies, most of the United Nations, and the media.Then there is the saga of Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neal.At times, Powell has taken his fate with resigned humor. Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in The New Yorker last year of a diplomatic soiree that Powell attended on the eve of war, at which a foreign diplomat recited a news account that Bush was sleeping like a baby. Powell reportedly replied, "I'm sleeping like a baby, too. Every two hours, I wake up, screaming."
At other times, though, Powell must be frustrated beyond measure. One can imagine the scoldings he takes from liberal friends for playing "good soldier" in an administration that's treated him so shabbily and that's rejected his advice so brazenly. That senseless dressing-down of the committee staffer—a tantrum that no one with real power would ever indulge in—can best be seen as a rare public venting of Powell's maddened mood.
The decline of Powell's fortunes is a tragic tale of politics: so much ambition derailed, so much accomplishment nullified.
Former Fed and Treasury economists Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters initially measured the U.S. fiscal gap in a highly detailed 2002 U.S. Treasury study commissioned by then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neal and approved by Fed leader Alan Greenspan. The study, which showed a $45 trillion gap, was censored the day O'Neal was fired (actually drop-kicked) by the White House.The reveries of counter terrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke might come to mind as we muse. The history of Bush bullying is abundant.
"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism," Richard Clarke told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview Sunday night. "He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."Bullies often get their way. People fear them and rarely press an issue beyond what they think is personally safe. Sanity, when with a tormenter is tenuous. Who would wish to threaten their own personal sense of stability? Very few stand up to the bully; he counts on that.Clarke said he asked for a Cabinet-level meeting in January 2001, shortly after the president took office, to discuss the threat al Qaeda posed to the United States. "That urgent memo wasn't acted on," Clarke told CBS. Instead, he said, administration officials were focused on issues such as missile defense and Iraq.
Thus, we see a man, a beast that bellows; rarely do people believe he is bluffing. George W. Bush may not physically pulverize a person that sits near him, though he will pound a nation of faceless people back into the Stone Age; however, psychologically, this man murders the minds and spirits of those that he can see. President George W. Bush blatantly defines the word "bully." Let us look at how a professional characterizes persons that mean to oppress others. Peruse and ponder; does this description depict our man Bush or those he dominated?
I think the Colin Powell example alone tells the tale. President George W. Bully Bush is the picture of a persecutor. He was in his youth and as he ages he perfects his posture.I'm Rubber and You're Glue: Handling Emotional Bullies, By: Edel Jarboe. What is Emotional Bullying?
Emotional bullying is when someone tries to gain control by making others feel angry or afraid. It is characterized by verbal abuse such as name-calling, sarcasm, incessant teasing, threatening, mocking, putting down, belittling, ignoring, and lying. Also known as adult and workplace bullying, emotional bullying also includes such abuse as exclusion from a group, tormenting, ganging up on others, or humiliation. Moreover, this type of bullying also extends to racially or sexually abusive comments and behavior.
Because emotional bullying can be the most difficult type of bullying to cope with or prove, its effects can be devastating. In a recent study, researchers at the University of South Australia found that for males and females, frequent peer victimization and low social support contributed significantly and independently to relatively poor mental health. Experts say that the victim may be encouraged to feel shame, embarrassment, guilt and fear which can result in depression, low self-esteem, shyness, poor academic or job performance, isolation, or threatened or attempted suicide.
One might ask, "What happens to Bullies?"
The life-long outlook for bullies is not good. If bullies don't learn how to change their behavior, the pattern of bullying behavior often becomes a habit as the bully gets older.Yes, initially, power pulls people in. We witnessed this immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City. In the September 14, 2001ceremony, the President offered his response. He stated with pride, "I can hear you. I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." As he bellowed, the crowd roared. America had their leader and he was strong [or so the people thought.]Bullies have average social popularity up to approximately age 14 or 15. In fact, some children even look up to bullies in some ways because they are powerful and do what they want to, or have to, to get their way with their peers. However, by late adolescence, the bully's popularity begins to wane. By senior high school, if a bully is still attending school, his or her peers group includes other bullies, or more seriously, he or she has developed or is developing gang alliances. By late high school, schoolyard bullying is a rare occurrence, but what takes its place is more serious.
By age 24, up to sixty percent of people who are identified as childhood bullies have at least one criminal conviction. A study spanning 35 years by psychologist E. Eron at the University of Michigan found that children who were named by their school mates, at age eight, as the bullies of the school were often bullies throughout their lives. In this longitudinal study of bullies, many of these children, as adults, required more support from government agencies (Psychology Today, Sept. 1995). For example, these children later had more court convictions, more alcoholism, more antisocial personality disorders and used more of the mental health services than the other children.
Unless new behaviors are learned and adopted, bullies continue to bully throughout their lifetime. They bully their mates, their children, and possibly their underlings in their place of business. Bullying gets them what they want, and although some bullies learn to refine the art of bullying in their professional lives and use it in situations where there is a power imbalance, it creates less than harmonious relations in the workplace.
As Mr. Bush spoke, the public, his peers were mesmerized, just as schoolyard children are when they first encounter a big, bad, bully. Power exudes from every orifice when bullies speak. As President Bush beamed, the public felt protected, assured, and safe. They, as innocent youth, never imagined that this brute would harm them or their families. Yet, as time marches on, so too does the ogre. His oppressive ways meander; they twist and turn. Much is revealed. Ultimately everyone realizes, as long as the thug roams, no one is truly able to relax.
Yet, before the reality is evident many admire the charisma and sway of a swagger. Many of us did post-September 11, 2001. Those that wish to be popular think that the browbeater has power. Consider other world leaders, their comments, and initial support.
Bullies as Bush seem capable of parting the seas. That is impressive. However, as time passes, even those once enamored realize that absolute power corrupts absolutely. When ultimatums are delivered and diplomacy is not considered, even the most enamored begin to question the veracity of the bully. It happened to Bush.
In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair is asking lawmakers to support his decision to join the United States in a war against Iraq, although he does not need parliamentary approval to send into battle the 45,000 troops he has already committed.Hesitant as many might be, most follow a leader, even if he is a hooligan. However, once people acknowledge promises made by a tormentor are empty. The situation is not as it seems, they begin to lose hope."Back away from this confrontation now and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating in their effects," Blair said during a debate Tuesday in the House of Commons.
