wrbones
01-29-03, 06:41 PM
Dear Warren,
I understand your feelings about this issue. We have more in common than you think. All of us on this side of the
issue also know what it's like to give selflessly of huge amounts of money, time, and effort, to pursue peace in
our way. What differs are our viewpoints on the ways in which this can be achieved.
You view that military action can resolve the situation that we're in. Our view is that military action caused the
very situation that we're in at the same time that it was attempting to resolve earlier situations, and that new
military action will be more of the same. You cannot fight a physical war against an ideology no more than you can
fight a war against fire, nor is it realistic in the same way to portray it as living in some sort of shadowy lairs
like a comic book villain. The problem is that there are many people in the world who are resentful of our use of
the very actions that you advocate. Do you want to increase this? There has to be an end game to an action before
you take it. What is the end game? Does the Arab world suddenly get bombed into not being mad at our
interventionist foreign policy?
Do you fight this because you hate them? Of course not, in the same way that we don't at all do our attempts to
influence the public and our leaders not to go to war because we hate you, or anything like that. You want to
fight them because you view them as a danger to yourself and those you care about. But stop for a second. They
view us, and probably rightly so, as a danger to them in the same way - and they have a much longer history to back
up that view. To themselves and those that they love. You want to protect those you care about. But how will
making even more people resentful of us achieve that? You would be creating precisely that which you wish to
destroy. An ideology cannot be fought with bombs.
I have several close friends who are veteran. One became a Russian translator for the army, working in
intelligence, at a time when she whole-heartedly followed Reagan and his "Evil Empire" view of the Russians.
However, the more time she spent there, translating, the more she realized... these people are no different than
us. She'd listen to men chatting about their girlfriends, to people complaining about the food they were served,
about how much time they'd get off, hear people talking up to their superiors in person and then jesting behind
their backs, all on intercepted communications. Eventually it got to the point where, she knew that if someone had
come in and said, "That's it, we're at war! To arms!", she didn't think she'd be able to do it. When she was sent
over as a weapons inspector during one of the disarmament agreements between the US and Soviet Union, she became so
close to the people there that she actually considered staying.
War breeds hatred.
Do you want to talk about Iraq? Iraq is a perfect example of what I was saying earlier about not having an end
game. You see, we wanted Iran's oil initially, and we supported the Shah - a brutal dictator with an oppressive
secret police, who was only able to stay in power, largely, thanks to US support. The Iranians overthrew the Shah,
and took revenge on a number of Americans by holding them hostage. So, the US took its revenge, in the form of
Iraq. We, as we have done many, many times, turned our back on the human rights records of our "allies", as long
as they're helping us against our enemies. When reports had come out that Iraq was using chemical weapons on an
almost daily basis, instead of condemning, the US dispatched Donald Rumsfeld, then a civilian, as our special
middle east envoy to Iraq to reestablish relations cut off at the end of the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. Weapons
sales shortly ensued. We shipped them equipment that helped their chemical and nuclear programs, in addition to
biological stocks and equipment. After the most famous chemical weapons attack, the bombing of Halabja (which had
just been conquered by the pro-Iranian Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and was using the city as human shields)
(the Halabja attack used US-made helicopters - Bell 214 ST's if I remember right), the US drafted legislation to
condemn the attack and merely - not issue sanctions, but simply stop arms sales. The Reagan administration
defeated the proposal.
This is what happens when you declare one side "the bad guys" and will do anything to attack them. This is what
happens when you have no end game.
Do you want to talk about shirking UN resolutions? The two world leaders in that are the United States and Israel;
I'll gladly provide you lists if you would like. The US has broken resolutions on everything from knowingly
supporting South American nuclear program to banned weapons research programs, while Israel has broken resolutions
with its massive nuclear program and deliberate targeting of civilians, many, many times over. Yes, of course
Iraq has violated its resolutions. The US currently is threatening to break the UN charter itself, attacking a
nation preemptively without UN authorization to do so. But, again I ask: What is the end game?, in addition to
mentioning the hypocrisy of breaking international law to enforce it.
I will not at all contest that our nation's armed forces are necessary. But, again, I have to ask: Why does 5% of
the world's population, with 25% of the economy, spend half of the world's total military spending? Why is our
nation's military spending larger than the next 8 closest militaries combined? Why is our military spending
several dozen times larger than all of the nations that we're even remotely hostile to, combined? Why is it that
we feel the need to *continually* support human rights violators? One of our most recent "friends" is Islam
Karimov of Uzbekistan. Do you know anything about him? Have a read, from Human Rights Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/uzbek/
We have dozens of "friends" like him, in addition to funding (and even training) human rights-violating insurgents
and sometimes flat-out terrorists operating in a number of countries. Why is it that whenever a brutal dictator
that we were friends with stops doing what we want, not only do we have to flatten their country, taking with many,
many innocent people, but we have to pick up more of these brutal dictators as a replacement? Why is it that we, a
country that preaches democracy, supports so many dictators? Why is it that one of the most democratic of
countries in the Arab world is one that we've been opposing (Iran), and yet most of our Arab allies are
authoritarian dictatorships? And why do we act surprised when they blame us for the repression of their leaders,
when we provide their leaders with so much in arms, aid, shelter them from international condemnation?
This situation in the world is wrong. But the only way to change the situation is through increasing public
awareness. That is why we show up in the streets. That is why we write op-eds. That is why we meet with our
representatives. That is why we release publications and reports; why we publish ads; why we do everything that we
do, at great cost of time and money. Just like you, we want peace. But we know that you cannot bomb animosity
away, as you probably do inside. You can only address it at the source, and, as much as we may not want to say
it... the animosity is a response to our foreign policy.
Feel free to contact me whenever you'd like.
