Peace Vigil Update

Navigation

User login

Online users

Rob Richards
The Fire Inside

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

systematist
itsthewater
tsunamizombie
Brooks
Teresa Marie Staal

Upcoming events

Kimya Dawson, Ghost Mice, Heathers and June Madrona at Freeschool Fundraiser!(1 day)
Lunchtime Stories in the Park(2 days)
Jerry E. Smith on HAARP and Weather Warfare!(4 days)
OAR - Basic Sculling Class - Offering 5(5 days)
Oly Free Herbal Clinic Cob-Oven Pizza Benefit(6 days)
Larry Hill Jazz Trio at Tower Falls(6 days)

Poster Calendar

Peace Vigil Update

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 3:02pm.

The weekly Wednesday Olympia FOR peace vigil went well today. I arrived shortly after 12 Noon. There were several people already lined up with signs when I got there, but thanks to FOR organizer Glen Anderson, there were still plenty of signs for me to choose from. I chose a sign that read, "War is not the answer." One of the things that I like about the peace vigil is the opportunity to put a friendly face on the peace movement. I believe that in order to be instrumental in the creation of a peaceful society, the peace movement must make itself into a desirable destination for peoples' involvement. A major part of that equation is making it so that the movement is welcoming and most importantly, fun.

As usual, I had good conversations. I talked with fellow peace activists about the lies of the

Bush Administration and in specific, about Scott McClellan's new book, in which he accuses high-ranking members of the Bush Administration (including President Bush, Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney, Andrew Card and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby among them) of encouraging him to pass false information to the press in regard to the Valerie Plame CIA leak case. As is usual in many of the cases involving corruption of high level government officials, this story was covered only glancingly. An in depth and hard-hitting journalistic coverage of the pattern of deception that emanates from the White House, as evinced by McClellan's account, has been negligible in the mainstream media. It would seem appropriate, that when a former Bush loyalist and senior Administration staffer comes forward with charges of corruption, that a serious and in-depth investigation would follow.

At about half-way through the hour long peace vigil, the sign-holders experienced an interesting note of criticism. A woman, possibly reacting to the content of my sign ("War is not the answer") said, "We're fighting "there" so that we don't have to fight "here."" She promptly rolled up her window and drove off, so that there was not opportunity to enter into a discussion about her statement. I would suggest to her, however, that the reason "we" are fighting "there" is because of the desire, amongst prominent decision makers, for global dominance. The war is not about protecting the USA against some supposedly incorrigible and insatiable appetite for destruction, and/or terrorism. Indeed, wars of aggression, and a foreign policy of global dominance and economic conquest, are the principle causes of anti-US sentiment and terrorism.

So really, and honestly now, is global dominance in the national interest? My answer is no. Global dominance may be in the interests of certain multinational corporations (and those who profit from the activities of those corporations.) But global dominance is not in my best interest or, I argue, in the best interest of the American People or the Nation. The foreign policy of global dominance is hurting people, it is causing environmental and ecological destruction. We would benefit instead, as a nation, from a foreign policy that promotes neighborliness; cooperation; fair and equitable competition; nonviolence; and a vision for sustainability and respect for future generations.

Robert Whitlock's blog
Login or register to post comments

People believe

Submitted by security_six on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 3:14pm.

What they want to in order to justify certain pre programed attitudes.

"Support the troops" Okay, all well and good, that sets off an interesting if/then/goto (remember BASIC anyone? :-) string

IF "Support the troops" THEN "Whatever they are involved in must be good" GOTO "The War is a Good Thing."

I have no stomach for the War in Iraq. The Afghan conflict is one thing, this mess in Iraq is another. I hold no animosity towards the soldiers fighting it though. The fact that anyone could be so simple minded as to believe that anything US troops are involved in is a good thing, and are so easily programmed by the gubmint to believe this is mind boggling...

"Ya' know, even flies love." -Meta Hogan

"Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convience store, not a government agency."

I love that

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 3:57pm.

"We're fighting there so that we don't have to fight here." How on God's good earth does putting American soldiers in Iraq prevent al qaeda from carrying out attacks here.

Oh, sorry Ali, I am far too busy manufacturing IEDs to take on any new assignments in America.