He is expected to win a House of Commons vote later Tuesday, but many disaffected members of his Labour Party were expected ignore party discipline and vote against his handling of the crisis. Senior Cabinet minister Robin Cook and two junior ministers have quit over the prime minister's stand on Iraq.
In Tokyo, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi described the Iraq ultimatum as "a very difficult decision" for President Bush and reiterated his government's position that a new U.N. resolution authorizing an attack was not needed for the U.S. and its allies to enter Iraq.
Japan's constitution bars its armed forces from fighting in foreign wars, but Koizumi's government reportedly was considering humanitarian missions.
Leaders of nations opposed to military action in Iraq were critical of President Bush's 48-hour deadline.
George W. Bush guaranteed victory; bullies do. He assured Americans, we are spreading democracy. Ruffians believe they rule; they are righteous. Yet, there was no triumph. A tough guy never truly wins. Democratic systems are not found in war, civil or otherwise. Massive military might does not promote freedom and justice. Brawn cannot and does not dominate. Brains are the authentic force. In a True World Order, only nations united can create calm.
As we reflect on bullies and their ability to retreat we must accept, a tyrant cannot "gracefully exit" from combat. Much as they might try not to, a teaser will continually criticize in their attempt to control. After a destroying a person, place, or peace, no one can egress elegantly. A bull in a china shop is unable to repair the havoc his entrance created. A punitive person cannot pretend to polish what s/he has tarnished. Panache is not possible when your modus operandi is punishing. Onlookers will not trust a man, [woman, or child] who leaves them devastated.
George W. Bush is a bully, a brute, a hooligan, and a boor. He reaps what he sowed. Sadly, his cohorts and the American citizens are in tow.
Innocent Iraqis also suffer. There is no winner in war. Thus, the United States led by a bullying regime will not be poised in our pullout. We were not attractive in our entrance. Now, we can only exit with our tails between our legs. That is what a badly bruised bully does. At least, some us are still able to stand and petition for rational peaceful change.
We must remind those that forgot as they followed our fair leader, often when you ask for a fight, you get more than a battle. Once angered, your opponent may righteously do you more harm than you ever imagined. Perchance, the "enemy" the people Bush defined as terrorists hurt him more than he pained them. The man that does not "pay attention to polls" might evaluate his numbers; better still, he may wish to assess his life! The ways of a bully are anything but beautiful.
Brood over Bully Bush and the Bunch . . .
Please view the video Bush Rejects 'Graceful Exit' CBS News. November 30, 2006
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 17, 2006 at 06:00 PM in Aggression, Brutality, Self-Defense, Bush 43 Administration, Change the World [Within], Communities and Communication , Current Affairs, Fear, Human Nature, Humans, Self-Destructive, Iraq War, Paradox of Peace, Policy, Politics, Spread Democracy, Wars Bush Commanded, Why War? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Give Thanks for Genocide. Thanksgiving, National Day of Mourning ©
The day is done, bellies are bloated, and now, rather than pretend to give thanks, we can reflect. Might we mourn our motives, the message, and the myths of Thanksgiving Day?
We are not vanishing. We are not conquered. We are as strong as ever."
~ United American Indians of New England.
As a child, I felt as my Mom did in her earliest years, "What are we giving thanks for on this holiday, hurting a loving native nation?" In the first grade, she was sent to the principal's office for questioning the "accepted" truth of Thanksgiving. She understood the tales taught to schoolchildren; however, my Mom contrasted these with what she knew of the Indian people. In my youngest years, I could or would not tolerate "Cowboy and Indian" games or the genre in films. I saw the slaughter of a loving people and wondered, as I do now, "Why do we allow this to happen?" Why would we celebrate such carnage?
I have yet to understand why we as a nation give thanks on this day. Are we grateful for our ability to rape a land, to ravage a race, or to reject the rights of those that lived in North America before "we" did? I know not. I understand that for the United American Indians of New England, this is a National Day of Mourning.
Our forefathers landed on the shores of what is now the "United States." Many came to this continent in search of religious freedom others in search of wealth still others to simply make a new start in life. Those fleeing religious persecution then proceeded to persecute others. Those seeking wealth ignored the natives' stole their land and oppressed them and the life changers road along in the domination and exploitation. We, as a people, as a nation, now celebrate these acts.
As children, we are taught to commemorate the Pilgrims landing. We are told that the natives befriended the white people. They did, both native and Anglo accounts support this belief. Showing compassion for others is consistent with the native culture. The white man saw this open caring nature as an opening, an opportunity to steal, pilfer, and enslave the inhabitants of this, a beautiful land. The pure and principled Puritans saw the strength of sharing as a weakness. They chose to betray, deceive, and diminish the value of the darker skinned inhabitants of the new world.
Today, as we celebrate, some say they are not forgetting our past, the founding of this nation; they are remembering. However, it is likely that they only recall childhood chants, the musings of men and women that prefer to hide the truth. After all, who writes the history books the majority of us read? It is the magnanimous man or woman wearing white skin.
Anglos and Europeans wish to appear benevolent; yet, an alternative history tells us a different tale.
The pilgrims [who did not even call themselves pilgrims] did not come here seeking religious freedom; they already had that in Holland. They came here as part of a commercial venture. One of the very first things they did when they arrived on Cape Cod -- before they even made it to Plymouth -- was to rob Wampanoag graves at Corn Hill and steal as much of the Indians' winter provisions as they were able to carry.Nevertheless, on this fourth Thursday in November myths move the nation; and we, as citizenry continue to believe the best of ourselves and our ancestors. We wish to think our forefathers honorable.
Yet, do we? Are we only paying lip service to this history, real or imagined? Is Thanksgiving, in modern times, more than a meal, families coming together to eat, drink, and be jovial? Is it merely an introduction to the holiday season, perchance shopping is our focus and the reason we give gratitude? How often do people truly thank each other, or their ancestors? Perchance, if thanks were to be specified it would be for our shared prowess, and the American ability to possess land that was never theirs to take.
Citizens of these United States rarely discuss this truth. What we as a nation are thankful for is what Christopher Columbus perceived and spoke of succinctly.
