As I already mentioned, we have, and we will continue to do so. I seem to recall providing you with a multitude of examples very recently.
Anyone else getting Rush Limbaugh vibes here?
From MoveOn.org, an organization with over 1 million members in the U.S., an e-mail I received today:
""A year ago today, the Bush Administration was making its final push
toward war in Iraq. We know now that much of what we were told about the
threat that Iraq posed was untrue. And rather than own up to their
distortion of the facts, Bush administration officials are denying they
ever said such things.
But this Sunday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld got caught blatantly
contradicting his past statements, and we have the video clip. You can
check it out at:
http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/
Congress’ responsibility is to hold President Bush and his
administration accountable for this pattern of deception – that’s why we have the
Constitution. But instead, Congress today will debate a resolution
congratulating Bush, for (they claim) making the world safer.
We must demand, at a minimum, that Congress censure the President. It’s
our Representatives’ duty to formally reprimand him for misleading us.
And we’ve got to demand it today, while they’re debating their
anniversary resolution.
Please call your Representative now, at:
[congressional info deleted, but I know my Congressional representative agrees with me anyway; among other things, she is an old friend and colleague of my mother’s from their days as senior citizen activists]
Make it clear that you are a constituent, then let the staffers know
you expect nothing less than Censure.
Our campaign will be stronger if you let us know you’re calling, at:
http://www.moveon.org/callmadeall3.html?id=2467-2793819-ZZyk53aoyMAyVDYG0isbnA
Today, we’re holding a press conference at the Capitol, unveiling a new
TV ad calling for Censure, and a New York Times ad on the same theme.
And we’re taking our Censure petition, signed by more than half a
million of us, to Congress, hand-delivering it to each Representative’s
office. The event is co-sponsored by Win Without War, True Majority, and
Working Assets.
Please help reinforce this powerful message with a single phone call
now.
Then, why not pass the Rumsfeld clip along to your friends?
Thanks for all you do.
Sincerely,
- Carrie, Joan, Noah, Peter, and Wes
The MoveOn.org Team
Wednesday, March 17th, 2004"
Aldebaran, what evidence would you accept as confirmation that a significant proportion of the U.S. electroate is completely disgusted with the current administration for lying to involve the U.S. in a war?
<crickets and coyote howls>
<tumbleweeds>
Heh. Sure won’t see the OP again in this thread. I think between us all we’ve given a good overview of what Americans have done or not done and why.
Eva and others who brought further info to my question:
Thank you for the information.
My question about vast demonstrations against the present US government was in fact inspired by the impact made by the 12 million of Spaniards who took the streets last week.
Do you think it is possible that the lies and deception of the current US president and government can ever provoke such a massive reaction similtaniously organized all over the USA?
That was in fact what I asked:
Why isn’t that happening since a long time = all over the USA in a massive protest like the marches before the invasion started.
Is there a lack of communication between the organisations or don’t they see the need to march simultaniously in major cities in order to get the message across (and the media alerted to it).
Or are they afraid that simply not enough people are interested in the matter and thus fear that such a call wouldn’t lead to the succes they hope for which shall work very contra-productive for their goals.
From my perspective it is the latter, and that is why I question the way the general public reacts to all those clear lies that led to a war in which thousands people were killed and that gets still people killed at a daily base.
That is why I asked: what do they need to wake up and take the streets in massive protest = together everwhere.
I do hope however that whenever people march against the present US government it shall get coverage in the meida = that also foreign correspondents are going to be informed about this and that this shall lead to non US media coverage.
Because I’m afraid that if Bush gets re-elected it shall be seen outside the US that the US public can be lied to by president and government, and on top of that doesn’t even car if that leads to the death of thousands of innocent people in an other country. I’m also afraid that whenever something really horrible should happen again on US soil, the first reactions in many parts of the world shall be that the US public gets what it supports/asks for.
Salaam. A
We have those spontaneous mass uprisings occasionally. They’re called “riots”.
