Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Good American
I joined the American Legion a few years back. As a veteran of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, I was eligible to do so for some time but always hesitated, perhaps out of a sense of trying to deny that my days as an active-duty combatant were long past. Every year, on Memorial Day, my fellow firefighters and I would gather in the basement of the local American Legion hall before we paraded before the town we protect. I would look around at the uniforms and faded patches and ribbons worn by the veterans who joined us in the hall and realize that they, too, were deserving of a great deal more support than simply being wheeled out once a year to participate in a parade. So I sent in my application and was accepted.
One of the fringe benefits of membership in the American Legion is a subscription to its monthly journal, The American Legion, billed as "the magazine for a strong America." It quickly became apparent that The American Legion magazine was a sounding board for many holding quite militaristic and jingoistic opinions based on their rather limited personal experiences, many dating back to World War II. The war in Iraq, together with the overarching "global war on terror," seems to be viewed by many in the American Legion as an extension of their own past service, and much effort is made to connect World War II and the Iraq conflict as part and parcel of the same ongoing American "liberation" of the world's oppressed.
It's a shame for these Legionnaires that the Iraqis couldn't have turned out to be blond, blue-eyed Germans who looked like us, and whose women could be wooed with chocolate and nylon stockings by the noble American liberator and occupier. Or, short of that, passive Japanese, who freely submitted their women to the massage parlors and barracks of their American conquering heroes while their men rebuilt a shattered society. The simplistic approach of many of the American Legion's most hawkish advocates for the ongoing disaster in Iraq seems to be drawn from a selective memory which seeks to impose a carefully crafted past experience dating back to the last "good war" (i.e., World War II), expunged of all warts and blemishes, onto the current situation in Iraq in a manner which strips away all reality.
It turns out that the Iraqis aren't like German or Japanese people at all, but rather a fiercely independent (if overly complex) nation deeply resentful of a so-called liberation which has brought them nothing but pain and agony, primarily at the hands of those who have, unbidden, "freed" them from their past. The fact that the Iraqis resent the ongoing American occupation, and choose to express this resentment through violent resistance instead of submissive passivity, is in turn resented by many of the Legion's membership. "War has been declared on the United States by those who are envious of our freedom, and they won't stop until we are under their heel," writes one Legionnaire in a letter published in the May 2007 issue of "the magazine for a strong America." The juxtaposition of Iraq with those who perpetrated the events of Sept. 11, 2001, implied in this statement is reflective of a level of ignorance that boggles the mind. Iraq never declared war on the United States, the salesmanship exhibited in our promotion of "freedom" in Iraq leaves nothing to envy, and the Iraqis will stop resisting when we leave their country. Don't try telling that to the blustery former Marine who authored the letter in question, however. He, like the majority of the Legion, is tired of hearing about "Bush's war."
"Death, Not in Vain" is the title of the feature article of the May 2007 issue. The story revolves around how the parents of one Marine who died in Iraq seek to define their son's sacrifice. "People may not agree with the reason we went to war," the mother of the fallen Marine is quoted as saying, "but while our troops are over there, we can't be telling the world what they are doing is wrong. If we say we support them, we have to support what they are doing." Of course, the nature of the "disagreement" surrounding the Iraq war is never fully articulated in the article. There is no mention made of the discredited claims by President Bush and other war advocates about weapons of mass destruction or connections between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaida. Instead, the reader is told repeatedly about how fallen American service members gave their lives for America and a "free Iraq." Quoting their fallen sons, the families of Marines killed in Iraq speak proudly of bold statements such as "We need to be there, but it's going to be hard, and it is going to be a long time." Yet they never explore the actual "need" cited.
"We've got to support the troops and the mission," the article quotes one family member as saying. "The two are dependent on each other." I'm all for supporting the troops. But blind support for a mission of such nebulous origin? This is a much different matter, one requiring more introspective investigation. I don't think it was the magazine's intent, but a foundation of such an investigation was laid in the very same issue. In his article "Minimizing the Holocaust," Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz slams those who seek to dismiss Nazi Germany's effort to commit genocide against Europe's Jews. It is a very difficult article to digest, not because of the legitimate premise that those who seek to deny or minimize the Holocaust are deserving of condemnation, but rather for the ease with which the moralistic Dershowitz explains the bombing of Dresden in 1945 as a "legitimate act of belligerent reprisal for the relentless bombings of civilians in London and elsewhere," or the dismissive waving-off of the systematic starvation of 1 million German prisoners of war by the United States after the surrender of Germany as an inconvenient result of a "food crisis across Europe, a result of the continent's decimation," and being a "far cry from the 6 million innocents who perished at the hands of the Nazis with absolutely no military justification."
I would be curious to know how Dershowitz would judge how the families of German soldiers deployed in combat operations should have viewed the Second World War. What if a mother of a young panzer grenadier fighting on the Russian front was to say, "The troops are the mission, and we cannot separate our support for either"? Should blind support for the fighting men likewise have blinded the families of German soldiers to the illegitimacy of their cause? Certainly Dershowitz would favor the "good German," one who would have sought to deny facilitation of the Holocaust by refusing to support the war which empowered it. Would he so favor the "good American," one driven by a sense of moral responsibility to speak out against acts perpetrated in Iraq and elsewhere by American fighting forces ostensibly in support of freedom, but in reality an extension of illegitimate policies reeking of global hegemony and American empire? Or would he choose to explain away Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, the CIA's secret gulag of torture as "legitimate acts of bellicose reprisals" for the events of Sept. 11, 2001? In Dershowitz's tortured legal brain the events at Haditha and elsewhere, including the Marine massacre of civilians in Afghanistan, likewise assume legitimacy in this newfound legal defense of "legitimate bellicose reprisal."
In the end, Dershowitz's opinions are irrelevant. The disturbing reality, however, is that his mind-set is not limited to the soap box he enjoys as a teacher of jurisprudence at one of America's finest institutions of higher learning but rather is increasingly embraced by American service members deployed in harm's way. A recent U.S. Army survey shows that some 40 percent of American soldiers and Marines support the use of torture as a means of gathering intelligence. Some 66 percent would refuse to turn in a fellow soldier or Marine for abusive actions against civilians, and less than 50 percent believe that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect. Ten percent of those surveyed actually admitted to abusing civilians and their property for no reason whatsoever. While acknowledging that this mind-set is at complete odds with official policy concerning the conduct of military personnel in a combat zone, the Pentagon did its best to portray the survey results as clear evidence that there was, in fact, "good leadership" in place, since the desires of the troops had not manifested themselves in large-scale acts of abuse or torture. True, but the survey is also clear evidence that when such abuse or torture does occur, it is not the result of a few "bad apples," so to speak, but instead indicative of a trend that could easily spiral out of control on any given day.