Native Americans in the Caribbean greeted their 1492 European invaders with warm hospitality. They were so innocent that Genoan Cristoforo Colombo wrote in his log, "They willingly traded everything they owned . . . They do not bear arms . . . They would make fine servants . . . They could easily be made Christians . . . With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."We, the white man, can force people, human beings into submission. We can come, and conquer. White wonders can enslave these harmless hearts. Converting them to our religion is possible, probable, and oh, what power we can over these naïve natives. I wonder; will we be honest with our neighbors, our image, or ourselves. Will we say that what we honor and give thanks for the bounty of land and wealth we systematically took from the benevolent Indians!
While the whites tell their stories, and hope that no one will ever know or question their facts, their fiction, the "Indians" share theirs. The narrative is passed down from one native born generation to the next. There is ample evidence, even in current day society to verify the veracity of Indian legends. They did everything to welcome and share with us, the whites, and we did everything to destroy, to dominate them. Nevertheless, the [drum] beat goes on. Americans prefer pretence, symbolism, and shopping. Shhh, say nothing, it is a secret, for it is sacrilegious to think that citizens of this country care more for Capitalism than meaningful traditions. However, they do.
The reality never dies. The reality is that on this "Thanksgiving Day," many mourn. Officially, since 1970, Thanksgiving Day is considered a National Day of Mourning among the Indian nations. Even some educators are observing this, or at least instructing their students on the possibility.
Teacher Bill Morgan walks into his third-grade class wearing a black Pilgrim hat made of construction paper and begins snatching up pencils, backpacks and glue sticks from his pupils. He tells them the items now belong to him because he "discovered" them.Complex it is. Originally, there was no sin. Ooops, those words were taken from another text. The earliest settlers were pure; after all, they were Puritans. At least, most of us learned that fable.The reaction is exactly what Morgan expects: The kids get angry and want their things back.
Morgan is among elementary school teachers who have ditched the traditional Thanksgiving lesson, in which children dress up like Indians and Pilgrims and act out a romanticized version of their first meetings.
He has replaced it with a more realistic look at the complex relationship between Indians and white settlers.
There are other versions of this fairy tale. Aspects of these may be accurate. I believe they are, for they appear in each accounting. Hospitality and generosity are among the traditional teachings in tribal communities. Among the Indian populations, the memory lingers; it is passed down from generation to generation. The Indian ancestors participated in a series of feasts throughout the year. The Wampanoag feast, called Nikkomosachmiawene, or Grand Sachem's Council Feast was among these. It was during this celebration in 1621 that the Wampanoag's amassed food to help the ill-prepared Pilgrims. The new arrivals were homeless, seeking shelter, sanctuary, and shelter. They had none; they had nothing. These Anglos only had needs and desires.
Conquest and a quest for personal freedoms were their focus; nevertheless, it mattered not that in acquiring their yearnings the Anglos and Europeans robbed the native born of their own liberties. However, I digress. I meant to mention the first Thanksgiving and how it evolved.
This Wampanoag feast is marked by traditional food and games, telling of stories and legends, sacred ceremonies and councils on the affairs of the nation. Massasoit [the leader of the Wampanoag's] came with 90 Wampanoag men and brought five deer, fish, all the food, and Wampanoag cooks.The tribal ritual, over time, and with the luxury of legend, became known as Thanksgiving Day. When we celebrate and commemorate this coming together, supposedly we are acknowledging the delight of genuine sharing. Yet, in fact, we are unabashedly praising that we the Anglos and Europeans were intent on becoming occupiers, overseers, and eventually, the oppressors!
When we party hearty, we deny that five years earlier, English explorers arrived hoping to seize land from the native people. These journeymen landed on the shores at a Pawtnxet village. Captain Thomas Hunt was among these early arrivals.
He started trading with the Native people in 1614. He captured 20 Pawtuxcts and seven Naugassets, selling them as slaves in Spain. Many other European expeditions also lured Native people onto ships and then imprisoned and enslaved them.
In 1621, when the white English Puritans encountered the Wampanoag tribes, they identified them as "Indians." The settlers did not distinguish one culture or clan from another. The Wampanoag were a quiet people. They were farmers and hunters. Their native lands stretched from present day Narragansett Bay to Cape Cod. They, as tradition determined shared their crops and their culture lovingly. They had no expectations, no fear of what was to come. Racism was not their reality. However, with the white man cometh change.
Native lands would eventually become modern day urban neighborhoods. Groves would be demolished; giant buildings would rise from the ground. Tribal leaders and elders would bear no witness and have no say in what was to become of their lands. Governments would dictate codes. President George Washington compared the native born to "wild beasts." Washington did not wish to provoke their savagery.
Through treaties and commerce, Jefferson hoped to continue to get Native Americans to adopt European agricultural practices, shift to a sedentary way of life, and free up hunting grounds for further white settlement.Though at times, Jefferson seemed torn; he wished to honor that this land belonged to the natives, the Indians, he also revealed himself, often.
Thomas Jefferson -- president #3 and author of the Declaration of Independence, which refers to Indians as the merciless Indian Savages-- was known to romanticize Indians and their culture, but that didn't stop him in 1807 from writing to his secretary of war that in a coming conflict with certain tribes, [W]e shall destroy all of them.As munificent as past Presidents attempted to be, the more the "man" was able to wield power against the "Indians" the more they wished to exert.
Between 1785 and 1866, over 400 treaties were made with the Indians, and it is fairly well-known that every one of them were broken. Some typical scenarios involved taking back the land promised to them or not allowing the Indians to deal with trespassers themselves the way the treaties promised. Starting around 1985, some Indian tribes, like the Oneida, have won Supreme Court decisions giving them back their aboriginal lands, but because these actions would relocate thousands of white people and involve huge sections of states, the matter of enforcing it is anything but clear. The states have not cooperated, and the Tribes have resorted to suing white residents in the area.Though natives of this northern continent are taking action, they are standing up for their rights, it is obvious. If change might impose on the lives of the lovely fair skinned Anglos or Europeans, then court rulings will remain in limbo. The indeterminate state of affairs will be as the unwritten history, known and ignored.Here is a list of significant events in Native American history:
The Indian Removal Act (1830). This forced a mass relocation of Indian nations to west of the Mississippi, the most infamous one being the "Trail of Tears" which left half of the Cherokee nation dead.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). This Supreme Court ruling held that tribes are not foreign nations, but dependencies, and need not be treated equally.
Massacre at Sand Creek (1864). Outside of Denver, a wagon train wiped out an entire peace-loving tribe of 200 Indians after inviting them in for supper, then hung their victims' body parts from the wagons as they traveled westward.