There was a joke going around told by Black comedians right after the LA riots: “I came out into the streets because I wanted to change the system. My stereo system!”
Firstly, there were massive demonstrations in the US prior to the start of the invasion, and you know that. That they largely ceased after the war began, I think, is mainly because most people saw, that by Massive demonstrations at this time, IMO, would only make sense if the majority of the population felt that US must be removed from Iraq this very instant. I believe that most people who disagree with the war (and I am one of them) feel that immediate withdrawal, before a working government has been re-established, would be a mistake. If what we want is the removal of the current government from power, we will have that opportunity in November.
Lastly, and I know you won’t like this one, for most people here the Iraq debacle has simply not impacted the daily lives of Americans sufficiently (it has, but not in a way they can easily perceive) for a majority to go out in the streets. Despite the importance of these issues, and the heated rhetoric here, if the recent past is any guide I doubt that more 60% of the electorate will turn out for the presidential election.
Anyway, I have to doubt your sincerity in asking the above question, and most of the others you have posed in this thread. I believe that you long ago decided that the United States as a whole is an evil culture. You are not asking for answers but simply confirmation of your prejudices.
I also think if you, Aldebaran, feel that the US should immediately remove all troops from Iraq, you should say so, and explain why that would properly serve the Iraqi people. You seem to be very good at complaining about US policies, but not so good at presenting alternatives.
Sorry, part of the second sentence was missing.
“Firstly, there were massive demonstrations in the US prior to the start of the invasion, and you know that. That they largely ceased after the war began, I think, is mainly because most people saw the invasion was a fait accompli and that there was nothing further to be gained by demonstrating.”
El Kabong,
You come here to write a long post, just to tell at the end of it
Why did you spend your time on writing that whole thing if your intentions are clear enough expressed in the above?
Sorry, but although I would be interested in answering your points, I can not do this because of that.
You are in no way placed to act as if you are:
- my personal psychiatrist (and thank you but no, I don’t need one).
- someone blessed with clear-voyance, capable to read my mind (in that case: find yourself an other cristal ball because yours must be seriously cracked).
Sorry, but I don’t waste my time on discussions with people who approach me filled with personal prejudices. Not in real life and not on a website.
Salaam. A
Thanks for that Clip ! Great Stuff… back pedalling at its most sick.
Sure you do, and so do I, with the hope of someday changing those personal prejudices. The valuable time you took to bitch about how misunderstood you are, you could have spent rebutting the points I raised. It’s not all about you, you know.
Now, you have said, effectively, that all sensible Americans should be out in the street protesting the Iraqi invasion, right now. What, in your view, would this accomplish that waiting for the election and voting out the current administration would not? Please try set aside your personal prejudice towards me a moment and answer the question, as I’d really like to know.
So any nation that support the US when it is dealing with Muslim linked issues has automatically given AQ a caus belli? A caus belli that seems to mandate the intentional killing of civilians. Nice. What about the French headscarf ban? Would the US opposition give them a pass of having their people killed?
AQ objects to the Spanish presence only because
- Spain’s presence lends a degree of legitimacy to the CPA.
- Span’s presence allows for the potential development of a nascent democracy.
- Spain’s presence allows the Americans to achieve a momumental change in AQ’s sphere of influence depriving AQ of bragging/recruiting propaganda.
I think looking for a political change of course in Spain was only a tertiary consideration. Primarily, if we assume AQ, the killings were designed to punish the population. Punish them in a manner that was memorable and likely to cause them to hesitate to follow the US. In short, AQ is trying to train civilian populations that should their countries support the US in a manner AQ dislikes they will be killed.
C4 as Pavlov’s bell. I find that odious.
However, since AQ seems to be a network of differing objectives and ideologies there can be no acceptable interworking between the US and other nations. Why? Because any possible course of interworking could be considered unacceptable and so worthy of hundreds dead. The US would then be completely isolated. Despite your coloured views of the US, I fail to see how this is a good or acceptable thing.
