portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting oregon & cascadia

government

Dems are authoritarian pricks

County Dem Official Attempts to Sabotage Nader Convention
check out this text from an Oregonlive newstory:

And on Saturday, Ross, the Multnomah County Democratic official, sent an e-mail to party members asking them to attend the Nader event to take up seats in the hall while not signing the petition supporting Nader's candidacy.

"We need as many Oregon Democrats as possible to fill that room and NOT sign that petition," Ross wrote. "If we attend in large numbers and politely refuse to sign, Nader is denied his needed numbers. It's that simple. Please make every attempt to attend this important event."

Ross said that the e-mail was his idea and not sanctioned by state party leaders.

Nader seemed to welcome the Republican effort as above board but condemned the e-mail from Ross.

"The Democrats are going to get themselves in deep trouble, because authoritarian tactics become illegal tactics after a while," Nader said in an interview with The AP after the event. "That offends the sense of fairness of the American people."
of course 27.Jun.2004 14:15

ex-democrat voter

The democrats decided long ago that the only way to beat the republicans was to sink to their level. They can't run an honest campaign against Bush after spending the last 4 years supporting him. So now it's just a matter of how low they are willing to sink to outdo the republicans in their contempt for democracy.

If Democrats are authoritarian pricks 27.Jun.2004 14:21

Independent

Then what does that make the Republicans?

so a democrat and a republican walk into a bar... 27.Jun.2004 14:27

-

"Then what does that make the Republicans?"

The authoritarian pricks the democrats are trying to emulate.

<rimshot>

there's already a thread on this 27.Jun.2004 14:29

compost please

and this one has a baiting title that doesn't really help debate and just raises the level of anger around here.

I understand your concern 27.Jun.2004 14:42

Kerry voter

But I think anger about this is healthy. The democrats should be outraged that people in their party would stoop to sabotage to keep a candidate off the ballot. How would other Kerry supporters feel if Bush decreed that Kerry couldn't be on the ballot? After all, he's just going to take votes away from Bush so obviously it must be legitimate to keep him from being on the ballot. If the democrats do not speak out about this I will lose respect for them. I am already composing a letter to John Kerry to express my outrage and ask that he speak out in support of the fundamentals of democracy and condemn such actions being taken by his "supporters". I agree that a civil debate is what is needed. That is both civil and a debate. We can't try and cover this up just because it makes the democrats look bad. What we should be doing is exposing all attempts to undermine our democracy such as vote rigging, voter purges, and the like that are being conducted by the republicans as we speak. In other words, let's support democracy, not undermine it to suit our agenda.

go ahead and cheat 27.Jun.2004 14:47

ex-democrat voter

Actually, I think the best thing that could possibly happen is for both the democrats and republicans to cheat as much as possible (and hey, greens, libertarians, socialists, independents, and other third party supporters too, though they are less likely to have the opportunity). It's not hard to figure out how to rig a diebold machine and I'm sure that information has found it's way into the hands of democrats and republicans that will have the ability to utilize such information. Go ahead, show what a sham democracy in this country is. Give us an unverifiable election fraught with voter fraud on a historic scale. Maybe then we can gain support for the movement to establish a functional democracy in this country.

Gutless Greens nominate unknown, become irrelevant 27.Jun.2004 15:58

Daily Yomiuri

U.S. Greens to serve up Cobb, not Nader, for presidency

 http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20040628wo41.htm


John O'Conner Yomiuri Shimbun New York Bureau

The U.S. Green Party chose David Cobb, a lawyer and longtime party activist from Texas, as its presidential candidate here Saturday, opting not to endorse the consumer advocate and former Green candidate Ralph Nader, as many had expected it would.

Cobb's nomination by the Green Party, a left-leaning grassroots organization with several hundred thousand members and more than 200 elected officials across the United States, will most likely be interpreted by party members and others as an implicit endorsement of the Democratic candidate for the U.S. presidency, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

"If I'm a Democratic strategist, I'm partying tonight," said Kevin McKeon, 47, a Green Party delegate to the presidential convention here and an elected official in Santa Monica, Calif., who favored endorsing Nader. "My fear now is that we've condemned our party to irrelevance," he said, referring to Cobb's anonymity with national voters. Cobb, 41, does not pose a serious threat to Kerry's election hopes, as Nader's candidacy does, and he has indicated that he will not campaign heavily in several key battleground states, such as Florida and Pennsylvania, where the contest between U.S. President George W. Bush and Kerry promises to be close.

Democratic loyalists are perhaps breathing a little easier tonight, as the rejection of Nader will possibly reduce his impact on this year's presidential election. Many Democrats are still bitter over Nader's Green Party candidacy in 2000, which they contend cost Al Gore the election. Nader received only 2.7 million votes nationwide, compared to Gore's 50,999,897. But some argue that in certain critical states, Nader's presence on the ballot served as the margin of difference for Bush. In Florida, for instance, Nader received 97,488 votes, while Gore and Bush drew almost even with about 2.9 million votes apiece. Bush won the state by just 537 votes.