The Major Crimes Act (1885). This extended U.S. law enforcement jurisdiction into Indian territories, effectively breaking all treaties that guaranteed they could have responsibility for law enforcement themselves.
The General Allotment (or Dawes) Act (1887). This used a "blood quantum" test to take away over 100 million acres of land from "mixed blood" Indians.
Massacre at Wounded Knee (1890). U.S. cavalry gunned down 300 Indian men, women, and children for participating in a Ghost Dance, the purpose of which is to enter a world inhabited only by Indians.
The Indian Citizenship Act (1924). This conferred U.S. citizenship on all Indians who wanted it and would renounce their claims to tribal identity.
The Indian Claims Commission Act (1946). This gave Indians the right to claim monetary compensation for land unjustly taken away from them, in 1865 dollars.
The Relocation Act (1956). This qualified Indians for job training if they moved off the reservation to urban areas.
The Sioux Occupation of Alcatraz Island (1969-1971). U.S. Marshal's eventually cleared the Indians off, but they believed they were exercising their rights under an old treaty that gave them first claim to any "unoccupied areas."
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971). This eliminated indigenous mineral rights in Alaska so the U.S. could build the Alaskan oil pipeline. 25% of all oil reserves, 35% of all coal reserves, and 50% of all uranium deposits still lie under Indian land today.
The AIM Occupation/Protest at Wounded Knee (1973). This was a staged protest to expose police brutality, and the crowd succeeded at instigating it.
The Fish-ins and Sit-ins at Oregon & Maine (1980s). Indians protested fishing quotas and lumber company activities on sacred ground.
The Consumer and Sporting Event Boycotts (1990s). Indians protested use of Indian images and nicknames for products and athletic teams.
On this Thanksgiving Day, as on those in the past, gluttony will live long and prosper. The giving of thanks will often be a greedy endeavor. Most Americans will enjoy prosperity, as the natives within this country go forgotten. The original Americans will fret for freedoms lost. They and their numerous and knowing compatriots will mourn, as another year of discrimination passes. I wish them an their offspring authentic peace. I pose no pretense of smoking the pipe.
Please Walk a Mile in the Moccasins . . .
Please peruse another wonderful assessment . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 24, 2006 at 10:01 AM in Aggression, American Patriotism, Brutality, Self-Defense, Civics, Civil Rights, Communities, Current Affairs, Democracy or Monopoly, Discussion, Dreams Live and Die , Ethics, Ethics and Profits, European Émigrés , Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Rapes, God Bless, Inequality in America, Lawbreakers, Lies, Propaganda and Politics, Question Everything, Racial Discrimination, Rights and Rules, Society, Teach The Children, United States Constitution, Who Writes Our History? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush To Iran. “Do What I Say; Not What I Do!” ©
I am a peaceful person in my proclamations; I prefer gentle, caring philosophies and practices. I denounce the use of artillery. I want no armaments or ammunition. I see no reason for manufacturing these. Yet, we do. Americans produce more powerful arsenals than all other countries. We do this as we denounce other countries for even considering the same, though some of us do not want it done it in our name. For the United States, for this Administration, war is often the preferred policy. We prepare for it and work to ensure that others will not.
In this writing, I invite you, dear reader to ponder our posture towards Iran. Then, extrapolate; expand your evaluation. Reflect on our directives towards North Korea, South Africa, India, Israel, the United Kingdom,and the United States! You choose. There are many countries, contemplate them all.
I offer; we as Americans are a nation of hypocrites. Many define the US as a force to contend with; others claim it is only a farce. A country consumed with nuclear weapons for itself, believes it has the “right” to demand that all other nations quash their plans for similar. When they do not, our leaders declare these nation states "defiant," nay “rogue” countries.
Speaking at the American Legion national convention in Salt Lake City, Utah, our Commander and Chief said, the United States hopes for a diplomatic solution. However, the “decider” insisted, “it is time for Iran to make a choice.” The bully man more than once uttered the famous phrase, “You are either with us or against us,” boldly bellowed, in our name “There must be consequences for Iran's defiance.” President Bush said, “We must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.”
He loudly offered this proclamation because he could. The audience, for the most part, was sympathetic. Many members of the American Legion, as well as numerous citizens consider the USA the one and only the super power. They support the belief; America must spread democracy. Our principled philosophy and we must be the dominant influence worldwide. They think themselves and our country superior in nature. There is a holier than thou mentality that seems pervasive. In the United States, this mostly religious republic, a majority of the public seem to believe we have the “right” to dictate to other nation states, “Do as I say, not as I do!”
Currently, the President of the United States and his diplomatic forces are again insistent Iran suspend all research and development that relates to nuclear power. It is too clear to US; Iran might use this technology against its enemies, Israel and the United States among them. Imagine that, Iran might perceive the dictatorial nation of America a foe. President Bush sounds friendly to me.
Whether enriched uranium is to be used for practical or political means, according to America, Iran must not produce it, or so says our noble statesmen.
Yet, we, in this country do not cease production. We can and will manufacture the same. We willingly proclaim that our purpose is to build warheads. After all, we must be prepared to attack or defend.
The United States knowingly pours more and more money into our nuclear programs. We do this as we tell North Korea, Iran, and others that they may not. I sigh, deeply.
I could continue composing this exposé. I might cite chapter and verse in my attempt to speak of this silliness. However, I think it best that I offer this chart. I believe that it speaks volumes and makes my case better than I might.
The question weighing on my mind is how many times and how many ways must we destroy the world, all in the name of peace.
For original documentation, please refer to Wikipedia, “List of countries with nuclear weapons.”
*All numbers are estimates from the Natural Resources Defense Council, published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, unless other references are given. If differences between active and total stockpile are known, they are given as two figures separated by a forward slash. If no specifics are known, only one figure is given. Stockpile number may not contain all intact warheads if a substantial amount of warheads are scheduled for but have not yet gone through dismantlement; not all "active" warheads are deployed at any given time. When a spread of weapons is given (e.g., 0-10), it generally indicates that the estimate is being made on the amount of fissile material, which has likely been produced, and the amount of fissile material needed per warhead depends on estimates of a country's proficiency at nuclear weapon design.
• Please read an excellent exposé by Maryscott O’Connor of My Left Wing fame. I read Do As I Say, Not As I Do months ago. It resonated with me then, now, and even after all weapons are eliminated, I am certain that her words will remain with me.