Wrong.
I asked why they are not on the streets in outrage against a government that tricked them in supporting a war by tricking them in believing their blatant lies.
How is your cristal ball. Did you give it up trying to be better informed about others then they themselves are, or do you have a new one in the hope it works better?
Salaam. A
Protest? Why would I protest? Saddam needed to be removed, as did the Taliban. Sure, I’m not elated my taxes dollars are going to fix other countries, but I figure it’s a good investment in the future. I hope once Iraq is settled we fix Saudi Arabia next. Or maybe Israel.
I’m saddened by the loss of life these terrorists cause, I hope that the Spanish and everybody else puts out real effort to eradicate it.
Do you think otherwise? If yes: what is the logic behind that reasoning?
Sorry… I can’t see the link you make between “French HS ban” and the rest of that question.
I also think you have a very wrong view on extremists like members of such terrorist organisation.
They oppose Western influence/presence in Muslim nations in general, including governments that in their opinion lean far too much toward these Westerners or are supported by them.
Further they use - and very effectively - the ongoing Palestinian/Israel conflict in their propaganda and very effectively also in their recruting/brainwashing. Painting it at the same time as an example of US interference and blatant hypocrisy in the ME region and its issues.
What is in general referred to as Al Qaeda these days, dosn’t cover all such organisations and thus consists in fact not as an organisation with one single central command that controls everyone and everything connected with such extremism.
There are strong indications and also reports brought up as solid proof, that there were in the past sections under direct or indirect control of such a central command. Yet as predicted by everybody with a bit of insight in such structures, the US actions in Afghanistan led to the destruction of such central control.
The result was that what is called “cells” became rather isolated - and at least for a while - which made the whole situation even less controlable then it already was.
There are however strong indications and also reports brought up as proof, that certain cells managed to maintain/renew contacts with leadership or persons in contact with such centralized command.
This doesn’t mean that every action of terrorists with a call to be “militant Islam” necessarely is in direct or indirect contact with that same command/leadership which is brought up as “Al Qaeda”.
So far there is no solid proof such is indeed the case with the attacks in Spain. There are strong suspicions/indication and there is ongoing research on that. Yet it is much to early to come to any defintive conclusion.
As for your comment that “the US would be isolated”.
I think you overlook the fact that the USA isolated itself willingly from the rest of the world the minute it choosed in its self-serving arrogance to neglect the UN and start an illegal war of agression against a UN member.(And let’s not go into the details of the comments made by the US government on the UN and on those who didn’t want to buy their lies, didn’t want to give in to their threats and refused to be bribed by the US).
Salaam. A
Some theories:
- At the moment, politically active Americans who oppose the war in Iraq and/or believe the current administration lied in order to justify the invasion are more involved in working for regime change at home in November, which would solve a number of outstanding issues at once (both involving Iraq and in addition to Iraq).
- For a variety of reasons which are probably too complex to address fully in this thread, as mentioned previously, current American political culture just doesn’t emphasize public demonstrations as a way to change government behavior to the extent that European culture does.
- I’m not sure whether the comparative lack of demonstrations is because Americans are apathetic, or because we don’t believe they will affect government action, or both, or neither. I think it’s a more complex picture than you’re painting.
I do wish we would take more public action than we do. The lack of demonstrations has been even more extreme here in Chicago than in other major cities, and I’ve been wondering why more and more over the past couple of years. I suspect it still has something to do with the violent events of the 1968 Democratic Convention here. Keep in mind that the current Mayor is the son of the Mayor who was in office in 1968. Mayor Daley, Jr. isn’t nearly as heavy-handed with protestors as Daley, Sr. was, but well, if you start me on conspiracy theories of the treatment of peaceful protestors here in Chicago, we could be here all day.
However, there are major demonstrations planned for this Saturday, and I’ve already provided information on a number of smaller ones, as well as current forms of anti-war and anti-Administration actions that involve things other than public demonstrations.