"over there, over here"

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 4:27pm.

is just another example of the "lowest common denominator" theory. Coin a phrase and say it until it sticks.

Uh, limited resources??

Submitted by JT on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 5:48pm.

Even Al Qaeda has finite resources.

But don't worry, we will get our turn here in the states real soon.

I doubt they will do anything significant prior to the presidential elections. They wouldn't want to help put someone into office that will give them a harder time. If we get hit big by terrorists prior to the election, that will certainly put McCain into office.

"...terrorists portray themselves quite successfully among Muslims as the exponents of true and pure Islam...(Robert B Spencer, author)

itchyhitch.blogspot.com

Do you really think al qaeda wants us out of Iraq?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 8:43pm.

We are helping them by being there. "Fight the occupiers!"

If we leave the country with

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 2:37am.

If we leave the country with our tail between our legs, that'd be far worse than any stalemate in the fighting in Iraq.

The fact that we have yet to crush any opponent since the Second World War - whether the combat was politically or morally justified or not - is frightening.

Our founders and ancestors won their battles and conflicts when pitted against an inferior enemy.

The War on Terrorism is simply this generation's (and the next and the one after that) Indian Wars. The only difference is the frontier has moved from North America to halfway across the world.

Pax Americana didn't last very long.

oh by god

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 9:39am.

America committed a massive genocide that nearly wiped out all of the I indigenous people of this continent and you want to invoke that now? I don't get it. The so called Indian "Wars" are a black mark on this country's history. Are you advocating genocide against people who look like terrorists?

It's a pretty good analogy, really

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 10:14am.

In the Indian Wars, Americans wanted the Native Americans' land, and stole it while calling them "savages." Now, we want the oil in the Middle East, and justify it by calling the people with the misfortune to live on top of it "terrorists." As American as apple pie.

Are you advocating

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 3:57pm.

Are you advocating genocide

I'm saying that if we're fighting an enemy, we'd better commit to winning. The opponent dictates how much force and to what point it is used. When we execute armed conflict in the way it is supposed to be, only the enemy can make the decision whether they wish to be standing once the fighting has stopped.

against people who look like terrorists?

I don't care if they're Eastern European or African.

The so called Indian "Wars" are a black mark on this country's history.

I don't think we would be standing where we're at now without them. So while we might take the moral high ground once these conflicts are long over and the dust has settled, I think if we could bring an American back from that period to see present day Seattle or Oklahoma City they would say, "I gave you this and you're complaining?"

Are the pioneering founders

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 4:29pm.

Are the pioneering founders asking their rhetorical question on a Reservation?

If Pro- is the opposite of Con-, does that mean Congress is the opposite of Progress?

Makes perfect sense from someone who thinks

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 10:28am.

the most important quality law enforcement is to have officers who can kick ass.

Common sense and physical

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 3:58pm.

Common sense and physical ability, yes.

Being sharp with your tongue and writing skills are also good, too.

Chickenshit

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 10:40am.

"...tail between our legs..."

Is that "chickenshit" or what?

Not "jewel of the kingdom" matterial I guess.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 11:08am.

The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom. --Sun Tzu

I better quit this thread now.

But consistent with proper execution of War

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 3:59pm.

Now, philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skillful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are just the worst. As the use of physical power to the utmost extent by no means excludes the co-operation of the intelligence, it follows that he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the quantity of bloodshed, must obtain a superiority if his adversary does not act likewise. By such means the former dictates the law to the latter, and both proceed to extremities, to which the only limitations are those imposed by the amount of counteracting force on each side.
This is the way in which the matter must be viewed; and it is to no purpose, and even acting against one's own interest, to turn away from the consideration of the real nature of the affair, because the coarseness of its elements excites repugnance.

General Carl Von Clausewitz, "On War", Book 1 "On the Nature of War", What is War?

Didn't work so hot...

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 4:00pm.

...for the Uk, now, did it?

"Coin a phrase and say it until it sticks."

Submitted by JT on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 5:59pm.

Now I understand why Rob W. has his standard byline about the illegal war. I just thought he was a passionate guy against war. Thanks Larry!! ;)

Hope you are doing better.