Protect and Defend Us. Weapons and Words . . .
• Bush to Renew Defense of War Strategy, By Nedra Pickler. Associated Press. Salon. August 31,2006
• The Iran Plans, Seymour Hersh. The New Yorker. April 8, 2006
• Bush Speaks at American Legion Convention, CQ Transcripts Wire. Washington Post. Thursday, August 31, 2006;
• Bush warns Tehran anew on nuclear weapons program, By Anne Gearan. Associated Press. SignOnSandiego.com. August 31, 2006
• The American Legion
• Nuclear Weapons, Waste & Energy. Natural Resources Defense Council
• Archive of Nuclear Data. Natural Resources Defense Council
• North Korea's nuclear program, 2005, By Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen. May/June 2005. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
• South Africa: Uranium Enrichment, Business Day (Johannesburg). Editorial. AllAfrica Global Media. August 29, 2006
• Nuclear Power in India and Pakistan. World Nuclear Association.
• Britain's nuclear arms run down, BBC News Monday, 29 November, 1999
• Britain's Nuclear Weapons. Nuclear Weapon Archive. May 14, 2002
• 50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons. The Brookings Institution.
• U.S. built major Iranian nuclear facility, By Sam Roe. Sun-Sentinel. August 23 2006
• PDF. U.S. built major Iranian nuclear facility, By Sam Roe. Sun-Sentinel. August 23 2006
• Global Security Nuclear Weapons. Union of Concerned Scientists. March 22, 2006
• “List of countries with nuclear weapons.” Wikipedia.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on August 31, 2006 at 11:28 PM in Aggression, Brutality, Self-Defense, Bush 43 Administration, Current Affairs, Defiant Diplomacy, Iran, Nuclear Weapons, Politics, Spread Democracy, War is in the Wind, War, The Last Option, Weapons of Mass Destruction | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Iraq, Israel, Lebanon; Trees of Life in a Wilderness of War. ©
Another quiet dissenter enters the fray. She says, “This virus has existed for centuries.” No one can change what is and has always been. A group gathers and grows. They all argue amongst themselves. Finally, there is a loud explosion, or was it an implosion. The tree and all those surrounding it are engulfed in flames. Within minutes, there is silence. This world exists no more.
For well over a week now I have witnessed the whirlwind of discussions, disagreements, and dialogues pertaining to rhetoric, religion, and rage. People are discussing the crisis in Lebanon and Israel.
Persons pose the prospect; President Bush is responsible, culpable, and guilty of causing another war. No, it is Hamas, Hezbollah, the Israelis, or the Zionists that are liable. Perchance, the boy next door started this newer war in the Middle East. After all, he is Lebanese, or is he from Syria. Nevertheless, he looks suspicious.
Historical facts flitter about. Feelings flourish and of course, the seemingly practical solutions prosper, or at least people speak of these. Musings about methods of diplomacy mysteriously rise and fall. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice is waiting for the “appropriate time” to mediate international relations
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she will travel to the Middle East to help with peace efforts "when it is appropriate and necessary.” A day earlier, a State Department spokesman said Rice would be traveling to the Middle East for talks, but didn't specify a timeframe or location for the trip.
Emperor Bush has better things to do. He need not be bothered with details or even Presidential acts. King George II knows who is to blame and how to stop all this sh)(*&. On an open microphone the Bushman said,
“See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this (expletive) and it's over.”Earlier, at a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he stated his feeling. These were intended for public consumption, “Israel has a right to defend herself; every nation must defend herself against terrorist attacks and the killing of innocent life.”
Before the current conflict, Cheney was proud to chime in on Mid-Eastern affairs.
If the leaders of Hamas desire the help of America and the international community to build an independent, prosperous Palestinian state, then the way forward is very clear. The Palestinian government must recognize Israel's right to exist. (Applause.) And Hamas must renounce terror and dismantle the infrastructure of terror. (Applause.) One thing is certain: The United States will not be a party to the establishment of a Palestinian state that sponsors terror and violence. (Applause.)
Meanwhile, the world is coming apart [the tree is about to implode.] War is in the wind; it is on the airwaves, and within the hearts, minds, souls, and bodies of many a man and woman. Yet, it is not here, in America, now. The combat and brutality exists only in lands far from our home.
Americans sit safely, smugly, and snugly in their quaint little homes. They cuddle up to their computers, or televisions sets. They contemplate the causes and effects of battles in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan. United States citizens posture and postulate, they know what is occurring and why. Rarely do they consider that the facts are just fancy. They are nice, entertaining, and yes, even interesting. I love being informed, even if only from a distance. Actually, in this situation, I rather my awareness be distal. For I cannot truly imagine the fear, I might feel if bombs were blasting within a few feet of my home. I wonder during my waking and “restful” hours.
Americans proclaim they care; yet, they do little to effectuate true change. We can accept and acknowledge what is and what was. We can advance academic scholarship and all this is essential but not enough is it? The wars rage on, the dead and maimed pile up.
I am forever told I am an idealist for I do believe war is not an option; for me, it is never necessary. Some perceive me to be a fatalist, for I fear further doom. I am certain Condi would accuse me of this. Secretary of State Rice declared, “It doesn’t help to speculate on kind of apocalyptic scenarios,” though I do not believe that I am predicting an unprecedented future. I am asking that we assess ourselves before we begin to think that we can “improve” the world for others.
I will again pose what most believe is impossible. We as a society must look within. We must teach our children and ourselves to be true to our beliefs. We must not bellow and then belie our words in our next breath. Until we walk our talk and work towards peace in our homes, on our streets, in our communities, and within our own country we will not be trusted. Our hypocritical stance will continue to create conflict. We must question our human habits.
I have had no time to remake the world
As I realized in my own life, [reference the Mountain Dew Story] and have since shared with others, what we believe is our nature, is actually what was nurtured as we grew. Many of us have learned to be combative, competitive, and calculating in our personal lives. None of these characteristics promote peace, tranquility, or calm. What we do in our personal lives is reflected and projected in our professional existence. Human beings are profoundly consistent in both the best and the worst ways.
If you choose not to look at yourself, then look at your neighbor, your President, Prime Minister, or perhaps your parent.
Study their relationships at home or abroad. Contemplate what they create as members of a Board or a brood. Ponder what they present and how consistent they are. If a President, Prime Minister, or a parent is corrupt and combative in one position, they will be so in another. We are who we are, wherever we are; however, we can be otherwise, if we choose. For now, most are busy assessing others, telling them they need to change.
Most are contemplating the specifics, the particulars, and the details of war. They do this all day. Dissecting the issues within the Middle East has become a daily doing. Some blog what they believe. Journalists write what they think is correct. Pundits pronounce this or that truth, as do politicos. We twirl and whirl ourselves into a tizzy. Flame wars ignite throughout this country. These are the verbal versions of physical strife; they are as hand-to-hand combat. Americans are engaged in a war of words as they ask for peace. They revel in conflict as they speak of a desire for calm.
The bickering and bantering continue as individuals strongly stress their idea of the perfect solution. Yet, little changes. I believe, until we work on ourselves from within and teach through our example, nothing will. The cycle will continue, just as it has for centuries!
The pursuit of peace and progress, with its trials and its errors, its successes and its setbacks,
can never be relaxed and never abandoned.
The pursuit of peace cannot be achieved through external means. It is an internal truth. If you talk of peace; yet, you do not walk in peace, then you are denying your truth. You are pretending to be what you profess. The world will reflect what is within you; this is what you will teach for it is what you believe.
I understand that habits are a challenge to change; however, until we grow from within, all the world will stay the same, or so I believe. We will continue to see what we saw, for our perception is our perspective. If our viewpoint accepts, allows, and advances violence, then violence will be our reality. If we alter our interpretation of what it is that we see, then what we see will no longer be what it once was. As we evolve, so too do our thoughts.
I can look at a tree and see beauty or I can envision the bugs buried within the bark. As I gaze out my window and notice the bend of the tree, I can blame the wind, or I can appreciate that the arch and arbor the leaves create.
But rather by the way, I view them.
What I believe, I will conceive. I believe the tree is tremendous. It s branches are abundant; all grow separately; yet they are still connected. Vegetation is as civilization itself. There is much splendor and majesty. There is also the contrast. Some will love and others will war. A few will speak of calm; more will cultivate chaos. There are infinite reasons for every action and reaction. Compassion and conflict are complex. Even indifference holds many intricacies.
Nevertheless, I, as do we all, choose whether I will contribute to one characteristic or another. I need not find reasons for combat. I need not find grounds for disputes. Explaining the roots of all evil will eliminate none. If I am to work towards peace, I must be peaceful in my approach to life and to people. If I differentiate between those that I admire and those that rub me the wrong way, then I am not truly tranquil. I can contemplate corruption and controversy. I can clash with those whose facts differ from my own or I can choose otherwise.
As I gaze upon the tree and I observe serenity. It is harmony that I wish to emulate and encourage.
May peace be with you and I. May we walk the path of wisdom together. May we never war. Please let us live and let live. If you or I want to stop this war or that one, then I think we must end the battles we create in our own world.
He who overcomes others is strong; he who overcomes himself is mighty.
References for those mired in details, obviously myself among these . . .
• Middle East News Tracker, Updated regularly with news on the Israel-Hezbollah-Lebanon crisis. Wall Street Journal. July 19, 2006
• Opportunist Killers, By Father Jonathan Morris. Fox News. July 18, 2006
• War Takes Lebanon Back to Civil War Days,By Donna Abu-Nasr. The Associated Press. Washington Post. Monday, July 17, 2006
• Bush, Putin Disagree Over Call for Mideast Cease-Fire, By Richard Keil. Bloomberg. July 15, 2006
• Don't Blame Bush, The war in Lebanon isn't his fault,By Jacob Weisberg. Slate. Wednesday, July 19, 2006
• Caught in the crossfire of blame, By Danny Katz. The Age. Fairfax Digital. July 20, 2006
• Updated report on the war in Lebanon - Day 7, Ya Libnan. Tuesday, July, 18, 2006
• All-out war feared as Beirut, Haifa hit. Almost 60 killed in two days of fighting. By Mitch Potter. Toronto Star Newspapers . July 14, 2006
• Israel pounds Lebanon, G8 leaders blame Hizbollah, By Lin Noueihed. Reuters. July 17, 2006
• Bush blames Syria, Iran for violence, 2 nations called the 'root causes'. By Finlay Lewis. Copley News Service. July 18, 2006
• Rice: Urges restraint from all sides as Mideast explodes, Office of the Press Secretary. Chicago Sun Times. July 16, 2006
• Rice, Abulgheit differ on timing of ceasefire between Hizbollah, Israel. Kuwait News Agency. July 20, 2006
• Condoleezza Rice: Press Briefing: Situation in the Middle East U.S. Department of State. Noticias.info
• Transcript: Vice President Cheney Speaks to The American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference. Office of the White House Press Secretary. Washington Post. Tuesday, March 7, 2006
• Cheney: no US help for PA unless Hamas renounces terror By Associated Press. Israelinsider. March 8, 2006
• War in the Wind, Blast Buries New York City Building © By Betsy L. Angert. Be-Think. July 10, 2006
• Drawing In, Lashing Out, Israelis want to turn inward, but occupational hazards -- and a new crisis in the territories -- keep them from doing so, By Jo-Ann Mort. The American Prospect. July 10, 2006
• Bush defends Israel’s attacks in Lebanon, By Associated Press. MSNBC. July 13, 2006
• Animal House Summit; [Op-Ed] By Maureen Dowd. New York Times July 19, 2006
• A Rare Unscripted Moment, Bush fires off some pleasantries -- and a four-letter word about Hezbollah, By James Gerstenzang, Los Angeles Times. July 18, 2006
• Childhood Obesity. Adult On-Set Diabetes. Osteoporosis. Soda © By Betsy L. Angert. Be-Think. July 10, 2006
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 19, 2006 at 07:50 PM in Brutality, Self-Defense, Bush 43 Administration, Change the World [Within], Communities and Communication , Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Condoleezza Rice, Condoleezza Rice, Ph.D., Current Affairs, Evolution [Emotional, Physical, Spiritual], Global Village, Humans, Self-Destructive, Iraq War, Looking at Life, Loss of Life, Military Missions, Philosophy, Policy, Politics, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , Short-term Solutions, Teach The Children, Verbal Combat, Violence, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], War, The Last Option, Why War?, “War; Not an Option” | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Assertion: To Defend America, We Must Attack Aggressively ©
People throughout America were ready to protect themselves no matter what the cost. Aggressive reactions were booming. Americans declared loudly, “You are either with us or against us.” If you choose to terrorize me or mine then you will be taken, “Dead or alive!” Thus, the cycle begins again. America believes, we must aggressively attack.
Post-September 11, 2001, America went to war. This was not the first time; nor do I think it will be the last. Americans seem to accept a cycle of conflicts. Some say it is the nature of man to war. Others offer evolution as the rationale. After all, man is descended from beasts; therefore, we as humans fight for our survival. When Americans felt threatened, we brawl, batter, and beat our adversaries vehemently! Enemies might be terrorist, Tories, or any persons or groups that tempts or taunts them. However, none is a foe unless they pressure us [the people of the USA] personally. On balance, we are people of peace; we believe in diplomacy. We are a democratic nation. Our history demonstrates this or does it.
We work towards peace whenever possible. We intentionally avoid conflict. Confrontation must come to us before we engage. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 during what was the Second World War to stop all wars. Battles had been raging for two long years in Europe; Hitler and Mussolini were on the rise for years prior to the war. While Chamberlain tried to quell the aggressive advances of these comrades, his own passivity, policy of appeasement, gave them strength. The drum beats of warfare heightened. However, the United States stayed distant. Until, this country believed itself vulnerable they thought it was none of their business. Americans wish to wound no one, unless provoked.
We, the people of the United States loathe war, or so we say. In truth, citizens of this nation love fighting. Repeatedly, our countrymen accept violence and reject harmony. They claim this acceptance is reluctant; however, there is ample evidence that affirms the contrary.
Frequently, I find myself saying “War is never an option,” to those advocating the effort. I receive in retort this reply, “Brutality is justified when it is an act of self-defense.” From my perspective, fighting is never an act; it is what we do when we react. Actions are loving, they are giving they demonstrate care and concern. When we take action, we are productive. We yield growth. Actions are lively and full of vigor. When we react, we destroy! A reaction is elicited when we fear for our families, our familiars, or for ourselves. Pain causes a fight or flight response.
Intellectually, Americans state, “War is the option of last resort”; however, this country, it leaders and citizens choose it often, more often than not. We fight conflict after conflict. We clash here and abroad. We win battles; some say we win wars. Yet, we never achieve peace. The reasons for this are plentiful. Among these is “Might does not make right."
The numbers may be on our side; however, success is much more than a tangible strength. The United States often has more servicemen and women than its enemies. Our artillery is ample. The tools this nation produces are quite superior. Still, our will at times is less strong than that of our adversaries. On these occasions, victory is not ours. In truth, I think when aggression is involved no one triumphs. Everyone suffers a loss when we wage war, except perhaps the businesses that produce our weaponry and supplies.
In case the citizenry ever forget that this nation was founded on war, our leaders remind us. Their words are written into our policy. Most recently, our glorious king, George II etched his wisdom into our doctrine. Bush and his Bunch drafted the National Security Strategy for the United States of America in 2002. Our Eternal Emperor, the man chosen to speak for God, and selected to serve by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, President George W. Bush is quoted throughout the document. He offers,
We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace—a peace that favors liberty.
We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants.”
The President sounds so eloquent, so astute, and so contrary. I wonder; how does one defend peace as they fight. Is liberty achieved when we exert our will on others? History proves it is not.
People may pretend to circumvent their truer desires. They may appear to be abiding by the laws set by those deemed superior. However, they plot, plan, and pursue their personal philosophies, no matter what or who tries to control them. Consider Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and yes, even the early American colonists.
Nevertheless, we pursue. We Americans conclude we must protect, defend, and preserve our safe space. If anyone or any group threatens us, we must act aggressively. “To achieve these goals, the United States will: Prevent our enemies from threatening our allies, our friends, and us with weapons of mass destruction.”
These weapons may be in the form of arsenal or they might be mere articulations. No matter what their shape or appearance, any action taken against this State must be defended against.
We the people of the United States know how to form a more perfect union, a compassionate community, even if we have to do it through war; we will do it. It is as our President postures,
Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities.”
Thus, the President declares,
Yet, it does not. It never has. They start a conflict. We commence the battle. Each fights the war to end all wars, over, and over, and over again.
When wills this end? It will conclude when we realize that “War is Not an Option!” Aggression is never a solution. We can be assertive; yet, not aggressive. Wow, what a concept. It might be an important one to consider before we engage in another war, or the next fight. Yes, we have rights; however, so too do they.
Thus, I offer a discussion of aggression and assertiveness. I hope this might broaden our perspective. As you review the following information, I ask you to extrapolate. Consider what we witness locally, in our daily lives.
I believe that what we do in our homes, in the workplace, and on our streets becomes our habit and our truth. If we are snide, rude, crude, hostile, violent, or just plain aggressive with members of our family, with friends, or familiars we are likely to be so elsewhere. If we believe belligerent behavior is justifiable in defense of ourselves, might we also be more willing to accept it as a strategy for our nation? Sadly, I suspect we are.
Understanding Assertiveness, By Stuart Sorensen – RMNWhat it will do is provide some information about the nature of assertiveness and how it differs from other methods of dealing with people.
Most people confuse assertiveness with aggression or ‘getting my own way.’ True assertiveness, however, is much more than that. Assertiveness considers the rights and needs of everybody. It assumes that everyone is equal. Because of this assertiveness can be thought of as a method of increasing choices for everyone.
When we are unhappy with a situation, we have at least four choices. We can:
• Accept the situation
• Be aggressive
• Be passive
• Be AssertiveMost People Behave in Each of These Four Ways in Different Situations.
If we are happy to accept a given situation, then all is well and good. If not then we must choose one of the other three options. Let’s look at these more closely.Aggression
The aim of aggression is to get our own way – to win whatever the cost to other people. Aggression is not interested in the rights, wants or needs of others. Aggression is usually destructive, either physically or psychologically. It’s true that people who behave aggressively often get what they want but aggression has other results as well.
• Aggression often breeds aggression. This means that once people start behaving aggressively with each other it can be very hard to stop. People start looking for new ways to hurt each other and before you know it they’re lifelong enemies.
• Aggression can make us unpopular. Once we get a reputation for being aggressive, people start avoiding us. This may be because they’re frightened we might turn on them or because they think we’ll embarrass them by behaving aggressively to other people. They may also be worried that they’ll lose friends or influence as people might assume that they are just as aggressive. In the end, the only friends aggressive people have are people who are just as aggressive they or people who are frightened of them. They lose out on a lot of friendships because of their hostility.
• Aggression discourages people from helping us in the future. If we force people to do what we want by using aggression, they will probably feel bad about us. This often means they refuse to help us when we really need them.
• Some people believe that behaving aggressively makes others respect us. It doesn’t, it simply makes them fear us. Frightened people only do what we want for as long as we are watching. As soon as our backs are turned, they tend to do their own thing. This makes our aggression a waste of time.
• Aggression can make us feel good for a short while but is it worth it?Assertiveness
The aim of assertiveness is to find the best possible solution for all people. It’s about finding ‘win:win’ solutions. [Here I need to assert my own belief. I believe that if there is a win, there is also a loss! I prefer the term “grow:grow.”] Assertiveness sees everyone as equal with equal rights and equal responsibilities.• Assertiveness increases the chances of our needs being met. If we are able to tell people what we want without becoming aggressive, they will be more likely to help us. Also, if they can’t help us and we are able to accept that without becoming aggressive they will remain friends.
• Assertiveness allows us to remain in control. We can decide for ourselves what we want to do and then seek out opportunities to do it – or to do something similar. It puts us back in the driving seat.
• Assertiveness brings greater self-confidence. As we learn to take control and see what we can achieve our confidence increases. This in turn increases our feelings of self worth and self esteem. We begin to feel better – more effective.
• Assertiveness lets us have greater confidence in others. This is because it also helps others to state their needs and wants. By dealing honestly and fairly with them we encourage them to do the same with us.
• Assertive people have more friends. As we begin to treat people more fairly they begin to trust us, to like us and to want to spend more time with us. We make friends who truly respect us instead of walking all over us (passivity) or fearing us (aggression).
• Reduced stress. The more in control we feel the less stressed we feel. We don’t need to worry about doing things we’d rather not. We don’t have to let other people control us. Nor do we have to worry about trying to control other people. We have the power to choose our own destiny.Remember that there are many ways to interact with others. We can inform, explain, discuss, or simply have a relaxed conversation. It’s often useful to know in advance precisely, how you intend to interact.
The article continues. I do not necessarily agree with the premises or phrasing in the latter portions of this presentation. Therefore, I am choosing to assert myself. I will offer one further aspect though I have chosen to alter one term. The author speaks of “rights” and states the “right” we each have as individuals. I might list those however, I experience that most people are very familiar with their rights.
Rarely do they acknowledge what social scientists term as “responsibilities.” I struggle with that word for I, as many cringe when another person declares that we must be responsible. Often the speaker of this dictum is not. Therefore, I will replace the word responsibility with a phrase, “I can consciously choose.”
Dear reader, the choice is yours. Please consider we will get what we give. That we cannot control.
• I can consciously choose to treat others fairly, honestly and with respect for their dignity.
• I can consciously choose my own actions and their consequences.
• I can consciously choose to uphold the rights of others whenever I can.
• I can consciously choose my own decisions.
• I can consciously choose to be aware and acknowledge my role in my own life.
• I can consciously choose to accept, what happens to me is, generally, a result of my own decisions.
When we question the value of war, if we are honest with ourselves we will realize there is none. Aggression need not be our habit, preference, or option, first or last. We can assert ourselves. We can and must acknowledge that we have rights and privileges; yet, we must remember that others have the same. Theirs are equal to our own, no less worthy and no more.
Yes, speak up when you feel threatened; defend yourself assertively. However, you need not do so aggressively. Realize that if you choose conflict, you will get what you ask for. The force with which your enemy engages will be equal and opposing. I invite us as a nation and as individuals, to acknowledge peace is the greatest path. When we truly pursue tranquility, we understand war is not an option, ever. May peace be with you, everyone.
• On American Independence Day, July 4, 2006, this nation celebrates war or freedom, depending on your chosen perspective. North Korea fires its test missiles. Their mission is to exert their independence or to initiate war. We choose; they will act in kind. They have already. We show our strength and our ability to engage in war. They offer the same. Assertiveness or Aggressive attacks, which cycle will be chose this time?
Please, sing it with me. War, By Edwin Starr
Peruse if You Choose. No Worries. No War . . .
• President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat, Office of the Press Secretary. October 7, 2002
• Poll: Don't Go It Alone On Iraq. CBS News. September 7, 2002
• The Patriot Act
• National Security Strategy for the United States of America
• Casualties in Iraq, The Human Cost of Occupation, Antiwar.com
• Economists say cost of war could top $2 trillion, By Bryan Bender. Boston Globe. January 8, 2006
• Bush pledges to get bin Laden, dead or alive, USA Today. December 14, 2001
• 'You are either with us or against us', CNN News. November 6, 2001
• World War I and World War II By Jerrie S. Cheek. Educational Technology Center.
• President Addresses the Nation. Office of the Press Secretary. September 7, 2003
• The National Priorities Project
• The 9/11 Commission Report, Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
• War remains the option of first resort - not last, By Simon Tisdall. The Guardian. Thursday February 27, 2003
• The Rise and Fall of Adolf Hitler, The History Place™
• Neville Chamberlain Wikipedia.
• Appeasement Spartacus.
• War as Self-Defense, About.
• Why America Goes to War, By Richard Corliss. Time. January 16, 2006. Vol.167, Iss. 3; pg. 127
• Not Just A Last Resort?
A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option, By William Arkin. The Washington Post. Sunday, May 15, 2005
• National Security Strategy for the United States of America
• President's Remarks at National Day of Prayer and Remembrance, The National Cathedral. Office of the Press Secretary. September 14, 2001
• President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point, George W. Bush. June 1, 2002
• North Korea Test-Fires Several Missiles, By Maureen Dowd. The New York Times. July 4, 2006
• War, By Edwin Starr
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 4, 2006 at 03:00 PM in Afghanistan, Aggression, Brutality, Self-Defense, Bush 43 Administration, Communities, Communities and Communication , Discussion, Emotional Intelligence, Evolution [Emotional, Physical, Spiritual], Human Nature, Humans, Self-Destructive, Iraq War, Policy, Short-term Solutions, Violence, War and Peace, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], War, The Last Option, “Bring it on!” “Dead or alive.” , “War; Not an Option” , “You are either with us or against us” | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