- Also, keep in mind that many demonstrations receive little to no coverage in the international media, or even the domestic U.S. media, and that frequently the coverage is very skewed.
- Conversely, the media coverage of Iraq that we get here is very skewed. We simply don’t see body bags. I am always astonished when I see the international press on Iraq (we do get half an hour a day of BBC world news coverage here on public TV, but it’s on a channel most people don’t watch, and one can always find international coverage online) at how much more graphic the coverage of casualties is. You almost never see an actual dead person in U.S. news coverage, although you may see the wreckage of an explosion. Wreckage just doesn’t have the same emotional impact as corpses.
- Speaking as someone who was tear-gassed in Paris at a demonstration, merely for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and after the protestors had already gotten the government to cave in to their demands, demonstrations aren’t always a good thing.
Personally, I didn’t think my demonstrating was going to make Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney change their minds about a damn thing; they seem impervious both to reason and to public opinion. I was just hoping there would be international coverage of U.S. dissent, so that the rest of the world didn’t think Americans were all a bunch of idiots who didn’t see the point in reaching consensus on anything before committing acts of violence. I think it will take a long time and a lot of fence-mending before the U.S. is taken seriously on the international diplomatic stage. The current President almost makes me yearn for Bush, Sr.; even if I didn’t agree with him, at least he understood the value of diplomacy.
Jeepers, again with the insults.
I guess you were replying to my post, but I’m not sure, and I have no idea what that remark about a ‘cristal ball’ is supposed to mean. No matter. The fact that you are asking the question quoted above implies to me and, apparently to others, that you believe there should be more protests over Iraq in the USA than there are. I am merely asking you to clarify whether this is in fact your belief and why you think that more protests would be beneficial at this time. I really don’t see why you greet these questions, which are simply intended to acheive a better understanding of your views, with such unwarranted hostility.
In any event, I, Eva Luna and others have answered your question to the best of our abilities. What do you find unsatisfactory about these answers, that you keep asking the same question over again, four times by my count?
I think most demonstrations do not achieve the object of changing the opinion of the government. It certainly didn’t happen in Spain. I think the demonstrations are a source of inspiration for the demonstrators, a feeling that they aren’t alone but I do not think historically they have changed policies immediately unless we are talking of pre-revolutionary demonstrations (sort of what is happening in Venezuela these days).
Bush Sr. IMHO was a great president. He had a very good understanding of foreign relations among other things. He forged an international coalition for the Gulf war and the USA was on much better terms with the rest of the world. I had great expectations for Bush Jr who has turned out to be an ignorant yahoo. I would still put his father very high up on my list though.
AQ does not care about the welfare of muslims. The distinct lack of AQ press releases over the stopping of Muslim genocide in the Balkans seems to speak to that.
As to the HS ban, the US opposes it. Does that not earn them a golden star from AQ? The issue is primarily tagged to Muslims after all.
Which was my point when I pointed out that it has become an umbrella label covering a multitude of ideologies and cells. Their only tenuous tie is “Fuck the Americans”.
Self imposed isolation is different from an isolation imposed on a country through others becoming too afraid to deal with them. Spain distancing itself from the US over US actions is markedly different from Spain distancing themselves from the US due to fears of having another 1400 victims of an organization they can neither appease nor find.
Training civilian populations to fear working with the Americans on any issue is the crux of the issue as far as I am concerned. As we’ve agreed, since the AQ name is fluid, and as those various groups have various goals the breadth of issues that could potentially be off limits becomes staggering.
Well, my disagreements with Bush Sr. were mostly on the domestic policy side, and many of them related to issues most of this board probably knows nothing about (like funding for Legal Services Corporation, where my mom was working at the time; they provided certain essential legal services to low-income people).
As for Jr., especially on the foreign policy side? Well, what can I say about a guy who had every advantage in the world from birth, and pretty much never left the U.S. until he became President?