The survey results should not come as a surprise to anyone. The innumerable home movies shot in Iraq and Afghanistan, some immortalized on YouTube, some in documentary film, some simply shared with friends and family, all show the same disturbing trend. Whether it is a Marine singing the lyrics to the self-written "Hadji Girl," or soldiers speaking disparagingly about "ragheads" or "sand niggers," or any other dehumanizing remark imaginable, the reality is our troops aren't in Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. We're there to kill them and we do an extraordinarily good job. The British government recently certified as "sound" the methodologies used by the study published in the medical journal The Lancet which estimates the number of deaths (as of 2006) that can be directly attributed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its aftermath at 655,000. If anything, this number has grown by leaps and bounds since the study was conducted.
One can point to sectarian violence as a major contributor to this total, but as an American I tend to reflect on the American-on-Iraqi violence, such as the barely mentioned deaths of Iraqi children in a recent air-delivered bomb attack against suspected Iraqi insurgents. I'm sure Dershowitz and those American service members desensitized to their own acts of depravity can explain the deaths of these innocents as "legitimate acts of bellicose reprisal." I call it murder, even if these deaths occurred in time of war.
Every mother and father of every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine deployed in Iraq should reflect on this as well. "Little Johnny" may write home about what he says is a "just war" that "needs to be fought," but before one embraces the words of someone in harm's way in desperate need of self-justification for the things he has seen and done, re-examine the area of operations your loved one is serving in or, worse, has perished in. Are they "living among the Iraqi people," as some would have you believe? Or are they sequestered away in base camps or fire bases, forced to conduct patrols out among a population that for the most part hates them and wants them gone from Iraq? Does "Johnny" himself call the Iraqis ragheads? Does he give a frustrated kick at the Iraqi male he just apprehended, not because of any crime or offense committed, but simply because he was there? Does he point his rifle and scream expletives at the mother or wife or daughter who cries out for a loved one? Does he break a lamp or table to emphasize his point? Or does he do worse, allowing his emotions and frustration to break free as he beats, shoots or rapes those he now hates more than anything else in the world? Freedom? Get real. The mission of our military in Iraq is survival, and that is no military mission at all.
The war in Iraq is as immoral a conflict as the United States has ever been involved in. Past wars were fought in a day and age where information was not readily available on the totality of issues surrounding a given conflict. One could excuse citizens if they were not equipped with the knowledge and information necessary to empower them to speak out against bad policy. Not so today. For someone today to proclaim ignorance as an excuse for inactivity is as morally and intellectually weak an argument as can be imagined. The truth about those who claim they simply "didn't know" lies in their own lack of commitment to a strong America, one founded on principles and values worth fighting for, and one where every American is committed to the defense of the same. Ignorance is bad citizenship. In this day and age, bad citizenship carries ramifications beyond the environs of our local communities. Given America's dominant role in the world, bad American citizenship has a way of manifesting itself globally.
I'm not calling the parents of those who have fallen in Iraq and who continue to voice their blind adherence to the Bush administration's policies in Iraq bad citizens. I understand their need to come to grips with their loss the best way possible, which is to try and extract some meaning from the sacrifice their family has had to make. But I draw the line when these families allow their suffering to translate into blanket suffering for others. As The American Legion magazine quoted one such individual who advocated in favor of the Bush administration: "Are more servicemen and women returning the way my son did, in a casket, as a result of our words and actions? I believe the answer is yes. The perception of a weak American military, should we lose, will make our enemy stronger than we ever imagined. Because we don't want to be at war any more doesn't mean the war is over."
Thus, in a blind effort to find meaning in her son's death, this mother is willing to inflict suffering on other American families. This may sound like a harsh indictment, but she indicts herself. The same mother concludes the article with the following quote: "I told President Bush last summer that the biggest insult anyone could hand me would be to pull the troops out before the job is complete. If we're going to quit, at that point I'll have to ask, 'Why did my son die?' " The question she should have been asking long before his death was, of course, "Why might my son die?" That she failed to do so, and now seeks to send others off to their death in a cause not worthy of a single American life, is where she and those of her ilk stop receiving my sympathy and understanding.
The American Legion magazine, in its May 2007 issue, belittles those who speak out against the war. "While our forefathers gave us the right and privilege to challenge our leaders," one father of a fallen Marine writes, "the manner and method that some people have chosen to use at this time only emboldens the enemy." Reading between the lines, freedom of speech is treasonous if you question the motives and actions of those who got us involved in the Iraq war. Alan Dershowitz can only wish that there had been more "good Germans" speaking out about the policies of Adolf Hitler before the Holocaust became reality.
I yearn for a time when "good Americans" will be able to stop and reverse equally evil policies of global hegemony achieved through pre-emptive war of aggression. I know all too well that in this case the "enemy" will only be emboldened by our silence, since at the end of the day the "enemy" is ourselves. I can see the Harvard professor shaking an accusatory finger at me for the above statement, chiding me for creating any moral equivalency between the war in Iraq and the Holocaust. You're right, Mr. Dershowitz. There is no moral equivalency. In America today, we should have known better, since we ostensibly stand for so much more. That we have collectively failed to halt and repudiate the war in Iraq makes us even worse than the Germans.
Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including "Iraq Confidential" (Nation Books, 2005) and "Target Iran" (Nation Books, 2006)
© 2007 TruthDig.com
76 Comments so far
Show AllWhen someone attacks you with character assassinations, see if they fit the assassin.
Scott Ritter is known to be a pedophile and child abuser. That whole story was hushed up. Further, from his blantantly anti-Semitic writings, he is just another Jew hater. If he had the same words for blacks or Orientals, he would be called a racist. But in liberal bullshit land, to make fun of Jews and/or Israel is fine because liberals never defend Jews. In fact, most of the liberals I know are bigots and racists of the worst kind.
For Scott Ritter, who was paid off by Saddam Hussein to do his bidding, to make any allegation and call anyone a Nazi is the height of utter hilarity.
Ritter is a sicko. End of argument.
Scott, It wasn't just 6 million innocents who died at the hands of the Nazis. It was TWELVE MILLION, only half of whom were Jews.
Another curious statistic. Since it seems like perhaps a quarter of my friends are Jewish, I presumed there were a lot of them, but what I read is that the whole world only has 16 million of them. I was astonished. Fewer than one quarter of one percent of the people on the planet are Jewish.
My 225 fighter pilot missions in WWII & Korea have left memories of strafing/bombing attacks that I now see more as testosterone laden "Do or Die for Hog Ranch High" hijinks than as true war winning efforts.