Democratic Party officials have been pressuring Nader to withdraw from the race, which he has so far steadfastly refused to do. Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry MacAuliffe said recently he has repeatedly asked Nader to drop out. Early this week, Nader reportedly stormed out of a heated meeting on Capitol Hill where about a dozen members of the Congressional Black Caucus tried to persuade him to withdraw his candidacy. Nader later complained to a reporter from National Public Radio that some of the congressmen had "used very abusive language."

In addition, a lawsuit was filed in Arizona last week challenging the validity of petitions submitted by the Nader campaign to get him on the state's ballot. The lawsuit, which has the support of the Arizona Democratic Party, alleges that many of the signatures on Nader's petitions were invalid, either because they came from people who are not registered to vote or were collected by people who were not authorized to do so by the state. A decision from the Superior Court in Phoenix is due at the end of the month.

Ironically, as politicians, Nader and Cobb are more alike than different. Both accuse Democrats and Republicans of being beholden to big business and special interests, and both believe that voters deserve a third option for president.

But the decision to nominate Cobb came only after several days of contentious debate and soul-searching among delegates, and it will almost certainly create upheaval within the Green Party. Many Greens had hoped to endorse Nader, whom they credit with bringing the party to national prominence through his years of tireless advocacy, particularly his high-profile 2000 run.

"Nader is the only candidate who can make the Green Party relevant on the national level," said Young Han, 21, an economics student and delegate from Clinton, N.Y. "And he's the only effective candidate who can challenge the two-party system."

But others felt betrayed by Nader's refusal to accept the Green Party's nomination this year, which was widely interpreted as a move by Nader to free himself from a narrow Green Party platform. "We are very grateful for what Ralph Nader has done for the Green Party," said Norris Dryer, 61, a delegate from Knoxville, Tenn., and an ardent Cobb supporter. "But we think it's time to move along, time to look toward the future. I think the party will heal."

In his acceptance speech, Cobb thanked Nader for his contribution to the party, while emphasizing that the Green's work would go on without him. "Ralph Nader has had more influence on my life than anyone not related to me," he said, adding, "We have demonstrated that it is possible to build a political party without corporate money, and without selling out our principles and values."


Waaahhh!!!! Waaaaah!!!! Waaaahhh!! Mommy!!! Jimmy is hitting back! 27.Jun.2004 16:17

Ralphie Pooh

Ralph if you can't muster enough supporters without inviting Republicans to PORTLAND-FREAKING-OREGON do you think you have any relvance? I sure don't. That's why I didn't bother to fuck with you last night.

GO Kerry!

Democrats are more pro-war than Republicans 27.Jun.2004 17:00

GRINGO STARS

Democrat presidents brought the US into WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and almost started a nuclear war in the Cuban missile crisis. Under Clinton alone, troops were deployed 27 times, more than the previous several administrations combined, in Haiti, Colombia, the Balkans, Somalia, and many others. A product of Clinton's reign was the accusation that Iraq was "stockpiling weapons of mass destruction". Bush merely followed Clinton's lead, as well as Clinton's formal US policy of "regime change" in Iraq.

So what was the Kerry's and the Democrats' main problem with Bush's war? That the US didn't send enough troops. And that the US didn't get more imperialist nations to join in the rape of Iraq. Democrats are even complaining tha Bush is not substantially funding "domestic security measures", i.e. racist roundups, domestioc spying, and other repressive measures aimed mostly against labor, immigrants, and non-white people.

Kerry voted for every war measure Bush proposed, and enthusiastically spread Bush's propaganda, his lies that led to war.

The myth that Democrats want peace is harmful to the antiwar movement. These pretenders should be ignored.

If you want more war, more troops overseas, and more nations oppressing the third world, go Democrat!

Ralphie Pooh 27.Jun.2004 17:01

.

So are you saying that anything goes, no rules? Would it be okay if we registered dead people and had them vote, stuffed the ballot box, shot some of your candidates? Just trying to take your argument to its logical conclusion. I don't think you really want to go there.

Of course lots of people already have, most notably the Republicans in Florida in 2000.

. 27.Jun.2004 17:22

Ralphie Pooh

What rules were broken?

Assertions 27.Jun.2004 17:45

James

"brought the US into WWI."

Ah, yes, that Democrat's Democrat Woodrow Wilson, born of the same mold as John F. Kerry. I think this proves that the modern Democratic Party is more warring than the Republican Party.

"WWII"

Putting provocations aside, the country was bombed, after all.

"and almost started a nuclear war in the Cuban missile crisis."

Interesting analysis. I thought the Soviets' might have had a hand in it.

"A product of Clinton's reign was the accusation that Iraq was 'stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.'"

Well, but, they were. That much is a matter of public record. UNSCOM destroyed Al-Hakam, a biological weapons production facility, in 1996. Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument, though.

"as well as Clinton's formal US policy of 'regime change' in Iraq."

Of course, Clinton's policy didn't involve 150,000 U.S. troops. I have my own formal policy of regime change regarding a large swath of the world -- Turkmenistan, North Korea, Sudan, the United States to name a few -- but I don't have a formal policy of invasion and occupation.

"i.e. racist roundups, domestioc spying, and other repressive measures aimed mostly against labor, immigrants, and non-white people."

Yes, I think that's what they had in mind.

Divide and Conquer 27.Jun.2004 18:18

dude

This 2 party system is great in dividing the population against itself. It creates an dialog of stupidity which bogles the mind.

Never the less we are stuck and if a new idea or party comes a foot it must be thouroughly blooded to be survive.

So how to undivide and to share some multinational wealth is the question and hand.


Good luck to everyone. See F-9/11.
Irony Abounds
Irony Abounds

The Dems are stupid 27.Jun.2004 19:05

Brian Setzler IamB@riseup.net

I'm disgusted that Democrats would work to keep people off the ballot. The Green Party supports and advocates for open and accessible ballots. The Green Party has always advocated majority rule with respect to elections. The Democrats wouldn't fear additional participation if our elections were determined by majority rule.

A simple innovation to achieve this is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). The Democratic Party of Oregon had a chance to add IRV to their platform and legisative agenda at a recent convention but the plank failed to pass.

Ralphie Pooh 27.Jun.2004 20:43

.

I don't know if the Democrats broke any laws, it would take a lawyer to say, which I'm not, but they clearly broke ethical rules. The convention had to close the doors and do the petition process at some point, so they were counting people coming in the doors until they got above 1,000. Democrats falsely inflated the count, so the doors were probably closed when there weren't enough Nader supporters there. This is clearly interfering with a legal voting process. Put simply, it's cheating. Behavior like this is unethical and a threat to democracy. Of course Democrats are very threatened by Democracy.

I only hope that we can return the favor and do something to hurt the Kerry campaign. Perhaps we could show up for Kerry rallies, if he ever dares have any, with signs proclaiming that we're Democrats for killing Iraqis. After all, Kerry has killed people, in Vietnam, and he didn't have to. He volunteered. Probably thought it would look good on his resume. A war hero. Pardon me while I puke.


All Your Base Are Belong To Us! 27.Jun.2004 21:14

The Borg

Submit, Naderites!

You are OURS now! (cackle!) Get to work for OUR candidate! And jump to it!

Sincerely,

Your overseers at the Multnomah Country Democratic Party

A year of new lows 27.Jun.2004 21:34

Anon E. Mouse

Everybody trying to win by sinking lower than anyone else leads me to make an observation: I've long thought that some disenchanted citizen(s) might attempt to register their vote on a touch-screen voting machine using a stun gun or cattle prod instead of their finger. Funny how computer-based stuff is so sensitive to high voltage. Picture it - 6:55 PM, polls about to close and ZAAP!, the whole day's election tally disappears. Now THAT would certainly trump the new lows to which the process has sunk, as well as settle the debate on the need for paper records!

Nader campaign confident he'll make it on Washington's ballot 27.Jun.2004 22:13

Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Sunday, June 27, 2004 Last updated 9:11 p.m. PT

By ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

SEATTLE -- Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader held his nominating convention in Seattle on Sunday, confident he would gather the 1,000 signatures needed to get on the state's ballot in November.

Fraeda Scholz, who helped gather signatures for Nader in both Oregon and Washington, got a round of applause when she held up a stack of petitions and told the crowd they had gathered 1,000 signatures, the number required by state law to put a third-party candidate on the ballot.

More than 200 Nader supporters filled the seats at Kane Hall on the University of Washington campus and gave him a standing ovation as he walked into the room.

Nader saved some of his harshest words for Democrats, chastising them for not mounting tougher challenges to the Iraq war, tax cuts and other Bush administration policies. "The least worse approach to elections is that every four years the parties get worse," Nader said.

He said he found it frustrating to hear so many Democratic leaders tell him they respect his right to run while urging him to stay out of presidential politics.

"They're heavy into scapegoating. They're not looking at their own decay" and questioning why the presumptive Democratic nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, doesn't have a huge lead over Bush.

Jason Kafoury, one of Nader's national field coordinators, said volunteers had gathered more than 1,100 signatures for Nader and that more would be gathered Sunday night. Kafoury said the signature gathering began Saturday and the goal is to gather at least 500 more for a cushion.

Randy Poplock, 34, of Seattle, is a Democrat who runs an organization called One Voice for Change. He is trying to unite progressives behind John Kerry and was handing out flyers that promoted Kerry's record on the environment and women's rights and was urging people filing into the building to vote for Kerry, not Nader.

"They say Kerry is Bush Lite. They say it's Coke vs. Pepsi. I say it's Coke vs. arsenic," said Poplock, who runs a Web site called  http://www.dontvoteralph.org.

Emmia Caldwell, 52, of Seattle, voted for Nader in 2000 and plans to do it again this year. "If everybody that said they wanted Bush out of office voted for Nader, we'd have a better candidate," she said.

Like many Naderites, Caldwell said she sees too many similarities and not enough differences between Bush and Kerry.

"To me, they're both owned by corporations, so they're more likely to support the rich than the normal person," she said. "Kerry could fool me, but Bush hasn't."

In Oregon on Saturday, Nader made another bid to get 1,000 signatures to get him on that November ballot as an independent. A similar attempt in April drew 751 people.

State Elections Director John Lindback said Nader supporters turned in 950 petition sheets, most of them with a single signature, although some of the sheets contained several signatures.

It was not clear how many total signatures there were, but Lindback said, "Their margin is extremely thin." He said it would take a few days for local election officials to tally the signatures and verify whether they were from registered voters.

"It doesn't matter, we'll get on the ballot," Nader said Saturday night, noting that under Oregon law he also can qualify by mounting a more traditional signature gathering drive later this summer.

. 27.Jun.2004 22:36

Ralphie Pooh

There is nothing unethical about it. Some dems feel threatened by a Ralph candidacy and they want their boy to win (it's called politics, get over it). The dems might not waste there time if they considered that Ralph doesn't even have enough supporters to get himself on the ballot this year without the help of neo-conservatives.

Consider this though, if Buchannon were not on the ballot in Florida, Gore would be president now. So maybe in another close elections one mistaken vote might mean the difference between President Kerry and a two term Bush. But, I am sure in the mind of a Nader myopian it makes no difference since there is really no difference between democrats and republicans anyhoo.

So yeah, I think Dems should try to keep guarenteed losers/spoilers off the ballot if they can do it by the rules. I ain't give it much effort though. I have probably already wasted too much time on this thread as it is.

 http://www.johnkerry.com

We are not authoritarian pricks 27.Jun.2004 22:44

Gator

.
And we feel your pain
And we feel your pain

if you believe... 27.Jun.2004 23:02

.

That Gore would have ever won Florida then you haven't been paying attention, and you're going to be suckered again in 2004. Pay attention when you see F911 in the first few minutes when Bush says "We are gonna to win Florida."

"And mark my words you can write it down."

Pay attention to the emphasis.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.


Third-party candidates ARE NOT "spoilers" 27.Jun.2004 23:04

leave that to

8 million registered Democrats who voted for Bush/Cheney in 2000 . . .

actually 27.Jun.2004 23:11

vote counter

It was 9 million... but who's counting. Certainly not the democrats, they need to shift blame on anyone but themselves. And hey if the Libertarians hadn't run maybe Bush would have won. I guess the republicans should start learning from the democrats on how to destroy democracy and just make sure the libertarians don't get on the ballot. And while they're at it, why don't they just make sure Kerry isn't on the ballot. It seems a lot of democrats wouldn't have a problem with that, and have become everything that they hate. I pity them. With a democracy like this, who needs fascism.

please remember 27.Jun.2004 23:17

Kerry voter

Not all democrats are like those who are pissing on our democracy by trying to deprive others of the right to vote how they choose. I'm disgusted, and I'd like to believe these people are just Bush supporters attempting to drive people away from the democratic party but when the member of the party emails such things as sabotage to their supporters it cannot be blamed on anyone else. Not all democrats want Nader off the ballot. I know that Bush stole the election and will do it again in 2004. I know that the last thing this country needs is more people telling other people what they cannot do. I remain confident that most democrats would not stoop to such lows and we'll see condemnation in forthcoming statements. If not, well, I'd rather not dwell on that point unless I am faced with it.

Decide for yourself who to vote for and allow others to make their own choices. The more patronizing the democrats sound the more people will turn away, perhaps forever.

don't panic, James 27.Jun.2004 23:53

GRINGO STARS

<<"WWII"

Putting provocations aside, the country was bombed, after all.>>

But WHY was the US was bombed, James? Why put provocations aside? The US had put intentioanlly provocative sanctions on Japan, sanctions meant to starve Japan from its steady supply of industrial resources. Then note the fact that there is ample evidence from FOIA-obtained official documents and memos that prove that Democrat FDR was fully aware of the impending attack. Executive orders made western Hawaiian observation towers stand down, extraordinarily enough. And all the aircraft carriers and most all of the battleships left Pearl Harbor the previous afternoon. Go figure. I heartily recommend an excellent book by Robert B. Stinnett entitled "Day of Deceit: The Truth about F.D.R. and Pearl Harbor":
 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743201299/qid=1088404183/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1185192-3509609?v=glance&s=books

You can also check out other bits of information about FDR's provocation of Pearl Harbor:
 http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1488/pg2/
 http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=2660&fcategory_desc=Information%20related%20to%20Pearl%20Harbor
 http://www.rationalrevolution.net/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm
 http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdrknew.html


<<"and almost started a nuclear war in the Cuban missile crisis."

Interesting analysis. I thought the Soviets' might have had a hand in it.>>

Indeedy they did. Of course, it takes TWO arrogantly omnicidal superpowers to tango, it is often said. One mad russion plus one Democrat president possibly equals a nuclear winter for the next million years. All it takes is one peace-minded human to stand down in their idiotic game of chicken. One would THINK that a "peace-loving" Democrat would do such a thing. Not a chance, as history suggests.


<<"A product of Clinton's reign was the accusation that Iraq was 'stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.'"

Well, but, they were. That much is a matter of public record. UNSCOM destroyed Al-Hakam, a biological weapons production facility, in 1996. Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument, though.>>

OK I won't. Of course Iraq was stockpiling WMDs, as we all know. Everyone knew that French, Russian, and American companies provided much of the materials and talent to Iraq. Rumsfeld himself met with Saddam, and the US stood by their CIA asset head of state while he committed the worse attacks on his own people he ever did. The destruction of those facilities didn't stop Clinton from restating those freshly-false accusations long after Saddam had no WMDs whatsoever.


<<"as well as Clinton's formal US policy of 'regime change' in Iraq."

Of course, Clinton's policy didn't involve 150,000 U.S. troops. I have my own formal policy of regime change regarding a large swath of the world -- Turkmenistan, North Korea, Sudan, the United States to name a few -- but I don't have a formal policy of invasion and occupation.>>

You're right: in the "kinder, gentler" wars that Democrats wage, Clinton could kill over 1.5 million Iraqi civilians through UN-rubberstamped sanctions. It's a good thing that the UN can be counted on as a figleaf for "democracy" and US imperialism, as always. Clinton killed far more Iraqis than Dubya ever hoped to off. Who needs invasion and occupation when you have systematic starving, denial of medecines/vaccines/antibiotics, and hundreds of thousands of bombing runs over the two-third portion of Iraq known as the "no-fly zone"? Thanks, Clinton! Go Democrats! Of course, invading and occupying are definitely part of the Democrats lexicon also. See every war the Democrats have dragged the US into for more evidence. That is the magic of the Democrat party warmonger, also called "cruise missile liberal" because of the one-sidedness of such conflicts, such as waged in the Balkans. What a Democratic party political victory to blow up major civilian population centers without risking a single precious US stormtrooper's life!


<<"i.e. racist roundups, domestic spying, and other repressive measures aimed mostly against labor, immigrants, and non-white people."

Yes, I think that's what they had in mind.>>

They probably did, given that it was a compliant, obedient Democrat party majority that passed Bush's draconian PATRIOT act. Bush couldn't have done any of what he did without the spineless and frightened, hence dangerous Democrat politicians.

Okay 28.Jun.2004 01:31

James

"But WHY was the US was bombed, James? Why put provocations aside? The US had put intentioanlly provocative sanctions on Japan, sanctions meant to starve Japan from its steady supply of industrial resources."

Okay, I'll bite. The U.S. sanctions were provocative. How awful that the United States didn't sit idly by during the Rape of Nanking. How unfortunate that the U.S. didn't supply Nazi-allied Imperial Japan with the oil and other resources necessary to support their aggression. A blockade is a provocation, to be sure, but not entirely uncalled for. War war not the inevtiable result, which is apparently your implication.

I've not read the book you recommend, but please forgive me if I'm reluctant, having already taken your book advice on subject in the past. I did, in fact, read Saving Private Power, which informed me of little I didn't already know regarding World War II. In one of the book's many strange tangents, however, I did learn a little bit about radiation poisoning, as I recall.

"Indeedy they did...One mad russion plus one Democrat president possibly equals a nuclear winter for the next million years...One would THINK that a "peace-loving" Democrat would do such a thing. Not a chance, as history suggests. "

Yes, I guess that's correct. Happily though, no such nuclear winter occurred. Given your own equation, and your admission that the Soviet's were involved, I think that proves that the particular Democrat in power was a peace loving man.

"The destruction of those facilities didn't stop Clinton from restating those freshly-false accusations long after Saddam had no WMDs whatsoever."

I think members of the Clinton Administration would tell you those weapons still existed in 1998, and that they bombed all the sites which they suspected of containing banned weapons. It's not so cut and dry a fact as Al-Hakam, but neither is the flip side.

I don't pretend to know the truth.

"You're right: in the 'kinder, gentler' wars that Democrats wage, Clinton could kill over 1.5 million Iraqi civilians through UN-rubberstamped sanctions."

I would suggest that "let die" might be a better description of the events than "killed." (In some instances, anyway). I won't defend the sanctions though. Remember, my position is not that the Democrats are saints, or even that they are the good guys, but rather that they are not more warring as a party than the Republicans.

"That is the magic of the Democrat party warmonger, also called 'cruise missile liberal' because of the one-sidedness of such conflicts, such as waged in the Balkans. What a Democratic party political victory to blow up major civilian population centers without risking a single precious US stormtrooper's life!"

Except, U.S. troops were deployed in Bosnia and Kosovo. It wasn't just a cruise missile war. Troops were not on the front lines of a war, perhaps, but they were deployed, and some have died. Not that such machoisms make much of a difference.

Interestingly, the citizens of Pristina named a major thoroughfare after Bill Clinton following the conflict. I wonder if Fallujahns will do the same for George Bush?

As if the US gave a damn 28.Jun.2004 03:56

GRINGO STARS

<<How awful that the United States didn't sit idly by during the Rape of Nanking.>>

As if the US gave a damn about anything but themselves. The US didn't even care about the holocaust. WWII was just a re-dividing of the world amongst greedy superpowers, providing pithy casus belli for those who actually believe the words of politicians. The US saw a grand opportunity and grabbed a larger portion of the world, and profited accordingly. Nanking or the German holocaust had nothing to do with it, other than convenient propaganda for the cannon fodder soldiers.

<<Given your own equation ['One mad russion plus one Democrat president possibly equals a nuclear winter for the next million years'], and your admission that the Soviet's were involved, I think that proves that the particular Democrat in power was a peace loving man.>>

On the contrary, given that Democrat Kennedy did everything possible to heighten tensions, while it was the Russians who backed down, we can thank Kennedy for nothing, and the Russians for showing some common decency in the Cuban missile crisis.

<<I would suggest that "let die" might be a better description of the events than "killed.">>

Although I'm glad you don't defend the sanctions, "killed" is much more apt than "let die". When you deprive someone of food and medicine, you are not being passive, as in "letting" someone do anything - you are forcing them to die.

<<Except, U.S. troops were deployed in Bosnia and Kosovo. It wasn't just a cruise missile war.>>

It mostly was. And the US graciously let other nations who needed the money to send their countries' troops in for UN "peacekeeping".

<<Interestingly, the citizens of Pristina named a major thoroughfare after Bill Clinton following the conflict. I wonder if Fallujahns will do the same for George Bush?>>

Given the new puppet president for Iraq, I'd say Fallujans will undoubtedly do the same for their brave "liberator" Dubya. Or rather, their "leader" will do it for them.

Given the leadership roles that Democrats have played in leading the US into war repeatedly throughout the US's history, I can't see how you would argue that the Democrats are any more peaceful than Republicans.

 http://www.isreview.org/issues/26/democrats_war.shtml
 http://www.isreview.org/issues/33/dems&war.shtml

To Democrats 28.Jun.2004 11:00

former sometimes democrat voter

To all democrats who engaged in or supported this subversive anti-democratic tactic at the Nader convention:

GO FUCK YOURSELF! I will never vote for a democrat again.

Sincerely,

A radical voter who sometimes supported democrats

PS. Piss off too!

To "former, sometimes always a fool" in the 28.Jun.2004 12:06

p

post directly above... It doesn't bait me when you pout off from the democratic party telling everyone to fuck themselves. You're a bitter childish person to label millions of people from the actions of a few and think that YOU personally have so much power that the rest of us are going to go weeping. Do what you want, vote for who you want, but the pitiful lashing out is ridiculous.

To p 28.Jun.2004 12:26

former sometimes democrat voter

Your response is typical of democrats: condescending, patronizing, insulting, and pompous. You and the likes of you are the reason the democratic party will continue to fail.

PS. Your response really cracked me up. Thanks.

Imperial America 28.Jun.2004 16:46

James

"As if the US gave a damn about anything but themselves. The US didn't even care about the holocaust. WWII was just a re-dividing of the world amongst greedy superpowers, providing pithy casus belli for those who actually believe the words of politicians. The US saw a grand opportunity and grabbed a larger portion of the world, and profited accordingly."

Interesting. I thought America and its allies liberated those holocaust camps. I also have this silly notion that hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrated to America during the war in Europe. I guess I got it wrong, though.

Also, I didn't realize America had grabbed a larger portion of the world. I was under the impression that the Phillipines, Japan, Germany and other areas occupied by the Americans were given sovereignty and independence. True, the governments are rather pro-American today, which is a benefit to America. But the citizens of those country voted for those governments.

"On the contrary, given that Democrat Kennedy did everything possible to heighten tensions, while it was the Russians who backed down, we can thank Kennedy for nothing, and the Russians for showing some common decency in the Cuban missile crisis."

I guess I'm just all wrong about history. I hadn't realized Democrat Kennedy bombed those nuclear weapons sites. I thought he had taken the restrained, cautious, but firm approach of maintaining a nuclear blockade of Cuba. I hadn't realized he had done everything possible to heighten tensions. Please forgive my ignorance.

"Although I'm glad you don't defend the sanctions, 'killed' is much more apt than 'let die'. When you deprive someone of food and medicine, you are not being passive, as in 'letting' someone do anything - you are forcing them to die."

Except we weren't depriving them of food and medicine. We (and most other nations) just weren't selling it to them. Not selling something is not exactly the same thing as depriving.

Still, anyone with a little human compassion would not have supported those sanctions.

I look forward to George W. Bush Boulevard in Falljuah.

I Don't Know James 28.Jun.2004 18:37

Pull Your Head Out First

You wrote: "Please forgive my ignorance." I have to give you credit for your humility, but that is a formidable request none the less.

s/nuclear blockade/naval blockade 28.Jun.2004 18:41

James

I'm sure you undestood.

"I have to give you credit for your humility, but that is a formidable request none the less."

Thanks, without Indymedia and the collective wealth of historical knowledge contained on these pages, I think the world would be destined to repeat its past mistakes.

James 28.Jun.2004 19:40

GRINGO STARS

You claim to have read SAVING PRIVATE POWER, in which the myth that the German holocaust was a motivating factor in going to WWII was debunked. And yes, America did grab a larger portion of the world. Remember all those permanent US military bases established in Germany? They're still there. The US truly became a world superpower after the WWII power grab. Go Democrats!

Kennedy wasn't budging. Not budging is not the most peaceful thing to do. Not budging implies a threat if the Russians moved forward. It remains a fact that it was the Russians, not the Democrat Kennedy, who cherished peace more than gangsterish "credibility" for his nation. Go Democrats!

Depriving ANYONE (including an entire nation) of food and medicine is precisely what the UN and US did to Iraq. BY FORCE. We WERE depriving them. Actively. And we didn't allow any food or medicine to get to them. In any capacity whatsoever. Nothing got through to Iraqis because of the military force of the UN and the US. The US forcibly starved and literally killed over 1.5 million Iraqi civilians, no matter how you try to portray it. It was through Clinton's actions that those Iraqis died. If clinton hadn't forced the sanctions through the UN, the sanctions would never have happened and Iraq would have had food and medicine. Go Democrats!

and more about Clinton 29.Jun.2004 07:46

imperialism sucks

And Clinton was on 60 minutes (according to my mom) saying he would have gone to war in Iraq, too -- only later. He has also said he fully supports Bush and that the democrats support this war. Democrats are gullible and blinded when it comes to their own party, and it's entirely irresponsible and unethical. They literally let their party get away with war-murder.

The egregious sanctions conducted by the US under clinton, as well as the sporadic bombing campaigns in Iraq were not only preparations for this campaign, but they were also war. Democrats, blood is on your hands. How hypocritical to point fingers at everyone but yourself, when democrats are entirely guilty for this imperialist war.

the worst thing about democrats is that they are hypocrits and they always "accept" a democratic war. If it's got the democrat stamp on it, they don't question the morality of it. They'll protest a Bush war and call Bush evil, but they'll then admire Clinton as a great man. Is it so hard to see that both parties cooperate on these wars? Politics is no place to be ignorant, and politicians are no people to admire. Americans need to grow up and act like adults, instead of ignorant children to the paternalistic two-party system.

Onthe 29.Jun.2004 08:57

Mark

As well as the economic sanctions, the US bombed Iraq approximately 600 times during Clintons reign. How many people did those missiles and bombs kill directly? How many maimed and injured? How much damage to infrastructure?

Imagine if somewhere on the west coast a bomb or missile struck 1.5 times every week, year after year. Imagine how this would affect the psychological state of the people. Add to that the constant pressure of the economic sanctions.

Clinton authorized the torture of the entire country of Iraq.

True enough 29.Jun.2004 13:06

James

You're all arguing a separate point. I don't deny that Americans (and by extension our leaders) are a violent people. My sole argument is that the Democratic Party is not more warring than the Republican Party.

Also, during the Clinton Administration, most of those strikes were proportional response attacks against military targets which were actively targetting US/British planes. It wasn't until the Bush Administration that the policy of proportional response was changed, and we began bombing passive infrastructure in response to the targetting of our aircraft.

Furthermore, the very idea of the no-fly zone was created by a Republican presidency.

Remember, noone is arguing that the Democrats are peace-loving pacifist hippies. I'm only arguing against the idea that the "Democrats are more pro-war than Republicans," as Gringo stated.

Stack up Democrat war dead versus Republican war dead 29.Jun.2004 17:18

GRINGO STARS

...and the first thing you will notice is that no matter which war party brought them into the war to die, both stacks are equally dead. The second thing you will find is that the Democrat war dead pile is much higher. The wars, numerically speaking, as well as how many people died in those wars, are more often brought to the US by way of Democrats. Look it up. Compare the numbers. Even when a Republican started beef with a new enemy, the Democrats far outshone the Republicans in enemy body count (for example - the Iraq shit-uation which George The First started, has Clinton killing over 1.5 million Iraqi civilians with his siege tactics of softening Iraq up for Dubya's actual invasion).

The facts don't even point to equality in warmongering. Democrats ARE the more warmongering of the two. How many world wars did the Republicans bring the US into? None. Look up all the wars, James. Do the research and tell me what you find. Democrats are better at warmongering because they put the middle-class activists (those activists with the most time and mopney to spare) to sleep because of the myth that "Democrats want peace." It is time to put harmful myths to rest.

The wars 29.Jun.2004 23:11

James

"How many world wars did the Republicans bring the US into? None. Look up all the wars, James."

Well, the Civil War, arguably the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, Ronald Reagan's various mini-wars, the Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan, and the War in Iraq.

Considerably more than none.

That compares with the Spanish American War, the Mexican American War, the Philipines American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War on the Democratic side. (As I remember it, anyway. Please forgive any omissions).

Of course, prior to WWII, the parties were so significnatly different that it's not useful to compare them. Even Harry Truman is hardly comparable to modern day Democrats.

It's also not fair to merely count bodies. Some wars have more worth or cause than others.

I don't believe that you actually believe the Democrats are presently more warring than the Republicans. You'd have to be willfully ignorant.

Go Badnarik!

presently, the Democrats are more bloodthirsty than Republicans 30.Jun.2004 00:17

GRINGO STARS

Look at the Democrat dead in Iraq: over 1.5 million, to Republican dead: almost 300,000 including George The First's big hit.

The fact remains: Kerry complained that Bush didn't send ENOUGH American troops to Iraq. Kerry complained that not ENOUGH western countries had their hands in the neo-colonial pie of Iraq. It's there in black and white. Bush wants 20,000 additional active duty soldiers overseas. Kerry wants 40,000. Those are current platform promises. What evidence to you have that the Democrats want peace more than Republicans? BOTH parties are war parties, they differ only on the point of the STYLE with which they will rule their world empire. Yet, Democrats have brought the US into more and worse wars.

By the way, there were only two world wars, in the meaning that "world war" is generally understood. And the Democrats DID bring the US into both of them.

