Thursday, September 20, 2007

Iraq War 5th Anniversary

codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=5,0,0,0"
WIDTH=480 HEIGHT=360 ID=ShockwaveFlash1 align="center">





























A military uniform is not an excuse for murder. In this episode I discuss the psychological origins of war. War is a bigger version of street violence, street violence is a bigger version of family violence. All trauma begins in childhood. Psychopathic behavior begins in the family.



MILITARY MOTHERS ARE NOT VICTIMS (or San Francisco Peace Rally 2007)

...And there was also something that deeply upset me, as always, at so many of these peace rallies. I have a lot of respect for Richard Becker, the main organizer of ANSWER. He always has something sincere and real to say. This man definitely knows compassion. His voice and his words always touch my heart. But I have to say that I don’t always care for his choice of speakers. Some of them are great, and others make me sick. I am sure many people will get mad at me for saying this, but it makes me sick when a mother of a soldier gets on that stage and starts playing victim and blaming Bush for her son’s death. How would you people feel if a Nazi mother got on stage and started playing victim? Well, what’s the difference between the Nazis and the US Military? I will tell you one big difference. The Nazi soldiers were drafted, many against their will. The US soldiers enlisted voluntarily. They sold their souls for dollars, for college degrees (supposedly), for comfortable sofas in front of TVs, for status quo. Or is it that their rage against the world was so blinding that they believed pathetic transparent lies told by Bush? What kind of values would you have to be raised with to believe that it is right to carpet bomb people because of one bad guy who is supposedly hiding there? Obviously, American lives are by far more important than any other lives. Is this not fascism? So here is this mother who sent her son to kill people overseas. Don’t tell me that she didn’t know he had a gun on him when he went. She though he would go to war, murder thousands of people, come back covered in medals from head to toe and she wouldn’t even have to pay his college tuition. She had it all planned out. If her son returned unharmed she would be proud of him and continue voting for Bush, I bet. But as it turns out when you kill people they don’t like it. And sometimes they kill you. What a surprise! I suppose Bush was supposed to explain to her that in a war people don’t just kill but can also get killed.

Look, I have compassion for the soldiers too. I understand that anyone can make a mistake. But I only respect the soldiers who take responsibility for their mistakes and who come back and become peace activists. I have no respect for soldiers who murder innocent people and expect everybody to respect them and feel sorry for them because they didn’t get away with murder.

As for military mothers, I have some questions. If your son joined the gangs and murdered people in your town in order to pay his college tuition would you be proud of him? What if he joined the biggest gang in the world called the US military and murdered a lot more people but overseas, then what? Oh, well, then the picture is totally different. He is a hero and you are a victim, right?

What kind of abuse did you put your son through that he thinks nothing of picking up a loaded gun and aiming it at a human being he had never met before? If he did this in your town his behavior would be called sociopathic. He would be on the most wanted list. But he put on a military uniform first and then murdered a bunch of people. Oh, yeah, this is called “patriotism”. I was raised in communist Russia. The concept of patriotism was so exploited there, it was to the point that people felt like puking whenever they heard that word on TV or radio. I learned very early that “patriotism” equals “fascism”.

What is “patriotism”, really? Does it not imply separation from the rest of humanity? Does it not imply division based on nationality? Does it not imply putting your nation above other nations? Then how is it different from fascism? The only difference between Nazi German army and the US army is that the US army hasn’t been officially exposed yet. Hitler is dead and his regime has fallen. Bush (or should I say Cheney?) is still alive and the regime hasn’t fallen yet. But believe me, as soon as Bush regime falls (and it will happen) his deeds will be in the history books right next to Hitler’s deeds and his army will be right next to the Nazi army. Germany learned from its mistakes. German people took responsibility and because of that were able to change and transform into a much more peaceful nation. They are still paying life long pensions to Jews who even remotely suffered from the holocaust. And that is great, such level of responsibility.

America needs to find its heart and its true power. True power comes from the heart, it comes from love. America needs to stop lying to itself and playing victim. Many Americans have already transitioned to that place of power that comes from the heart. But it will take a nationwide awakening for America to be able to live at peace with itself and with the rest of the world.

Gypsy Taub

see full text and photos here:

http://www.politicsfromtheheart.com/2007/10/peace-march-in-san-francisco-october.html

NO EXCUSES

This article was published on 02.22.07.



In addition to holding President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress accountable for the illegal occupation of Iraq, American troops must also be prepared to accept responsibility. We’re all presumed to know the law. If we accept that fundamental legal presumption, then those of us who claim that the war is illegal must also acknowledge that the troops are unexcused aiders and abettors.

Lt. Ehren Watada’s case is a good example. Watada’s position is that he has a duty to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq because those orders effectively command him to pursue an illegal war. Watada correctly understands that obeying those orders could subject him to war-crime charges under a more just administration (which should try George W. Bush first).

Publicly available information about the Iraq invasion has become so plentiful over the last several years that reasonable people contemplating service in the U.S. military should know that people throughout the world regard participation in the occupation as tantamount to aiding and abetting in mass murder, fraud, human-rights violations, and international war crimes. By now, all of the troops should recognize this, and ignorance is no excuse.

The frequency of U.S.-sponsored war crimes in Iraq is such that it has become the norm rather than the exception. U.S. troops have intentionally and recklessly caused the deaths of so many Iraqi civilians, and continue to do so, that we can now properly regard acts in furtherance of the occupation effort generally to be acts substantially likely to facilitate crimes such as those that already have occurred.

From a legal standpoint, obeying Bush’s orders is akin to the Nazi soldiers who obeyed Hitler’s orders. And we know from the Nuremberg Trials that the “just following orders” excuse is invalid. Watada’s case suggests that we should question all troops’ willingness to follow their illegal orders.

Suggesting troop-responsibility for the illegal war is unpopular, but it also would have been unpopular during World War II for a German citizen to suggest that Nazi troops be held accountable for obeying their illegal orders. At the end of the day, it’s really no different.


Check out other posts in my ANTI-WAR section

No comments: