posted on February 20, 2003 03:24:59 AM new
Excellent article. I had a problem finding the link to the essay by Found Ajami : "Iraq and the Arabs' Future". I found it here.
posted on February 20, 2003 08:12:52 AM new
Nice article and one that echoes the sentiments of many articles I've read lately. Parker wrote:
"When one's actions provide solace and self-justification to a brutal, murdering, lying despot, one might consider the possibility that one is wrong. Instead, protesters have played right into Saddam's hand, embracing the anti-Americanism that failed Arab states have cultivated and proffered as a distraction for their own embattled people."
posted on February 20, 2003 03:34:55 PM new
Kathleen Parker
Describes anti-war protesters as “tantrum-throwing dissidents who can't quite put a finger on what's bothering them, “
She fails to see that Bush’s finger has pointed in several directions TOO.
She equates Bush to a ‘loving parent’.
Does a ‘loving parent’ give their child WOMD.
Does a ‘loving parent’ keep all their wealth to themselves.
Does a ‘loving parent’ ignore their children’s pleas. Australian ABC reported that many people in New York couldn’t get to the protest because of ‘restricted access’.
The other link by colin to an article written by Fouad Ajami:
Says Arabs & Iraq do not take “full responsibility for its self-inflicted wounds.”
Isn’t this a failure to acknowledge ALL American & British involvement in the region over the last 100years.
He expects that region to follow a “secular, modernist order”; meanwhile Bush keeps increasing his ‘Judeo-Christian’ ranting.
posted on February 20, 2003 03:40:17 PM new
Thanks for both of the links.
I especially enjoyed the one Colin post. Long read but I've always been interested in reading the opinions of those who are much more knowledgeable in their own fields of learning/experience.
Fouad Ajami is Majid Khadduri Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
posted on February 20, 2003 06:32:45 PM new
austbounty:
I have read many of your posts relating to America and Bush. You have been consistent (if not singular) in your attacks of both. I found several aspects of your post in this thread interesting. You started with this:
"Kathleen Parker
Describes anti-war protesters as “tantrum-throwing dissidents who can't quite put a finger on what's bothering them, “
She fails to see that Bush’s finger has pointed in several directions TOO."
You are implying that Bush is doing some finger pointing but I don't see how that relates to Parker's opinion that anti-war protestors are tantrum-throwing dissidents who can't quite put a finger on what's bothering them. Are you agreeing with Parker's description and explaining it by saying Bush is pointing fingers? I realize that you are attacking Bush in some way with that sentence but am not clear on how.
You then go on to write:
"Does a ‘loving parent’ keep all their wealth to themselves."
This seems to be some sort of attack on Bush and/or America relating to financial, or other forms of aid. Again though, the attack is not clear. Is America contributing financial or other forms of aid to anyone besides herself?
And then this:
"Does a ‘loving parent’ ignore their children’s pleas. Australian ABC reported that many people in New York couldn’t get to the protest because of ‘restricted access’"
Two things here. First, as a loving parent myself, I certainly don't grant every plea from my children. By not granting my childs plea for candy and soda before bedtime, would you say that I ignored the plea? Is it possible that I listened to the plea but was not swayed or convinced to change my mind?
Second, I live and work in New York City. Events which take place in the City often require city officials to re-route traffic, close streets, etc. Is this what you mean by "restricted access?" Or are you implying that there was no way for people to reach the protest?
Of course, this isn't a court of law (either American or Austrailian) so you are under no obligation to answer any of my questions. I am simply trying to better understand your attacks on my country, my president and my city.
posted on February 20, 2003 07:13:32 PM new
austbounty:
I have read many of your posts relating to America and Bush. You have been consistent (if not singular) in your attacks of both. I found several aspects of your post in this thread interesting. You started with this:
"Kathleen Parker
Describes anti-war protesters as “tantrum-throwing dissidents who can't quite put a finger on what's bothering them” “e fails to see that Bush’s finger has pointed in several directions TOO."
“You are implying that Bush is doing some finger pointing.”
He hasn’t pointed consistently either, he’s pointed at Terrorists & Osama, then Afghanistan, he has pointed at Middle East oil vested interests, then to Sadam, and now to Iraq.
"Does a ‘loving parent’ keep all their wealth to themselves."
Bush is loaded $.
I am trying to demonstrate that the parent/child relationship is not a fair comparison.
“Two things here. First, as a loving parent myself, I certainly don't grant every plea from my children.
Second, I live and work in New York City. Events which take place in the City often require city officials to re-route traffic, close streets, etc. Is this what you mean by "restricted access?"
Or are you implying that there was no way for people to reach the protest? “
According to the program on ABC, there was no way for thousands of people to reach the protest, there was jostling with police and arrests. They suggested that access was overly-restricted.
There was even a group of relatives of 9/11 victims, subjected to overly-restricted access, that were interviewed, who objected to the names of the deceased being used as an excuse for war.
I'm not saying one should necessarily grant their 'child's'request.
I’m saying that, if a ‘good’ parent you listen to your ‘children’s’ pleas.
posted on February 20, 2003 07:25:51 PM new
Hi fiset
First, had to ask, because you said in anothr thread? 'long time listener, first time caller' Are/were you an Art Bell fan?
Anyway, yes the article.
I have to agree with all of it. And the section by the middle eastern proffesor from John Hopkins U.
Share my wealth (what I do have ) with my 2 children. No. But if they are in trouble, I do help them out. They are grown up.
Do I hear their pleas? Dang, 24/7 if I let them! But yes and no. When they were younger, when they would whine; no, some things, yes.
Did I make the descions for them when they were minors? Of course. If left up to them, don't even want to think about it
About NY having restricted areas, I don't live there, but I think I understand why.
Here, the police arrested protesters (anti war) and NOT because they were anti war protesters, they were in the middle of the road, building a structure and hanging someone on it, so all traffic had to stop, and on a major bridge traveled heavily during 'rush hour'. And warned others if they were to disrupt this way again, they would be arrested.
That said, there is nothing wrong with peaceful anti war protests, or the organized ones, if that is what you want.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on February 20, 2003 09:24:25 PM new
austbounty wrote:
"He hasn’t pointed consistently either, he’s pointed at Terrorists & Osama, then Afghanistan, he has pointed at Middle East oil vested interests, then to Sadam, and now to Iraq."
I'm still trying to make sense of your attack on this issue. Which of your stated issues Bush is pointing to should he NOT be pointing to?
"I am trying to demonstrate that the parent/child relationship is not a fair comparison."
Fair enough, although your examples of why its not a fair comparison are not convincing.
"According to the program on ABC, there was no way for thousands of people to reach the protest, there was jostling with police and arrests. They suggested that access was overly-restricted."
I guess it depends on your definition of "overly-restricted." Anytime there are a large number of people gathering in one place in the City you better believe that getting in and out of said place is not easy. The only "restriction" I was aware of was that authorities wouldn't let the protestors march past the U.N. I would think you would see why they would come to such a decision. As for jostling with police and arrests, your point is still lost on me. Is it your opinion that people was wrongly arrested?
"There was even a group of relatives of 9/11 victims, subjected to overly-restricted access, that were interviewed, who objected to the names of the deceased being used as an excuse for war."
I still have no clue what you mean by "subjected to overly-restricted access." And while I don't doubt that there are people who object to the names of 9/11 deceased being used as an excuse for war, I can tell you for certain that there are plenty of 9/11 victims who voice no such objection, quite the opposite in fact.
"I'm not saying one should necessarily grant their 'child's'request.
I’m saying that, if a ‘good’ parent you listen to your ‘children’s’ pleas."
Well, your implication was that Bush is ignoring pleas. My point was that he has heard the anti-war pleas and has not changed his mind. What exactly does Bush need to do to demonstrate he has heard the pleas? Again, your original implication was that since he hasn't made any policy changes based on the protestors, he is ignoring them.
And now, austbounty, I'll shift gears for just a moment. You have made numerous posts about the evils of President Bush. How do you respond to those who say you are empowering Saddam?
posted on February 21, 2003 03:03:57 PM new
“How do you respond to those who say you are empowering Saddam?”
This statement tells us that if you wish to give peace a chance, you are actually giving Saddam a chance.
You’re either with us or against us.
This is the latest argument against peace lovers.
This claim serves to ‘restrict’ opposition to war.
There is no doubt AT ALL, that US empowered Saddam with military aid.
This ‘empowered’ US argument for war.
Further, all this current turmoil is ‘empowering’ Israel, enabling them to destroy Palestinian survival, while everybody is looking elsewhere.
Does Bush care? Hell no.
“Again, your original implication was that since he hasn't made any policy changes based on the protestors, he is ignoring them. “
I didn’t say that, but he sure as hell is doing all in his power to ‘discreetly’ cover up their voices.
NearTheSea
“Did I make the descions for them when they were minors?”
So your children did grow up, but America’s/Bush’s ‘children’ never will????
Do they have ‘stunted’ growth??? Are they intellectually impaired???
Great analogy…???
But they are ‘mature’ enough to send to war.
Great analogy…???
Was there ever any doubt that the ‘WAR’ is GO?
What do you call the current action, ‘military manoeuvres’?
The long and short of it is that Bush will do as he pleases, because he is the leader of the most highly funded military on earth.
Nothing ‘I’ say or do can stop this war. WAR is GO.
All objections are anti-American???
I think it much more honest & relevant to say that America is anti-Semites (except Jews).
Sharon has been found guilty of war crimes by a Belgian court.
Just let it slide, hey!
Are/were you an Art Bell fan?