Dead and Killed 30.Jun.2004 13:07

James

You keep saying that the Democrats killed 1.5 million in Iraq. It's not true. We let them die. There was no blockade of Iraq. All nations were free to decide on their own whether or not to sell goods to Iraq. Some nations did. Jordan, for example, did not follow the sanctions and purchased oil from Iraq outside the UN's Oil for Food program. With the proceeds of those sales, Iraq was able to buy products from nations which chose to sell to Iraq. (Though the actuality of it was that Hussein's regime and favored friends were able to buy products from foreign nations).

It is a fact that the sanctions led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis. Without the sanctions, those needed food stuffs and supplies would have been available to Iraq. But that does not mean the sanctions killed Iraqis. Lack of food and medicine did. There is no natural right to commerce. It is immoral, but it is a passive immorality.

Similarly, when many millions of Africans die of malnourishment or diseases for which there are cures, we have not killed them. We let them die.

In the '91 war, the Americans bombed many civilian infrastructure targets, like water treatment facilities and irrigation canals. That had the quality of active immorality -- but it should be noted that that was at the hands of a Republican president. (But why split hairs). To my knowledge, similar targets were not struck in Clinton's '98 bombing adventure.

This is important to the discussion at hand. Let die and killed are morally distinct. It might not matter to the dead, but it matters to the argument at hand.

Yes there WAS an embargo on Iraq 30.Jun.2004 18:53

GRINGO STARS

James, you are boldly rewriting hgistory here, and you have no evidence whatsoever for it, other than some kind of partisan loyalty to Democrats? help me understand you. What are your sources? Mine include the UN itslef, who ran the embargo.

Read up. The Security Council, not Iraqis and not the benevolent invisible hand of an invisible market, decided what came into and left Iraq for 11 and a half years. Before that, people did not die in remotely the numbers they did during the sanctions.
 http://www.dawn.com/2003/06/12/int13.htm
 http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0402c.asp
 http://www.rense.com/general18/iraqsaysUSledsanctions.htm
 http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/embargo/ComprehensiveSanctions.htm

Sanctions were active. They were deliberate.

I won't debate "natural rights" with you, since you seem to equate certain policies that kill versus other policies that kill with relative moralities due to the speed in which the victims die. Such logic cannot be addressed with reason.

Clinton did, in fact, bomb the civilian infrastructure throughout the sanctions.

Comparing the malnutrition to US and UN-enforced sanctions is a poor analogy. The malnutrition most of Africa suffers from is definitely fallout from the colonial period, yet it is not kept in place WITH FORCE by OFFICIAL MANDATES and POLICIES from CENTRAL AUTHORITIES such as the US and the UN. The sanctions were a punitive measure specifically designed to starve and weaken and kill off a population that belonged to a disobedient ruler.

An embargo is passive 30.Jun.2004 20:46

James

I never claimed there were no sanctions. Of course there were sanctions. What I claimed is that there was no military blockade of Iraq, or threat of military force, or any other military or police action to enforce a siege or blockade of the country.

Independent nations were free to make independent decisions regarding the sale of goods to Iraq. The reality is that most states are members of the United Nations and are treaty bound to honor sanctions. But that still enforces nothing. And member states like Jordan decided on their own not to follow the sanctions regime. (While some non-member states, like then non-member Switzerland decided to honor the sanctions).

There were no U.S. troops there to enforce a siege. Therefore, it was a passive action. As in, we let them die.

If I grow food and you make art, and we trade together, and then one day I decide to stop trading with you even though you need that food to live, and you eventually die of starvation, I hardly think I killed you.

It's a nuanced difference, but morally important. To my mind, anyway.

"The sanctions were a punitive measure specifically designed to starve and weaken and kill off a population that belonged to a disobedient ruler."

While I'm never sure what governments hope to accomplish with blanket sanctions, I suspect your explanation may be just a wee bit off the mark.

"embargo" means enforced blockade 30.Jun.2004 23:42

GRINGO STARS

There were NO nations that defied the UN sanctions. None. In all I have ever read about the sanctions. If you have sources that say otherwise, I would love to hear about it. But all evidence points to an intentional siege, which is an ancient and standard military practice. The ssanctions, or we could call it the siege, was phase two in an ongoing campaign against Iraq. We are in stage 4 now: the corporate takeover/occupation phase, which was the goal all along.

I would be interested in learning your sources for what you believe about the sanctions.

I think 01.Jul.2004 00:30

James

...You might trust this source:

 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/iraq-j12_prn.shtml

"Jordan, for its part, is economically dependent on the smuggling of Iraqi oil across its borders, a practice that Washington's 'smart sanctions' were designed to curtail. Jordan's prime minister, Ali Abu Ragheb, sent a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warning that cooperation with the US plan by Jordan 'might very well threaten its social, economic and political stability.'"

Like I said, Jordan is a UN member country treaty-bound to honor UN embargoes, but the reality of the situation was that they did not, in any meaningful sense anyway.

Most countries did honor the sanctions, but that doesn't change the morality. Whether one country decides not to sell goods to Iraq or all countries decide not to sell goods to Iraq, the morality is the same.

I learn something new everyday 02.Jul.2004 16:40

GRINGO STARS

Thank Gawd for Jordan, otherwise even more Iraqis would have died.

No wonder Jordan is on Bush's 60-nation hit-list of the to-be-attacked.