Hindsight is often uncomfortable.
Today I'll not be a member of any veteran organization; my litany is Impeach, Impeach, Impeach. Won't happen. Everyone is too cowardly and too brain washed to see that it's our ONLY WAY TO GLOBAL REDEMPTION OR MORAL CARTHARSIS.
You have my admiration Scott Ridder.
In "The Second Promise" ,Jack D Adams ,(Iron Star,1999)the poems "Your Son My friend" and "No more nice Guy" give a short poetic answer of the mutation from Boy Scout to Avenging Killer during the Vietnam war.
The other question is why the USA loves war so much especially since that country has not WON one war since 1945.(Korea with an occupying force of 45,000 troops since 1945?Were Panama and Grenada wars?).It has not won it's war on poverty(1965),war on crime,war on drugs..
Why go to war if you never win???Is therere another way.??
> you still think Iraq's mysterious weapons went to Syria. That's hilarious. Did the Easter Bunny fetch them away,
Yes, I think the weapons are in Syria. No, it wasn't the Easter Bunny. It was Santa Claus
> mwayne and Mr T are trying to educate people on this site that this is a good and just war and they aren't here to hear what anyone else has to say. You can tell by the postings if people come with an open or closed mind.
I will always listen to what others say. You think this is an unjust/immoral war, and nothing I say will change your mind. Who has the open or closed mind?
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth.
Col. Jessep: You can't handle the truth.
Scott Ritter is a hypocrite who suffers from some synaptic misfire & cognitive dissonance, which has resulted in some form of memory loss.
In 1998 - Scott Ritter resigned as weapons inspector of UNSCOM.
He expressed in his letter of resignation the belief that the UN and the Clinton administration were NOT doing enough to disarm Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Quoting Ritter: "The Security Council's refusal to effectively respond to Iraq's actions, and now the current decision by the Security Council and the Secretary General, backed at least implicitly by the United States, to seek a "diplomatic" alternative to inspection-driven confrontation with Iraq, a decision which constitutes a surrender to the Iraqi leadership that has succeeded in thwarting the stated will of the United Nations"
But Ritter wasn't alone in his condemnation of an impotent administration that failed to take any real action against Saddam, in Feb 2000 an editorial appeared in The Boston Globe stating that " Saddam Hussein's continuing defiance of United Nations resolutions mandating inspection and dismantling of his weapons of mass destruction represents the most flagrant and protracted failure of President Clinton's foreign policy."
They also wrote "In seven years, Clinton has tried to ignore, obscure, and misrepresent the threat from Saddam. Clinton's so-called containment policy has done nothing more than deter Saddam from invading his neighbors again.But that policy has not obliged the Iraqi despot to honor the UN's disarmament resolutions,has not protected the Iraqi people from the dictator's killers and tortures, and has not defended Americans against terrorists who may be acting with the veiled and deniable support of a vengeful Saddam."
"Saddam must be forced to permit weapons inspections or BE REMOVED FROM POWER. The failure to contain him should be a central issue in the current presidential campaign." (emphasis is mine)
Two yers earlier,in 1998, Hoagland of the Washington Post wrote this shortly after Scott Ritter's resignation:(emphasis is mine)
"Clinton and Albright need to reexamine the tactics they have chosen. The present approach ignores THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT RITTER makes: Saddam was allowed to avoid complete destruction in 1991 by promising the world to give up all his prohibited weapons and to prove he had done so.
Failure to enforce such a commitment on Saddam, the world's most flagrant user and hoarder of the new weapons of terror, will destroy any hope of effective international nonproliferation. It will seriously undermine U.N. credibility with the American public. Failure on Iraq will push the United States onto a solitary, unpredictable and expensive path outside the United Nations to confront these dangers. No one should want that."
Bill Clinton & Dems got us into this mess in Iraq --- Scott Ritter knew what was coming and resigned because HE felt Clinton & the UN were surrendering to Saddam.
For Scott Ritter to NOW claim that Americans --including those in the military and their families --who support a war that did in fact remove Saddam from power ---are worse than Germans who supported the Nazis in World War II, speaks loudly and unequivocally to his hypocrisy, his propensity to lie,(he was either lying then or he is lying now) and to his cowardice.
In 1998 Scott Ritter understood the decisions made back then by the UN and supported by the US constituted surrender to Saddam.
Today, less than 9 years later, Scott Ritter has chosen the same course of action he condemned Americans for taking. Today, Scott Ritter has surrendered to our enemies.
For years I've been calling for a presidential ticket headed by Bill Moyers, with Scott Ritter as the vice-presidential candidate. I recall doing so on the truthout website more than once. Sooner or later most of my students hear about Scott Ritter from me. Maybe now Scott's ready for the top spot. Get into the Dem. presidential primaries, Scott. I'll donate $1,000.00. Let me know how to contact you.
Misha 'da kokuaguy.
Terran and Mark, one thing I've learned is that when people hold a belief, it's useless to argue with them. And most people believe the first thing they hear, and no facts will dislodge their belief. Look how many people continue to believe Saddham and al-Qaeda were in cahoots and that Iraq was involved with 9/11. Cheney said so, FOX News said so, so it's so.
mwayne and Mr T are trying to educate people on this site that this is a good and just war and they aren't here to hear what anyone else has to say. You can tell by the postings if people come with an open or closed mind.
Try this: mwayne and Mr T, did Saddham throw out the weapons inspectors prior to the invasion, or did President Bush tell them to get out or risk getting bombed along with the Iraqis?
Mark--
For Ritter to compare what w're doing to the German soldiers in WW2 - and thus GWB to Hitler - is appalling. We should have gone in, deposed Saddam, moved on to Syria, taken out Assad, dug up the weapons that were moved with the help of the Russians to the Bekaa Valley, and then moved on.
I guess my point is - don't go to war unless you are prepared to go to total war. No JAG, no consideration for the media, or those opposed to the war. Follow the lead of Sherman and Patton. Act like locusts, and destroy everything in your path. Oherwise, you're just jerking off with very bloody consequences.
Should we get out - yes - right after we leave Germany, Japan, and South Korea. In the meantime, we're there, the military is trying to help the Iraqis who want us there, and that's just the way it is. We will leave at some point, life will go on, and hopefully those Iraqis who are delighted that Saddam is gone will take what we've given them and run with the ball.
To mwayne, 4:57: You extensively quote Ritter's letter from 1998 in which he alleged that Iraq was not cooperating adequately with the weapons inspectors. What's your point? How does that relate to what Ritter has written above? Do you deny that Iraq disarmed itself subsequent to Ritter's August 1998 letter and prior to the 2003 invasion? Is your point that the USA was right to have invaded Iraq? Is your point that the USA is right to continue its occupation of Iraq? You accuse us of having short memories, but who here has denied that Iraq did in fact at one time have WMD programs? The issue today is not whether or not Saddam's regime made efforts to frustrate the mission of the weapons inspectors in the past. Saddam's regime is gone, the inspections regime is over, and there are no weapons of mass destruction. The issue today is the USA's ongoing extremely bloody occupation of Iraq.
Mark Marshall
Toronto
OMG people - how quick you forget!
From Scott Ritter's Resignation Letter as an UNSCOM weapons inspector on August 26, 1998, due to his belief that the United Nations and the Clinton administration weren't doing enough to disarm Saddam Hussein and Iraq:
"Iraq has lied to the Special Commission and the world since day one concerning the true scope and nature of its proscribed programs and weapons systems. This lie has been perpetuated over the years through systematic acts of concealment. It was for the purpose of uncovering Iraq's mechanism of concealment, and in doing so gaining access to the hidden weapons, components and weapons programs, that you created a dedicated capability to investigate Iraq's concealment activities, which I have had the privilege to head. During the period of time that this effort has been underway, the Commission has uncovered indisputable proof of a systematic concealment mechanism, run by the Presidency of Iraq and protected by the Presidential security forces. This investigation has led the Commission to the door step of Iraq's hidden retained capability, and yet the Commission has been frustrated by Iraq's continued refusal to abide by its obligations under Security Council resolutions and the Memorandum of Understanding of 23 February 1998 to allow inspections, the Security Council's refusal to effectively respond to Iraq's actions, and now the current decision by the Security Council and the Secretary General, backed at least implicitly by the United States, to seek a "diplomatic" alternative to inspection-driven confrontation with Iraq, a decision which constitutes a surrender to the Iraqi leadership that has succeeded in thwarting the stated will of the United Nations."
Please separate the Jewish people from their government.
Thank you Mr. Ritter for an excellent article.
I also want to thank you for having the courage and conviction to have spoken out against this lie, from the beginning. You have been one of the lone wolfs speaking for sanity and truth throughout this whole tragic situation.
Those at the American legion that believe in this war, need to understand, what a bad barrel of apples they have been sold.
We cannot believe the mass Murdoch media, weapon of mass deception. We cannot compel our congress members to vote the way we want them to. The Democratic Party seems a paper tiger. No chance of making Scott Ritter President or even Congressperson--and if he were so made even Scott would probably succumb to the same powers everyone else does. Subversion might work.
Let us all join the War Resisters League. WAR RESISTERS LEAGUE, 339 Lafayette Street, New York, NY 10012. (212) 228-0450, fax (212) 228-6193. The people united will never be defeated. So why not unite? War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
I am in awe of Scott Ritter's willingness to tell the truth in such an unpopular forum as the American Legion. And especially to speak to the group of mothers who have lost children in Iraq, and, therefore, cannot see that their lives have been "wasted," but must rationalize that loss at for a "greater good" or "higher glory"--or whatever! I am sympathetic to the mothers! I cannot imagine losing a child in any war, but the worst of the worst would be losing a child in this terrible war in Iraq--which is senseless, useless and all about enriching already rich people--whose children will never have to fight there! So for Scott Ritter to be a "Cassandra" and speak the truth about this whole debacle is courageous indeed, and will, I suspect, earn him more indignation and name-calling than he has already endured!
I say to you, Scott Ritter, please keep speaking your truth. It gives me hope that you are willing to do so, in spite of the unpleasant consequences!!!
Dershowitz reminds me of a last years bird nest. Full of
s}{!t. America was lied to by the jews about the WMDs Saddam never had to get us to bomb Iraq. Now, with more lies they want us to bomb Iran. Iran has every right to have nuclear power. President Ahmadinejad has said he does NOT WANT the bomb. He can be believed. To bomb Israel would kill as many Muslims as it would jews. I have NEVER been lied to by a Muslim. However I am lied to MANY, MANY times every day by the jews and their media. Think about it....
The Mossad motto is "By Deception, Thou Shalt Do War"
Observer, I'm very sorry you lost your family in 1941. Don't think I'm condoning unaccceptable behavior or saying anyone should not face the consequences of their actions. I'm not saying that at all.
I was harmed as a child, and it took me a very long time to forgive the person who harmed me, but when I did, I learned that forgiveness is circular. And forgiveness doesn't mean not paying for what you do. We don't learn without consequences.
One of our problems is that if we don't approve of someone's choices or opinions, we become judgmental about them, not their choices.
Observer, I guess you mean me. I did not reprimand Scott Ritter. I did express my opinion. He's entitled to his opinion. I simply pointed out that I personally do not expect anyone to be reasonable or rational when they lose a child, and I can understand they don't want to think their child died for nothing. And however they work that out for themselves, I can understand that. Even if their thinking is wrongheaded, I can still feel synpathy for their loss.
Scott Ritter is one of my heroes as well, but I don't have to agree with each and every one of his viewpoints.
We spent most of 1990 in what was then still West Germany, as the Berlin Wall was coming down and, following Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, Operation Desert Shield was starting up. As Americans "on the economy", living and working among Germans, their attitudes about World War II became apparent to us as we got to know Germans of all ages and from all walks of life. It became clear that, for the most part, the older generation, the World War II generation, bore us, as Americans, no ill will. In fact, many of that generation were grateful that America had treated Germany so well after the war. The Marshall Plan and the prosperity that it brought were appreciated. In conversation one day, an older fellow mentioned that he had been incarcerated in an American POW camp in 1944 and 1945. He noted the change in my expression and quickly assured me that he had been happy to be in an American POW camp, saying that if he hadn't been captured by the Americans he would surely have died on the Eastern Front. Invariably, Germans of the older generation were kind and helpful to us as Americans living in their country. The post-war generations, German baby boomers if you will, often had distinctly different attitudes regarding WWII. Typically, they were deeply embarassed by what their parents' generation had done--couldn't believe they had been taken in by the Nazis! They were profoundly ashamed of the Nazi era and the crimes that characterized it. Though WWII and the Nazi era were not subjects that we brought up in conversation, the younger generation seemed significantly less friendly than the older generation, in large part I suspect because they were humiliated by their parents' generation's criminality and the devastating defeat their country suffered in WWII at the hands of the Allied military forces, mostly due, of course, to American economic and military might.
I suspect that, not entirely dissimilarly, coming generations of Americans will be ashamed of America's pre-emptive wars for oil, Israel, and national aggrandizement. Of course, some of us, like Jager above, have long ago figured out that the Vietnam war and the hundreds of thousands if not millions of South East Asian subsistence farmers who died under American bombs are not something of which we ought to be proud.
Scott Ritter's analysis is as insightful and compelling. "Ignorance is bad citizenship" indeed! But the fact that Scott is still writing, and that more and more Americans are waking up to the ugly truth about America's catastrophically failed Middle East foreign policy, not to mention a host of other problems that our elected and appointed leaders have neglected to address honestly or effectively, is encouraging. Perhaps it is not too late to salvage something of our national heritage. Perhaps we can avoid the worst. Perhaps. A determined effort to put right that which has been gotten so very, very wrong is the least we owe all those whose lives have been cast thoughtlessly, carelessly, criminally into the bloody meat grinder of war by the corporate war machine, and Scott Ritter, like other former U.S. military personnel who are standing up and speaking truth to power, is a good example of what it means to be a true American patriot.
As the mother of a wonderful son, a Marine sniper who was killed in Fallujah (2004), I commend Mr. Ritter.
I had the good fortune to hear him speak before the war officially started, and I have been protesting this war as long as possible.
Before he went over to Iraq, my son was hanging out at the house with some Marine friends. They were speculating as to whether they could actually kill someone. My son said, "I think I would see the face on our targets. I hope I don't see someone who has a mother." In other words, as long as it's not a person, it's do-able.
I don't believe that my son was killed for any reason other than wanting to do his job--but I could be wrong.
On the other hand, I have worked wherever I can to ease the transition to civilian life of those leaving the military.
I love my son very much and miss him daily.
Scott Ritter is a true patriot, I wish he would run for the U.S. Senate.
As Professor Robert Jensen states in his book "Citizens of the Empire", we are all citizens of Empire, and because of that, we choose not to know how we affect other people and other nations. Those who do choose to know, like the readers of Commondreams, we should think more seriously about joining similar minded people and protest. Massive civil non-violent dissobedience is the only way radical social change has ever been accomplished in America.
As Jenson also acknowledged, "Choosing not to know" was the second greatest crime at the Neremburg Trials. Thus we can be truly guilty by our silence.
Mr Ritter, great work and should be read by those contemplating military service under the W administration. Unfortunately, Common Dreams not popular with the large majority of those 18-25 yrs. I can understand those currently serving when they signed up before 9/11, and those caught up in the patriotic euphoria right after 9/11; but those who signed up on or after Jan 2004 should have known better or did more research. Either, they did what they thought was right, to bad Bush and this war is so wrong.
Wonderful article. Exactly the way I see it.
It's about time Americans went through the kind of thorough soul-searching which they - successfully - forced the Germans to engage in after WW2.
Also, it's about time Americans questioned their insanely oversized military, its perks and its actual mission.
And: It's about time Americans took a hard look at the fascist leanings of probably half of the American population - so far, all this seems as taboo as it would have been in Prussia in the late 19th and beginning of the 20th century. We know what this denial of realities led to in the end.
The soul-searching worked very well for the Germans, after all. After having been notorious war-mongerers for centuries, they became Europe's most pacifist nation as a result.
The Legion has been like this for a long time. When I returned from Viet Nam in 1969, my father (the vice state commander at the time)took me to the local Legion Club for dinner and drinks. Sitting at the bar with my Dad after dinner. We had numerous discusions with the membership about Viet Nam,they were horrified that this young combat veteran (CIB, Bronze Star and Purple Heart) was completely against the war and planned to join the Viet Nam Veterans against the War and I wasn't interested in the American Legion or the VFW. So almost 40 years later what's new? The magazine in 1969 was a jingoistic peace of crap and then, like now, the membership lived in fanatasy land. BTW some the the membership latere told my Dad that they felt sorry for him that I was so "unpatriotic"...bless my Dad as he told them to "F" off!
Wrote this last year,it fits. Tony
FALUJAH
Falujah: Destroyed; Faith, lost; Freedom on the march, a lie; Fascism, the marriage of corporations and government for greed, sound familiar? Fear and fury at, guess who? Future; bleak, see above.
Atrocities; Committed in our name, 10 killed to 1 left alive the one we went to liberate; Americans; Dying and getting maimed, for what? A lie and greed? Abomination; American invasion of Iraq.
Lies; From front to back and from side to side. Lost; Humanity, compassion, any right we may have had to the moral high ground. Left; Falujah destroyed and souls with it. Lesson; Shock and awe but Iraqi's didn't buy it. Leave; We should, only way to really support troops.
Used; Iraqi's and Americans, just like toilet paper. U.N, to what purpose? Upheaval; natural consequence of our actions. Uprising; Ditto, Is anyone surprised by this? That is what we would do! Usurp; The word to fit the deed.
Jesus; How could we sign on to this? Justice; Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, troops going to jail for following orders. Jihad; The word and deeds that WE put at the top of things to do for Iraqi's.
Ask; Any American what to do about Falujah, Iraq and all they know is support the troops, wish someone would tell me what that means. You troops stay over there and maybe die or be maimed in body or mind or both and we stay back here and celebrate the holidays? Ask any Iraqi and they will say get out Americans. What part of this don't we understand?
Humanity; We had been going down a slippery slope before but in Falujah we hit the fast track. Harvest; We reap what we sow. How can it be plainer than that?
This is the overseas version of what may come to pass here for there is no honesty, humanity or humility in this administration.We let them.
Tony 12/22/04
Thank you Scott Ritter for being correct on this illegal war and occupation from the get go.
This is not a war any longer, it is simply an illegal occupation.
I certainly wish that they still taught civics and true history and citizenship in high school classes. Everyone is now brainwashed into believing in "reality TV" and American Idol. What a shame, this once was a nice country at least for the rich it still is.
Ritter on target, as usual. A remarkable man, with not only the experience of war and a working knowledge of science but the great gift of a true journalist.
As for the ever more disgusting Dershowitz, would he have this apparently untouchable position were he an Arab American instead of a Jew?
Scott Ritter was the darling of CNN and American media in the late 1990s when he was saying the UN weapons inspections in Iraq should get tougher. He was on the news regularly. Now (since around 2002) that his views are "off message" and inconsistent with the dominant political narrative, Ritter is hardly ever to be seen or heard from on US mainstream media.
It would be an interesting study as to how these decisions are made: there appears to have been at least one clear point of inflection on broadcasting Ritter's views. Such a study may expose the mechanisms of media control in a decentralized and ostensibly "free" media system.
"If our leaders had demonstrated some courage back home, our soldiers wouldn't be required to exercise their courage here".
We can say with a great degree certainty that had Woodrow Wilson not pushed the USA into the Great War (1914-1918) [US part (1917-1918)] Americans most likely would not have been involved in D-day 1944.
Richard, much of the support for the Iraq occupation comes from people who believe that it draws Al Qaeda into a sort of "insect trap" there, which serves to keep them out of America. They also believe that we were forced by Al Qaeda to sacrifice our moral idealism. They also believe that corporate control over markets, governments and people, worldwide, is inevitable, because "there are no alternatives". Surely there are alternatives to imperialism.
"Imperialism is the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations, countries, or colonies." -Wikipedia
Let me add:
Scott was the head (I think) WMD inspector in Iraq after the 91 invasion.
I watched Free Speech TV air without commercials, Scott explaining how they meticulously compared arms sales records with arms that were destroyed; explaining in detail how they persisted until everything practical was accounted for.
He put his reputation on the line when he said that "Iraq has … no significant … ability to launch a WMD attack on invading troops.
This was at a time when people were duck taping their windows and doors; thinking a biological attack on the U.S. was imminent.
Thank You Sir! If only you had a voice that was heard; instead ridiculed and dismissed as a loony by the MSM.
Josh May made a good comment in his 1:57 post. Our American history books are written to paint a White, male and Eurocentric picture of Americana. They are written to present the smiley-face fuzzy feeling assuring our students that all our leaders and our actions as a Nation were heroic and noble-long live manifest destiny. The book he mentions ""Lies My Teacher Told Me" by professor Lewin is worth mentioning again as it gives us insight to the scandalous hijacking of our history books by the right.
Amen to all the kudos for Mr. Ritter but he wont even be mentioned in the history books of the future and Mr. Bush will be Canonized.
Scott Ritter is really a brave man. He even took on mother of fallen soldier, for which he was promptly reprimanded even on this so much sympathetic forum. Yet he is 200% right. It is quite difficult to fight "my country, right or wrong" sloganeering, it is way too much to break taboo "my son, right or wrong". There is no excuse for participation in crime, for information is here, readily available.
Can you imagine bank robber being acquitted in American court on the grounds that he was too illiterate to know robbery is not acceptable? No sympathy for blind mothers of blind killers.
By the way each and every killer of my family in 1941 had very sympathetic mothers. This is why for me Alan Dershowitz is as much more disgusting as his education is higher of poor American looser, who chose military as his ticket out of poverty.
Alan Dershowitz's encouragement of the torture of prisoners makes sense. Indeed, since murder has no staute of limitation, and it is known that American Jews were amongst the Israelis who murdered our boys on the false-flag attack against the USS Liberty, maybe he, knows who they are. He should obviously be tortured right away. It's our unpleasant duty to torture him and find out if there are other plots against Americans, and Dershowitz may have the info.
Ron Paul for president!
But Ritter would make a great vice president.
S.
God bless Scott Ritter.
I recall a letter to the editor published in my hometown paper some years ago. It was from a man who had served aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer during the D-Day invasion in 1944.
He recounted the words of an officer who stood beside him as they watched - awestruck - the carnage and heroism taking place on the beach. (I have to paraphrase)
"If our leaders had demonstrated some courage back home, our soldiers wouldn't be required to exercise their courage here".
Stirring words... now, some might take them as support of that whole "Hitler-Chamberlain-appeasement-of-evil" claptrap.
But at the time the letter was published,
it was imperial ambition in Washington that was being appeased, by those we trusted to serve us in Congress.
There is no courage in the White House, and too little in Congress. So - our troops will bear that burden until the rest of America discover the courage to say, "We were wrong."
I can't say I have many heroes, if any, but Scott Ritter is a hero in my book. Clear-headed and bound by universal morals, he fearlessly speaks truth to power with authority.
Go Ritter go!
'the moralistic Dershowitz explains the bombing of Dresden in 1945 as a "legitimate act of belligerent reprisal for the relentless bombings of civilians in London and elsewhere,"'
As the bombing of civilians in any war is a war crime, this suggests that Mr. Dershowitz defends war crimes as just and proper. It is hard for me to believe that he believes this. What then must he think of those many thousands of civilians bombed in Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, etc.?
MEDIA REFORM!
Voices of reason and experience were drowned out by glitz news with CHARICTER ASSINATION and ridicule.
We were NOT allowed to hear TRUE DISSENT. The left view was really the neo-con setups.
You had to find Internet sources like Common Dreams or Z-Net and dig for yourself!
Multi-million dollar PR contracts pushed stories into every Nook and Cranny of Public Media and institutions.
Free Speech TV on Dish Network told the story!
Democracy Now on Dish and Direct TV (satellite) told the story.
People stuck their heads in the sand because they, well wanted to!
THEY ARE STILL STICKING THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND AND HAVE NOT A CLUE!
Why? The TRUTH is just too DEPRESSING! The Truth INCRIMINATES them. They are TOO BUSY. It's too much fun to watch glitzy HAPPY NEWS FEATUREING YOUR FAVORATE MOVIE STARS OR SPORTS TEAM.
WHO REALLY SUPPORTS THE TROOPS? Answer: The people who seek the TRUTH!
Ralph Nader never got a chance to get out more than two sound bites everywhere he went.
WE WATCHED A DEBATE BETWEEN THE RIGHT AND THE RIGHT; which is wrong!
What a profound, wonderful observation: "Ignorance is bad citizenship."
That should be the basis for every civics class taught in the U.S. (not that they are taught much anymore).
Too bad that, for all too many, "Ignorance lets us feel good about ourselves." That's why outlets like Fox News succeed, and rah-rah jingoism makes traitors out of people who actually bother to learn some facts.
Keep the insights coming, Scott; I look forward to every one of your articles and commentaries.
I guess the same man who wrote "The Vanishing American Jew" wants Iraqis to vanish as well as Palestinians and Lebanese as evidenced by his staunch support of Israel.
These guys and gals coming back from Iraq are going to have serious problems.
American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Vietnam Veterans of America are more interested in keeping their organizations alive than helping veterans by becoming a voice for veterans.
Sadly, America has not benefited from the wisdom of its own veterans. Especially the Korean War and Vietnam War veterans. The wisdom that we have comes being on the losing side in a political war. WW1 and WW2 vets can have some sense of pride in accomplishing some good. But glory was individual in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In Iraq, where it is so obviously a political war, the glory is being manufactured.
Listen to your vets. The have much more than just war stories to tell.
Hoa Binh
Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone.
Dershowitz should be subjected to torture and then be allowed to comment on whether it should be used on Arabs or not.
Then he should be dropped off in Sadr City, just to see how his neocon war is really going.
I bet he'd run straight to Israel after that. That's where he belongs, anyways.
That Americans who oppose the war in Iraq are so often berated as unpatriotic, is surely a direct result of the chief executive of the US Government - the President - being also the head of state. It is a massive constitutional weakness that simply does not exist where I live, in Britain. No one criticising Britain's military role in Iraq is considered unpatriotic, not least because British troops were sent there by Tony Blair's government, but their constitutional allegiance is to the Queen. OK, it's not a very satisfactory arrangement, but it does stop people from using nationalism/patriotism as a stick with which to beat others who are simply opposed to government policy.
If every anti-war veteran, veterans family member became visable and loud, this war would end.
The psychic investment in the military in this country is beyond enormous. Americans have this "High Noon-Shane" mentality the reluctant gunfighter who will do what he must do.
We are the world's only military superpower, yet our country is being severely damaged by the war without end perpetrated by Air National Guard AWOLer and 5 deferment Cheney.
You're a vet and you want to put an end to this war? Join Veterans for Peace or if you're a Iraq/Afghanistan vet? Join Iraq Vets Against the War. And get active in them.
Code Pink and Courage To Resist or whatever group you wish may be your cup of tea. But do it.
And thank you, Scott Ritter, whose courage to take on the powers that be and hold us accountable, whether Bush or ordinary Americans. And you do it, with compassion and conviction, without denying the humanity of those you criticize.
"...even if these deaths occurred in time of war"
Which war are we talking about?
The Iraq "war" is over.
The goals in Public Law 107-243 (AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002) were twofold:
1. To stop Iraq being a "continuing threat" to the USA. Since it never was such a threat this goal is moot.
2. To get Iraq to obey Security Council resolutions. Is anyone arguing now that Iraq isn't obeying them?
Besides, the Commander-in-Chief said more than once that the mission was accomplished. That was a declaration of victory by the "Commander Guy".
The other war officially goes on. The goal in Public Law 107-40 (To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States) is to get the attackers of 9/11.
Are those in 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' NOW responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Does it matter?
Pres. Bush has said that Al-Qaeda is "Public enemy No. 1 in Iraq" so the justification for occupation evidently has shifted to this war.
No declarations of victory or defeat have been made in this war, therefore it continues.
The situation is intentionally muddied to suit the purposes of those that want things to continue as they are.
Of course, this only matters to those who care if the USA fights only wars that are Constitutionally declared.
It is not speaking out but silence that emboldens the enemy of the American people. I am referring to the true enemy, which is that festering sore on America's backside known as the Bush criminal gang.
Dershowitz, the guy who plays a lawyer on TV apparently far more than in real life, showed his true self when on the road campaigning in favor of torture over the last couple of years. You might ask yourself why an alleged defense attorney would favor torture. And that would be a very good question. Very good indeed. My instantaneous guess was that he had a couple of motives 1. he is a racist who knew that only Muslims and mostly Arabs would be on the receiving end of the barbarity,and this pleased him 2. he wanted to drag America down to the moral level of his beloved Israel which has been in the business of torture, and most other barbarities you could name, throughout it's bloodstained history and 3. as in all things Dershowitz does, he simply needed the attention, to sell his books and to further inflate his ego.
The treatment of the Iraqi people by America over the past quarter century is an ongoing holocaust by any dictionary definition. From April Glaspie's sinister welcome mat, to Rumsfeld's sale of WMD components to Saddam, to the Iran-Contra scam in which we secretly played both sides of the Iran/Iraq conflict, to Madeleine Albright's belief that the murder of a half million Iraqi children under the age of five by neocon-controlled Clinton sanctions was a fair price to pay, to the present wilderness of horrors we have visited upon these wonderful people, simply defies rational comprehension. And it continues.
I am certain that I speak for many Americans when I say that, notwithstanding the financial and patriotic rationales of many if not most of the soldiers in Iraq, the endless stories of revenge murder and brutality are not going over very well, even though most Americans are too cowed to display their anger. Any attempt to legitimize it from the likes of Dershowitz, who probably never met an American soldier, goes beyond anything I'd care to comment upon.
Misery loves company.
Being a "good American" requires the ability to think independently and some understanding of U.S. history. However, most U.S. primary and high schools have been designed to inculcate an implicit trust in the U.S. government, particularly on matters of war and peace, and to remove proclivity for critical independent thinking (read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by professor Lewin about US high school history textbooks).
I don't know if many people know this, but in a real shooting war (like WWII), only a small percentage of people in the armed services are actually in combat i.e carrying a gun and actually shooting people. The vast majority are in support services.
Just because someone has been in the armed services, and maybe even been fairly close to the combat areas, does NOT mean that they actually participated in combat.
I had an uncle who was in WWII, he was in the worst of the fighting--from D-Day till the defeat of Germany. He seldom talked about his experiences, but through my Dad I found out that some of them were horrific. He was basically just a gentle farm kid from Nebraska, but his war experiences led to a premature death from alcoholism. I'll never forget in the years after how the American Legion guys would parade at every opportunity through our small town. What most people didn't know is that they had desk jobs during the war.
I think the VFW has members who actually experienced combat. Don't fall for the fallacy that just because someone was "over there" that they actually had to do fighting.
There's a difference between fighting on behalf of the underdog, as the old vets did, and brutal armed aggression, the hallmark of our enemies in the old days and of our own soldiers today. The old vets can't bring themselves to acknowledge that this is what it's all come to after so much bloodshed.
For me, it is about our supposed Rule of Law. The cold hard fact is we do not actually have any rules when it comes to the good old Republican Money Grab. Our Constitution, International Treaty or the rule of common decency are all out the window. I am deeply ashamed of our government's actions.
Veteran, 1966-68
Scott, you make powerful points, and I have been feeling like we look like Germany of the 1930s, but recently, I feel more hopeful that Americans won't put up with it. I pray for this, because we are lost if we don't. But I'm doing more than just praying. Mike Gravel has started an initiave for Americans to bypass our coopted legislature and legislate by initiative. I urge everyone to go to http://www.initiativesamendment.org/ and register to vote. It's time our voices get heard, and this is how we can do it.
I can't agree with you about the mother who lost her child. I don't know if you've lost a child, or even have one. I haven't lost any of my children, but I do know that it's the very worst thing that can happen to a parent. We're supposed to die before they do. So I accept and forgive that mother for her attitude. She is simply trying to live with the unlivable, and she has all my sympathy and understanding. That doesn't mean she's right, or we should do as she wants. Just understand and forgive.
I admire your boldness, walking into the lion's den and joining the American Legion.
i suspect that Alan Deshowitz's loyalities are first to israel, then to the united states as long as the united states props up israel.