"...terrorists portray themselves quite successfully among Muslims as the exponents of true and pure Islam...(Robert B Spencer, author)

itchyhitch.blogspot.com

It's true, the war is illegal.

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 6:12pm.

The war is illegal. It's not a byline. It's a coherent and factually consistent statement.

Just like it's illegal to murder, or to steal: It is illegal to wage an aggressive war of occupation.

There is ample evidence (for those who care to look) to show that prominent members of the Bush Administration repeatedly made false statements over a period of months and years in order to justify the war, and to create an environment where the war would come to be accepted, despite the inherent criminality.

The war is illegal. I am not just saying that.

Then why

Submitted by security_six on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 6:20pm.

Has there been no lawsuit to end this illegal war?

"Ya' know, even flies love." -Meta Hogan

"Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convience store, not a government agency."

Good Question

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 6:31pm.

There have been lawsuits. Certain members of the Bush Administration have to be very careful when they travel in certain foreign countries.

The problem is that members of the Bush Administration have protections, and varying degrees of immunity, from prosecution. It's my understanding that it would take an act of Congress to prosecute the war. Unfortunately, yet understandably, it is pretty obvious that Congress is in cahoots with the Administration in terms of the war on Iraq as it relates to a foreign policy of global dominance.

Congress is in dereliction of its duty to hold the Executive Branch accountable.

Rumsfeld Arrest Question

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 8:44pm.

[source]

The US defence secretary has said he is considering whether to attend a conference in Germany, where he may face arrest for warcrimes.

Didn't Rummy have to skidattle out of Paris?

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 9:30pm.

"International War Criminal" just sounds so weird...but I could get used to it, I guess.

ample evidence

Submitted by enpen on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 11:32pm.

PBS just aired a nice Documentary.

"In principle, I am an anarchist. Kurt Vonnegut once said he was an agnostic who respects Jesus Christ. I am an anarchist who loves democracy." - Kenzaburo Oe

War Documentary

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 10:27am.

Bill Moyers Journal recently hosted Phil Donahue and Ellen Spiro to talk about their new film "Body of War."

The film looks great, and the Moyers Journal program is informative. Here's a link:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03212008/profile.html

too shay...

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 8:27pm.

test

I should resist

Submitted by DJW on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 5:25pm.

But I can't.

Mr. Whitlock,

If you really think the Bush family/admin has a goal of achieving global domination, don't you think it would have been achieved by now? Come on, they have had 12 years to implement their manifesto. Don't you think if the Bush admin wanted to have world domination we could do this either through our military or trade? As it is the USA is going to be dominated by the Asian countries as we have sold our 'soul' (so to speak) to finance our current problems.

To respond to the question, "Does Al Queda really want us out of Iraq?" Yes. Do any of us really understand how much wealth is in Iraq? Unlimited. The 'money' from this country can fund many years of radical beliefs and destruction. Prior to 2003 the Middle East was somewhat stabilized, now, not so much. Can you imagine if we leave a wealthy country in the hands of Al Queda? Saddam thumbed his noise at the UN for years and made millions in oil scams. What do you think a well-funded group of 'I'll die to kill you' army can do?

I don't agree with how this war has been played out. It's been botched up, mismanaged and run by a wimp (GWB). However, coming back now is not the answer. I've been to the middle east many times and let me tell you, unless you have been there and experienced life on all sides of these conflicts you will never know the hatred that is evident. Staying is not helping but leaving without having a solid plan is not the answer.

Actaully

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 6:05pm.

I think Osama's Al Qaeda is quite happy to have us in Iraq. It is a great recruiting tool.

...I will call Nancy Pants, what I like. -- Tsch.

Well

Submitted by DJW on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 8:15pm.

Again, having spent quite a bit of time in the middle east and 'working' with different groups of people the overwhelming opinion that I experienced was that OBL and Al Queda's best recruiting tools were/are.

