avi lewis
no game/all gimmicks
Guess who's back? back again?
klein is back
to no end
Guess whos back, back again
Shadys back, tell a friend
Guess who's back, guess who's back,
guess who's back
Guess who's back...
[Verse 1]
naomi created a monster, cuz nobody wants to
see klein no more they want hitchens, she's chopped liver
well if you want avi, this is what I'll give ya
a little bit of defeatism mixed with some hard 'hater'
sensationalism that'll jumpstart your heart quicker then a shock when I get shocked at abu ghraib by the marine when I'm not cooperating
when I'm rocking the prison while he's interogating
you saw counterspin when avi stopped debating cuz klein's back, she's on the rag and ovulating
I know that you got a job Ms. klein but your husbands censor problem's complicating
So the CPA wont let me be or let me be me so let me see
they tried to shut me down on the CBC but it feels so empty without avi
---------------------
naomi, our overly caffeinate canuck has this opening line in her new nation article:
Can we please stop calling it a quagmire? The United States isn't mired in a bog or a marsh in Iraq (quagmire's literal meaning); it is free-falling off a cliff. The only question now is: Who will follow the Bush clan off this precipice, and who will refuse to jump?
that's great naomi, the only problem is this: the left wing has been dead wrong ever since 9/11 about every conceivable pitfall the US would suffer. and there's no way you can now back off of this comment since you basically left yourself no room to back up. you're on the precipice of opinion. this wouldn't be so bad if you didn't have a history of being so dead wrong.
from nologo.org, march 13, 2003
The great irony is that these movements are actually waging the real war on terrorism—not with law and order but by providing alternatives to the fundamentalist tendencies that exist wherever there is true desperation. They are developing tactics that allow some of the most marginal people on earth to meet their own needs without using terror—by blockading roads, squatting in buildings, occupying land and resisting displacement.
February 15 was more than a demonstration—it was a promise to build a truly international antiwar movement. If that is going to happen, North Americans and Europeans will have to confront the war on all its fronts: to oppose an attack on Iraq and reject the branding of social movements as terrorist. The use of force to control Iraq's resources is only an extreme version of the force used to keep markets open and debt payments flowing in countries like Argentina and South Africa. And in places where daily life is like war, the people who are militantly confronting this brutality are the peace activists.
Because we all want peace. But let's remember it won't come without a fight.
can you please tell me how you qualified this statement? because its apparent that the US has done nothing to control the iraqis oil, specifically the constitution and all other rule of law in iraq states that the oil will be used to fund reconstruction of iraq. how about this gem, May 21 2003:
In a way, Corrie was harnessing the very thing that she disliked most about her country — the belief that American lives are worth more than any others — and trying to use it to save a few Palestinian homes from demolition.
Believing her florescent orange jacket would serve as armor, that her bullhorn could repel bullets, Corrie stood in front of bulldozers, slept beside water wells, and escorted children to school. If suicide bombers turn their bodies into weapons of death, Corrie turned hers into the opposite: a weapon of life, a "human shield."
really? a 'weapon of life'? even after its been proved she was opposing the destruction of tunnels for smuggling arms?
i think even rachel disagrees with naomi's heroic picture. here's a portion of 'a letter home'
While the huge force of Israelis have every technical aid invented by the US war machine, the few young fighters have NOTHING BUT THEIR WEAPON (and this not the most modern) - no helmet, bullet proof vest, radio contact or other protection. No back-up, no plane, helicopter, tank, APC, searchlight, dogs, flares, ambulance or refuge - put all the Israeli/American propaganda aside for a few minutes and try to imagine, please, the courage it requires to do what these young fighters do, knowing that the odds are against escape and that, every time they do succeed in evading death, the odds against a further survival are shortened. Even if the operation is a success the price is always high.
And every time the Israeli Command terrorises Nablus as today with tanks and Jeeps and APC’s bristling with death at every junction within the city, operating a lock-down even worse than before (how can this be possible), more Martyrs are ready to defend the honour of Palestine and fight for the freedom of surely the most gentle, generous and peaceful people on earth.
a weapon of peace? yeah, kay. okay, so i'm on a roll here. i'm just picking out random stuff, but here it goes.
this is from your aug 26, 2003 missive:
Many have argued that the war on terror is the United States government’s thinly veiled excuse for constructing a classic Empire, in the model of Rome or Britain. Two years into the crusade, it’s clear that this is a mistake: the Bush gang doesn’t have the stick-to-it-ness to successfully occupy one country, let alone a dozen.
i guess the question is 'which is it, naomi?' are they too 'stick to it' or not so much? do you want them to stay? you are so angry in your new article about the US staying, yet previously criticize them for being the opposite.