I would be intrested if this article could even run in the American Legion magazine. Interesting that it comes from "TruthDig.com." I ask was or has it been submitted to the AL magazine? That is where it needs to be read.
When I hear anti-war used as a way to label people as unpatriotic, I always remember it's not so much anti-war in the case of Iraq as anti-crime. Hopefully the American public can remember to substitute anti-crime to describe those who oppose this illegal, immoral, and frankly disgusting war crime of our criminal leaders.
The Good American looks like an oxymoron to me.
One of the primary reasons that I quit the American Legion, it's a sounding board for Bush's illegal and immoral war.
Alan Deshowitz is an enemy of America and an ugly wart on the reputation of Harvard. He can just bugger off to Israel where the majority of the population wants to live in peace with their neighbors. They will set him straight.
Scott Ritter for President!
After the killing stops (if ever) in Iraq, and these young men who have been exposed over and over again through multiple tours, return to the US, just how much of a trigger will it take for them to turn their disregard for people of another language and color and country of origin, toward those here, who might remind them of Iraqi's? The anti Immigrant furvor coming from the right will turn bloody as the economy gets more bleak, and there are too many people wanting a piece of the pie. Who better to serve as Satan's foot soldiers, then those who haven't the mind to think, nor the heart to care, because they have been hardened and brainwashed into vacant eyed Orks sent to defend the White nation from the Rovewellian fantasy of "Terrorism".
Scott Ritters analysis is as good as always. But, what percentage of USAns have even ever heard of Scott Ritter? And, what tiny percentage of that visit Commondreams, TruthDig (never been there myself), Informationclearinghouse, or maybe, in print, The Nation magazine?
We need to find a way to break out of this soundproof box!
America does not have a moral right to win neither the war in Iraq nor the subsequent occupation of Iraq... Shame is her veil, denial is her specter and oil courses her veins… Where have all the statesmen gone? Who are we?
"Mark–
For Ritter to compare what w're doing to the German soldiers in WW2 - and thus GWB to Hitler - is appalling. We should have gone in, deposed Saddam, moved on to Syria, taken out Assad, dug up the weapons that were moved with the help of the Russians to the Bekaa Valley, and then moved on."
LOL!
Wow, and you wonder why the Muslim world sees us as imperialist?
You are not "helping" the Iraqis staying. You are fueling insurgency that is tearing the country apart. The majority of the Iraqi Parliament has signed a petition demanding a timetable for withdrawal.
Why don't you deal in facts and not outdated rhetoric? I mean, you still think Iraq's mysterious weapons went to Syria. That's hilarious. Did the Easter Bunny fetch them away, mwayne?
You'd think someone as accomplished and accredited as Ritter would be all over cable news. I guess being somewhat dissident eliminates the chance of that.
Scott Ritter is, as usual, right on. This war was never a just cause. We now have to ask ourselves, are we worse than Nazi Germany? We should know better. As the Bible says, destroy your brother's house and you shall inherit the wind. What goes around comes around, though maybe in a different form. We will reaping the rewards of this war for generations.
Scott Ritter reinforces the thoughts and feelings that I have been accumulating since the Bush administration began their own terror campaign by constantly appealing to our fear. And, like him, I never renewed my membership in the American Legion after reading the pro-war brattle by a Dennis Prager in the March, 2004 article in their magazine which I responded to in writing. My decision to terminate my membership was reinforced after reading the Legion commander's speech given at their 2005 national convention. The following is an excerpt from my letter to him: "Having just read the statements made at your national convention linking those Americans who protest this insane war, a war perpetrated by the unconscionable lies of George W. Bush to Congress and the American people, as giving aid and comfort to the enemy I am convinced that I did the most honorable thing my conscience dictated me to do when I did not renew my membership in your organization."
Excellent article and for the most part, excellent comments. Unfortunately a couple of the comments also suggest to me that the long-predicted anti-Semitic backlash has begun. I ask people to bear in mind that the Jewish masses have themselves been subjected to a huge campaign of brainwashing within their community, and also to bear in mind the fact that the extremist views expressed by the leaders of Jewish organizations and gangsters like Dershowitz do NOT represent the views held by the Jewish masses - especially on Iraq.
Apart from that, I would add one comment to what Ritter said: Ritter mentioned the fact that much of the violence in Iraq is sectarian violence between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis. That is true, but the US criminals who launched this war are not excused from responsibility just because it is Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis who are pulling the triggers. The internal Iraqi sectarian violence is a consequence of the war of aggression that the USA launched, so the USA - or at least the murderers who lead it - bears ultimate responsibility for that sectarian violence. This principle was clearly enunciated by the US-American judges at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, who said that aggressive war is the "supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Mark Marshall
Toronto
kathyodat May 13th, 2007 12:29 am
I can answer your question!
Weapons inspectors saw inspection as an alternative to war, but the bombs were a commin', like it or not!
Shock and Awe, bomb them till they like us.
mwayne May 12th, 2007 5:36 pm;
Mark wants to bomb every thing in a big swath. All I can say is who is going to occupy all that country after?
Posts like Mr T's above mark a firm reminder why liberal attitudes towards gun ownership are misguided. A very vocal, very violent minority is intent on making "culture war" a real live shooting war, and they're armed for it. There is no way to disarm them or dissuade them of their violent intentions. Given the opportunity, they are ready and willing to back their fascism with genocidal purges. We must be prepared to defend ourselves in the event that they make good on their threats.
My household is well armed, and though I truly hope I never have to harm a fellow human being, I'm ready to defend myself and those I love from any and all who threaten. Any like Mr T who wish to "bring it on", as the saying goes, will be met with bullets and blades.
We cannot be complacent, and pacifist unto slaughter. We must be prepared to defend ourselves if we must. We must be armed and trained, like the Swiss Army who is dedicated to neutrality and attacks no one but remains strong and ready just in case.
Great job Mr. Ritter. If only we could get the rest of our severely F'd up nation to see that it has become a horrible Goliath like monster!
Go! Scott! Go!
And there are some people commenting on this thread who are clearly clueless about why we're in Iraq. Why do you think the administration changed their original designation from Operation Iraq Liberation to Operation Iraq Freedom? An acronym hitting too close to home. Some one figured out the American people might not be that stupid.
NMBill, I know you can answer my question, I just wondered what mwayne and Mr T would say, but they appear to choose not to respond.
And I agree with you about character assassinations. A favorite extremist tactic (not necessarily limited to the right wing). Whether or not I agree with everything Scott Ritter says, I have nothing but admiration for him, and I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Along with Bill Moyers. I'm thinking we need a citizen president, not a spoiled politician. Someone who's for us, not a CEO flunky.
Meanwhile, Let's IMPEACH!