1) Gulf War I.... Infidel boots on holy land. It was Alah's wish for Iraq to take Kuwait and having US troops in Iraq was seen as a religious and spiritual no-no. 2) Having an air base in Saudi for years. 3) The US support of Israel. And this is an interesting situation. I remember talking with a very nice young man in Gaza many years ago who said if the US would just 'turn' on Israel, all would be forgiven. This young man was a very passionate member of some very interesting groups who thought Jews should not only be removed but eliminated. 4) The US alliance, uneasy as it is, with Pakistan. 5) The fact that the us has not denounced many western beliefs.

I also had the unfortunate situation of being in Somalia. Needless to say the attitudes did not meet the beauty of the coastline. Even though the activities were basically UN backed it is widely recognized around the world that without the US the UN loses any real backbone. We can argue that all day, but it's a perception. Anyway, many muslims in the middle east found the actions of the US military in Somalia to be very unkind. It was seen as an attack on muslims instead of what it was originally intended, a humanitarian mission.

We can disagree all day and I'm not saying you are incorrect. I'm basing my opinions on many years working among the people in the middle east of which I found many to be very nice people. I personally don't believe much of what OBL says due to the fact that he is an opportunist. He uses any opportunity to say it was his gods will or whatnot. Religious zealots on any side of the fence bother me.

Drafting a Plan for Global Dominance.

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 6:35pm.

It may seem incredible, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction!

There really is an aspiration for global dominance that drives the principle foreign policy decision making of the Bush Administration (as well as much of Congress.)

[source]

By David Armstrong

An essay exploring the real origins of the Iraq War, written before the war started.
* * *
Few writers are more ambitious than the writers of government policy papers, and few policy papers are more ambitious than Dick Cheney's masterwork. It has taken several forms over the last decade and is in fact the product of several ghostwriters (notably Paul Wolfowitz and Colin Powell), but Cheney has been consistent in his dedication to the ideas in the documents that bear his name, and he has maintained a close association with the ideologues behind them. Let us, therefore, call Cheney the author, and this series of documents the Plan.

The Plan was published in unclassified form most recently under the title of Defense Strategy for the 1990s, as Cheney ended his term as secretary of defense under the elder George Bush in early 1993, but it is, like Leaves of Grass, a perpetually evolving work. It was the controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft of 1992—from which Cheney, unconvincingly, tried to distance himself—and it was the somewhat less aggressive revised draft of that same year. This June it was a presidential lecture in the form of a commencement address at West Point, and in July it was leaked to the press as yet another Defense Planning Guidance (this time under the pen name of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld). It will take its ultimate form, though, as America's new national security strategy—and Cheney et al. will experience what few writers have even dared dream: their words will become our reality.

The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination...

...

I understand

Submitted by DJW on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 8:22pm.

What you are saying. However, it does not change the fact that if the Bush family wanted global domination it would have happened by now. It's not going to happen in the next few months before he leaves office. If you think Jeb Bush or one of the daughters is going to be president to carry this on, well....... There is nothing I can say or do.

I can tell you that after Gulf War I there was quite the stir among many government agencies of planning 'what if' contingencies. There weren't many people who thought Saddam would ever comply with the provisions of the cease/fire. I point to the no fly zone in the north. I think you would be surprised of how many 'drafts' are out there of what to do with Saddam. I seem to remember reading a manifesto (if you want to call it that) of how Iraq should be divided into three seperate countries. However, the real problem was how to make sure each 'country' received equal shares or commissions of the oil. My recollection was that it could not reasonable be assumed that either of the 3 major factions could/would trust the others to ensure that the oil revenue was divided equally.

Now, if you can show some documents that show how the Bush family is going to dominate the world w/o being in any type of office, well.....

Killer space robots?

Submitted by security_six on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 9:26pm.

As soon as Bush leaves office the robots will swoop down and take over the world, supported by mind control beams from the ISS, mind controlling substances in airplane contrails and weather changes modified by HAARP.

HA! I didn't think I could get this all into one post on OlyBlog. :-p

(googled killer space robots and this image came up, couldn't help it!)

"I think there was something funny in that hippie."--Lrrr ruler of Omicron Persei 8

"Whoa, I feel like I'm flying"-- Lrrr, shortly after eating the hippie.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our Social Contract. You should also look at our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Olyblogger of the Month:

decorabilia

Online users

Comment viewing options