- Karen Pease
daystar_setting@myself.com
I understand your feelings about this issue. We have more in common than you think. All of us on this side of the
issue also know what it's like to give selflessly of huge amounts of money, time, and effort, to pursue peace in
our way. What differs are our viewpoints on the ways in which this can be achieved.
You view that military action can resolve the situation that we're in. Our view is that military action caused the
very situation that we're in at the same time that it was attempting to resolve earlier situations, and that new
military action will be more of the same. You cannot fight a physical war against an ideology no more than you can
fight a war against fire, nor is it realistic in the same way to portray it as living in some sort of shadowy lairs
like a comic book villain. The problem is that there are many people in the world who are resentful of our use of
the very actions that you advocate. Do you want to increase this? There has to be an end game to an action before
you take it. What is the end game? Does the Arab world suddenly get bombed into not being mad at our
interventionist foreign policy?
Do you fight this because you hate them? Of course not, in the same way that we don't at all do our attempts to
influence the public and our leaders not to go to war because we hate you, or anything like that. You want to
fight them because you view them as a danger to yourself and those you care about. But stop for a second. They
view us, and probably rightly so, as a danger to them in the same way - and they have a much longer history to back
up that view. To themselves and those that they love. You want to protect those you care about. But how will
making even more people resentful of us achieve that? You would be creating precisely that which you wish to
destroy. An ideology cannot be fought with bombs.
I have several close friends who are veteran. One became a Russian translator for the army, working in
intelligence, at a time when she whole-heartedly followed Reagan and his "Evil Empire" view of the Russians.
However, the more time she spent there, translating, the more she realized... these people are no different than
us. She'd listen to men chatting about their girlfriends, to people complaining about the food they were served,
about how much time they'd get off, hear people talking up to their superiors in person and then jesting behind
their backs, all on intercepted communications. Eventually it got to the point where, she knew that if someone had
come in and said, "That's it, we're at war! To arms!", she didn't think she'd be able to do it. When she was sent
over as a weapons inspector during one of the disarmament agreements between the US and Soviet Union, she became so
close to the people there that she actually considered staying.
War breeds hatred.
Do you want to talk about Iraq? Iraq is a perfect example of what I was saying earlier about not having an end
game. You see, we wanted Iran's oil initially, and we supported the Shah - a brutal dictator with an oppressive
secret police, who was only able to stay in power, largely, thanks to US support. The Iranians overthrew the Shah,
and took revenge on a number of Americans by holding them hostage. So, the US took its revenge, in the form of
Iraq. We, as we have done many, many times, turned our back on the human rights records of our "allies", as long
as they're helping us against our enemies. When reports had come out that Iraq was using chemical weapons on an
almost daily basis, instead of condemning, the US dispatched Donald Rumsfeld, then a civilian, as our special
middle east envoy to Iraq to reestablish relations cut off at the end of the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. Weapons
sales shortly ensued. We shipped them equipment that helped their chemical and nuclear programs, in addition to
biological stocks and equipment. After the most famous chemical weapons attack, the bombing of Halabja (which had
just been conquered by the pro-Iranian Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and was using the city as human shields)
(the Halabja attack used US-made helicopters - Bell 214 ST's if I remember right), the US drafted legislation to
condemn the attack and merely - not issue sanctions, but simply stop arms sales. The Reagan administration
defeated the proposal.
This is what happens when you declare one side "the bad guys" and will do anything to attack them. This is what
happens when you have no end game.
Do you want to talk about shirking UN resolutions? The two world leaders in that are the United States and Israel;
I'll gladly provide you lists if you would like. The US has broken resolutions on everything from knowingly
supporting South American nuclear program to banned weapons research programs, while Israel has broken resolutions
with its massive nuclear program and deliberate targeting of civilians, many, many times over. Yes, of course
Iraq has violated its resolutions. The US currently is threatening to break the UN charter itself, attacking a
nation preemptively without UN authorization to do so. But, again I ask: What is the end game?, in addition to
mentioning the hypocrisy of breaking international law to enforce it.
I will not at all contest that our nation's armed forces are necessary. But, again, I have to ask: Why does 5% of
the world's population, with 25% of the economy, spend half of the world's total military spending? Why is our
nation's military spending larger than the next 8 closest militaries combined? Why is our military spending
several dozen times larger than all of the nations that we're even remotely hostile to, combined? Why is it that
we feel the need to *continually* support human rights violators? One of our most recent "friends" is Islam
Karimov of Uzbekistan. Do you know anything about him? Have a read, from Human Rights Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/uzbek/
We have dozens of "friends" like him, in addition to funding (and even training) human rights-violating insurgents
and sometimes flat-out terrorists operating in a number of countries. Why is it that whenever a brutal dictator
that we were friends with stops doing what we want, not only do we have to flatten their country, taking with many,
many innocent people, but we have to pick up more of these brutal dictators as a replacement? Why is it that we, a
country that preaches democracy, supports so many dictators? Why is it that one of the most democratic of
countries in the Arab world is one that we've been opposing (Iran), and yet most of our Arab allies are
authoritarian dictatorships? And why do we act surprised when they blame us for the repression of their leaders,
when we provide their leaders with so much in arms, aid, shelter them from international condemnation?
This situation in the world is wrong. But the only way to change the situation is through increasing public
awareness. That is why we show up in the streets. That is why we write op-eds. That is why we meet with our
representatives. That is why we release publications and reports; why we publish ads; why we do everything that we
do, at great cost of time and money. Just like you, we want peace. But we know that you cannot bomb animosity
away, as you probably do inside. You can only address it at the source, and, as much as we may not want to say
it... the animosity is a response to our foreign policy.
Feel free to contact me whenever you'd like.
- Karen Pease
daystar_setting@myself.com