the truth is that you hold no objective opinion of the goings on. which is to be expected, but your criticism is simply being "against whatever the US does". you cannot see through your tunnel vision what 'good' may come, or give credit, or see a silver lining. you cannot see the fallacies of your own arguments, that despite all you say, there is a very *real* chance that the US will achieve something historic in iraq. but your statements do not make room for that possibility.
as a result, when you unequivocally issue statements as fact "iraqi war=oil monopoly" or some such bs without qualification, you automatically lose credibility when you are dead wrong. now the far left that you occupy may agree with you wholeheartedly, because they make the same pronouncements and make the same assertions without remembering their complete folly when they are wrong "the US will lose in afghanistan, they are going to build a pipeline/ its all about oil/ what about the afghan winter?/ they will lose to iraq/ its all about oil (part 2)" etc.....they make the same mistakes, and they forgive you for it.
what about real columnists? is sullivan going to take your crap seriously? hell, will dowd take you seriously?
what about this little outtake from the new article:
And what has been the UN's response? Worse than silence, it has sided with Washington on all of these critical questions, dashing hopes that it could provide a genuine alternative to the lawlessness and brutality of the US occupation
really? the US just blackballed chalabi (one of your demands) and now brahimi is running the show. if you are able to hear above the shrill of the left, you can actually realize that the US is caving big time on issues that a few months ago it never would have: UN involvement, a UN resolution, brahimi is telling blackwell what to do, elections have a timetable for early next year.
how about these gems at the end here...it becomes obvious that you have no interest in seeing elections, a prosperous iraq, or a democratic m.e., but only shield your hatred of the US barely:
On April 25 the New York Times editorial board called for the opposite approach, arguing that only a major infusion of American troops and "a real long-term increase in the force in Iraq" could bring security. But these troops, if they arrive, will provide security to no one--not to the Iraqis, not to their fellow soldiers, not to the UN. American soldiers have become a direct provocation to more violence, not only because of the brutality of the occupation in Iraq but also because of US support for Israel's deadly occupation of Palestinian territory. In the minds of many Iraqis, the two occupations have blended into a single anti-Arab outrage, with Israeli and US soldiers viewed as interchangeable and Iraqis openly identifying with Palestinians.
(thanks for your assessment of troop levels. despite the fact that by general peacekeeping standards, the country is vastly under protected by US troops, and the fact that poll after poll indicate that iraqis want the US troops to stay, naomi knows better. less troops would provide more security? the provocation isn't the US occupation, its the fact that there is a power vacuum. there is opportunity for fundamentalism to rise. there are interested parties here. naomi makes no mention, of course)
Without US troops, the major incitement to violence would be removed, allowing the country to be stabilized with far fewer soldiers and far less force (ed: yeah right. glad you aren't a decision maker.). Iraq would still face security challenges--there would still be extremists willing to die to impose Islamic law as well as attempts by Saddam loyalists to regain power. On the other hand, with Sunnis and Shiites now so united against the occupation, it's the best possible moment for an honest broker to negotiate an equitable power-sharing agreement.
Some will argue that the United States is too strong to be forced out of Iraq. But from the start Bush needed multilateral cover for this war--that's why he formed the "coalition of the willing," and it's why he is going to the UN now. Imagine what could happen if countries keep pulling out of the coalition, if France and Germany refuse to recognize an occupied Iraq as a sovereign nation. Imagine if the UN decided not to ride to Washington's rescue. It would become an occupation of one.
(yeah, imagine the situation developing on the ground. no one able to make iraq work, no one contributing to a group problem of iraq falling to pieces. why because everyone wants to make the US look bad, of course. thanks, naomi, let's sacrifice lives for your little point you made at the beginning of the article. let's have a self-fulfilling prophecy. its a disaster, so let's not contribute so its more of a disaster...the US will be screwed! don't worry about the obvious problems of the aftermath! i'm a writer, i've got a point to prove!)
The invasion of Iraq began with a call to mutiny--a call made by the United States. In the weeks leading up to last year's invasion, US Central Command bombarded Iraqi military and political officials with phone calls and e-mails urging them to defect from Saddam's ranks. Fighter planes dropped 8 million leaflets urging Iraqi soldiers to abandon their posts and assuring that no harm would come to them.
Of course, these soldiers were promptly fired when Paul Bremer took over and are now being frantically rehired as part of the reversal of the de-Baathification policy. It's just one more example of lethal incompetence that should lead all remaining supporters of US policy in Iraq to one inescapable conclusion: It's time for a mutiny.
no distinction between a murderous regime of a tyrant, and a western nation that feels guilt over prison abuses. they're called blinkers. take them off. see that the dissolving of a federal iraq is a group problem.
...lethal incompetence will only be a factor if anyone takes naomi seriously, and thank god only the conspiracy theorists do these days.
what ever happened to your globe and mail slot? let me guess? US imperialists took over the space and are currently occupying your 800 word column? thought so.
No comments:
Post a Comment