Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00163)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Erica Letzerich <eletzerich@y...> 
wrote:
> (Bart) About your question to name the chemical
> weapon, the U.S is willing to use Neuro Paralyzing
> chemical bombs in Iraqi. This was in the TV news, I am
> surprised you haven't heard about it.

The news was not reported domestically, having been was suppressed 
by the Bush administration. It makes sense, though, and explains why 
US soldiers are required to train in chemical weapons protective 
suits.

> "The U.S. is at this moment developing advanced
> systems of "weapons of mass destruction" and it
> prepared to use them where it sees fit.

The Iraqi government has suggested the UN disarm the US and Israel. 
They may have said that in jest, but it is not a bad idea.

> The United States believes that the three thousand
> deaths in New York are the only deaths that count

I don't think anyone believes that except for a few jingos and 
monarchists. There is a significant opposition to the war here.

> The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dead
> through U.S. and British sanctions which have deprived
> them of essential medicines are never referred to.

They are referred to frequently. The problem is that we have 
a "democrac" in name only, in which the public has little effect on 
policy. More to the point are the half million to a million who will 
die as a resultof Dubya's grab for Iraqi oil wells if there is war. 
He has said publicly that he does not care how many people die.

> The effect of depleted uranium, used by America in the
> Gulf War, is never referred to. Radiation levels in
> Iraq are appallingly high. 
> Babies are born with no brain

That is in fact referred to often, and some think Dubya may have been 
born without a brain. It should be said that some think chemical 
agents used by Saddam may be partly responsible for genetic damage in 
Iraq.

> The two hundred thousand deaths in East Timor in 1975
> brought about by the Indonesian government but
> inspired and supported by the United States are never
> referred to.

Yes, I think Gerald Ford should be held to account as a war criminal 
for inspiring that or whatever it is he did.

> The millions of deaths in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia
> are no longer referred to.

That is not quite fair. LBJ was brought down by antiwar sentiment. 
Nixon was elected on a fraudulent promise to end the war, and then 
expanded it instead. So the public will was thwarted in that case.

It is true that all the despotism and all the crime and poverty and 
dissatisfaction and existential angst that has ever existed in Latin 
America is the direct fault of the US government. The fellow who 
works at the Latin American desk in the Department of State and who 
is responsible for all of that is at retirement age, though, and we 
expect Latin America to become a utopia when he stands down.

> [Successive Israeli regimes massacred tens of
> thousands of Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, Christians
> and other humans with U.S. military and financial aid
> to Israel during 1948 to 2003.]

A Belgian court has declared the slaughter meister Ariel Sharon will 
be subject to arrest and trial as soon as he leaves office. That 
means he will be unable to safely leave Palestine. He will have no 
assurance that he will noe be arrested and extradited. I have never 
heard it alleged that any of Sharon's massacres (the first was in 
1953) was ordered by a US president. That one is news to me. The 
1953 massacre mst have been ordered by Eisenhower, since he was in 
office then. Since Sharon continued ordering massacres over a period 
of decades he is the common denominator, and, I suspect, the real 
culprit here.

> The desperate plight of the Palestinian people, the
> central factor in world unrest, is hardly referred to.

That may be true in Europe, but it is referred to often here.

There is a practical problem with solving the Middle East conflict 
which unengaged countries do not have to deal with. The menu of 
options for outsiders is rather limited. One choice is to try to 
impose a solution by force. The British had plenty of time to do 
that during the British mandate, and what they did was prove it is 
not a viable option. That is why the US has resisted the idea of 
putting peacekeepers in Palestine proper, in addition to the ones in 
the Sinai desert.

The Arab countries could not impose peace on Palestine by force, nor 
can they conauer the place by force. That is why Nixon made the 
decision to guarantee Israel's security. There is not a single US 
soldier stationed there, but the guarantee nudges the Arabs toward 
the bargaining table and away from the battlefield. I think that has 
arguably proved to be a wise policy.

The only remaining option then seems to be peaceful negotiation, 
which has been tried with frustrating results. Negotiation does not 
work without a stick unless there is a carrot, thus the subsidies 
which you decry. If you know a way out of this one, I am sure the 
Department of State would be thrilled for you to share it.

It was the US which initiated the effort to create a Pelstinian 
state, and it ws the chairman of the Palestinian Authority who turned 
it down. The creation of such a state would be a significant step in 
the direction of a negotiated settlement, and neither Sharon nor 
Arafat wants that.

> The atrocity in New York was predictable and
> inevitable. It was an act of retaliation against
> constant and systematic manifestations of state
> terrorism on the part of the United States over many
> years in all parts of the world."

Let me offer a more sophisticated assessment. One learns in 
postgraduate psychology study that persons committing suicide are at 
high risk for committing homicide as well. So the attitude that some 
people have that we should not care about suicidal neighbors if it 
does not directly affect our interests is ill informed and not merely 
callous. In what I might ethnocentristically regard as the more 
civilized countries of the world there is a legal obligation to try 
to discourage suicide attempts. In the Muslim world these people are 
sought out and exploited as human weapons, in recognition of the fact 
that a person who has given up on life can easily be persuaded to 
kill others on the way out the door. The connection between suicide 
and homicide has nothing to do with culture, religion, or politics, 
but the exploitation of that connection has everything to do with a 
cynical approach to all three. The fact is, suicidal people kill 
others all the time for reasons which have nothing to do with world 
politics.