Democons & Violence

[e_dog]

Some of the Kerry-Edwards rhetoric is starting to disturb me. They have been trying to out-militarize the Bushies, a stupid and reckless move. Yesterday, Edwards was lauding the huge defense-spending bill for which Kerry and he voted. And they have both been emphasizing their plan to 'find the terrorists and kill them.' It is always a bit unnerving when politicians in a democracy use the work 'kill' with such enthusiasm, but here, with the whole world watching, isn't that, well, not quite the right way to place emphasis? Why not start out with the aim of 'capturing' r 'prosecuting' etc. And what if a terrorist throws down his weapons? Is Kerry-Edwards saying the army should kill them? sounds like a war crime, or quite imply murder. Are they saying they will continue or revitalize the awful policy of targeted assassination? and, distinct from the moral considerations, there is an instrumental one: killing breeds more killing, the cycle of violence, others will seek to avenge the death of their fellows, etc. in any event, the ultra-violent rhetoric of Bush and Co. has now polluted the rhetoric of the Democrats, and the result will be, inevitably, a more militaristic and hence violent, and unsafe, world.

[Trevor]

Hi Edog,

Here is something I can fully get behind you on. I think what you have stated is another prime example of a "multi" (which in N.A. politics tends to mean two or less) party system which is actually just a couple statues cut from the same stone preaching about the different shades of the same rock they covet. Kerry initially, from the articles and interviews I read and remember, fully supported Bush and the war machine, except of course when shit hit the fan, then it was, he supported a war, just not the way Bush waged it, then it was down graded to: I think we should have looked for more diplomatic ways first, then devised a better plan, then went to war and instead of attacking Iraq, then back down even further to: we should have just attacked Afghanistan because that's where the Tali Ban lives. I think this is also a good example of how many politicians savy up to voters. Kerry said war is good when it was time to say war is good. Now its time to say war is bad or the opposition's version of war is bad so that is now the stance he is taking. Funny thing, I only watched one of the debates so far but neither candidates, nor deliberator, has mentioned the fact when discussing the towers and 9/11, that the majority of terrorist didn't come from either Iraq or Afghanistan, but rather from Saudi Arabia, the states' best'est buddy in that region.

Personally when it comes to civil liberties and revocation of freedoms, perhaps one of the greatest and most overlooked abuse of such, is misrepresentation and falsification of truth presented by elected officials. Sure some asshole who shoots and kills a person while robbing a store deserves persecution, but why does it always seem the elite who send thousands to die for THEIR cause, get no retribution for their actions.

"Is Kerry-Edwards saying the army should kill them? sounds like a war crime, or quite imply murder."

Speaking of such, I loved Bush's remakes against a world dictated war tribunal court where America would be subjected to the same standards it sets for foriegn opposition. He said that he would not endanger American leaders to be judged by foriegn bodies. I sooooooooo fucking loved that comment. Yeah Mr. Pres, why subject yourself to the dellusional opinions of piers when fantasy land awaits you with open arms. I mean come on, here is a guy who publicly stated that "God has sent him on a mission to rid the world of evil." Shit, finally, the second messiah has come back to us. Hell-lay-lew-yah! God sure works in mysterious ways...who would have thought the new messiah was a failed drunken business man who dabbled in oil and snorted coke. Well, hopefully he comes to his senses and looks upon the world's situation as if he was personally - and negatively, affected by outcomes of wars and other irresponsible actions. Lets face it, he and his croonies have only to gain from the war. There is no risk involved, even if he is not elected again to any political position, his political career will not end. For proof, just look towards his father and his post political career.

Anyway, all this jibber jabber about drafts and bullshit wars has brought on a thirst only 30 beers can quench, I'm off to get silly and pee my pants. Take care,

Trevor

[mnaz]

Trevor...

You make a good point about not just Kerry, but virtually all of Congress in late 2002. Why did so many politicians become mesmerized by the Bush Administration's trumped up campaign pushing Iraq's "grave threat"? What happened to our "checks and balances"? Congress was half-asleep on both this issue and the Patriot Act.

However, your point of view presupposes that Kerry and other members of Congress "knew better", and that they voted "yes" on the Iraq Resolution strictly for political advantage. While there may be some truth to this, it is far from the whole story. The repeated ominous speeches made by Bush's team, spun from distortions and exaggerations of weak, inconclusive intelligence, not only served to mislead Congress and the entire country, but it applied tremendous leverage on Congress. If the President's dire warnings were true, then how could one responsibly vote against the Resolution? I say those in the White House responsible for misleading people on this issue deserve far more criticism than those who who might have been misled.

Remember also that the Resolution was not a "blank check". It was an authorization for the President to use military force as a last resort. Bush did not honor this stipulation, in my opinion. Not even close.

Remember also the timing of the Iraq Resolution, in Oct., 2002, just a few weeks before the Gulf buildup successfully yielded Saddam's compliance with re-admission of weapons inspectors. At that point, I think many, or even most people thought that war had been averted, and Iraq's containment and disarming would proceed via inspections and continued international pressure. But Bush's war machine never missed a beat, steamrolling both the UN and many of our allies toward the invasion. I wonder how the Iraq Resolution vote would have gone if it had been held after the re-admission of the weapons inspectors. It might have gone quite differently.

People can say that Kerry changed his mind. Good. I would hope so. If you start with being told a lie, then hopefully at some point you make the necessary adjustments to your thinking. People can say there's no difference between Kerry and Bush. Well, I'm fairly certain that if Kerry had been President the last four years, we would not have started an unnecessary, costly war and endless, ill-conceived occupation in Iraq. Believe what you wish, I guess. Just remember who forced the first-strike violence of Iraq onto the table to start with.