Letter for USA from a British Writer

Article from the Daily Mirror, England


No matter what your views on President Bush's
statement of upcoming war,
this, from an English journalist, is very interesting.
For those of you
not familiar with the UK's Daily Mirror, this is a
notoriously left-wing
daily that is normally not supportive of the Colonials
across the Atlantic.
Tony Parsons, Daily Mirror, September 11, 2002

ONE year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of
broadcasting -- the
mass murder of thousands, live on television. As a
lesson in the pitiless
cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there,
with Pol Pot's
mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies
stacked like garbage in the
Nazi concentration camps. An unspeakable act so cruel,
so calculated and so
utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on
one thing -
nobody deserves this fate. Surely there could be
consensus: the victims
were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil.

But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly
seen as
America's comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism
has increased over the
last year. There has always been a simmering
resentment to the USA in this
country -- too loud, too rich, too full of themselves
and so much happier
than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic. And it
seems incredible to
me. More than that, it turns my stomach.

America is this country's greatest friend and our
staunchest ally. We
are bonded to the US by culture, language and blood. A
little over half a
century ago, around half a million Americans died for
our freedoms, as
well as their own. Have we forgotten so soon? And
exactly a year ago,
thousands of ordinary men, women and children -- not
just Americans, but
from dozens of countries -- were butchered by a small
group of religious
fanatics.

Are we so quick to betray them?

What touched the heart about those who died in the
twin towers and on
the planes was that we recognized them. Young fathers
and mothers,
somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands and
wives, and children,
some unborn. And these people brought it on
themselves? And their nation is to
blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?

These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted
nut job in Kabul
or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the
Great Satan. The
anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing
liberals who blame
the Americans for every ill in the Third World, and
conservatives
suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's
only superpower can do
what it likes without having to ask permission.

The truth is that America has behaved with enormous
restraint since
September 11.

Remember, remember.

Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men
phoning their wives to
say, "I love you," before they were burned alive.

Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the
top of burning
skyscrapers.

Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive.

Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little
girl who was on one
of the planes with her mum.

Remember, remember -- and realize that America has
never retaliated
for 9/11 in anything like the way it could have.

So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial
n Camp X-ray?
Pass the Kleenex...

So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after
they merrily
fired their semi-automatics in a sky full of American
planes? A shame, but
maybe next time they should stick to confetti.

AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world
into a parking
lot. That it didn't is a sign of strength. American
voices are already
being raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a
democracy is for. How
many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence
for the slaughtered
innocents of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have
the guts to say that
the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination?

When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those
freedom-loving
Palestinians were dancing in the street. America
watched all of that
and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars
that America is the
most powerful nation in the world. I still find it
incredible that 9/11 did
not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism." A
real war.

The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening
the gates of
hell," if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could
have opened the gates
of hell like you wouldn't believe.

The US is the most militarily powerful nation that
ever strode the
face of the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan may
have been less than
perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be
misconceived.
But don't blame America for not bringing peace and
light to these
wretched countries. How many democracies are there in
the Middle East, or
in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers
of one hand --
assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor
shoplifting.

I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that
makes me Bush's
poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City
than a Prince in
Riyadh.

Above all, America is hated because it is what every
country wants to be --
rich, free, strong, open, optimistic. Not ground down
by the past, or
religion, or some caste system. America is the best
friend this country
ever had and we should start remembering that.

Or do you really think the USA is the root of all
evil? Tell it to the
loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their
death from the burning
towers. Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands
died on one of the
hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing
skyscraper. And tell
it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands
worked for the New York Fire
Department.

To our shame, George Bush gets worse press than Saddam
Hussein. Once
we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured
his own people and
set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes
Quality Street. Save
me the orange center, oh mighty one!

Remember, remember, September 11.

One of the greatest atrocities in human history was
committed against
America.

No, do more than remember. Never forget.





Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.

No matter what your views on Bush and his obsession with war this from a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, is very interesting. And former President Carter does not consider us "colonials." Please take the time to read the entire piece. It is, as are all of former President Carter's views, well thought out. It is based on principles that our nation and all nations should uphold. Not on the current administration's Bush Doctrine whose stated goal is maintaining dominance through whatever means necessary. What a great way to spread democracy.
I guess now we all know what "W" stands for. WAR.


Just War or Just War

By JIMMY CARTER

ATLANTA ?EProfound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options ?Epreviously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations ?Ewere outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions ?Ewith war as a final option ?Ewill enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

Though I respect former President Carter, from seeing him actually roll up his sleeves, and help with projects like habitat for humanity, and building homes for the less fortunate, as a President he was a WUS!!! He acted with so much restraint, that it finally bit him in the rear, maybe using his advise as a plan for what not to do, would be a better suggestion.







Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.

I disagree. Bush and Co. are always fond of alleging the problems with their administration are the result of President Clinton's policies.

Republicans like to say President Clinton's economic success was due to Reagan/Bush.

Following that logic I guess you could say President Carter's problems were due to Nixon/Ford and Reagan's successes were due to President Carter, huh?

I'm not really talking about a presidents inherited problems, I'm talking about guts to grab the bull by the horns, and take whatever action is necessary when the time arises to do so. Carter didn't have that, and anybody around during his administration knows that, of course that doesn't mean someone can't learn from his past mistakes, but from his letter it doesn't appear he has.




Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.

bob_dn, don't go ballistic on me now, I'm just messing with you, I wanted to see where you were coming from, I agree with a lot that you've said its just ashamed that we're not the ones making the decisions.




Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.

Ryan, I'm not the one you have to worry about going ballistic. That'd be "W"! Or Kim Jung Il!

Yup. They'ed just as soon back war as back peace. Whatever sells the most papers. As long as they stay on the side of the majority and get as much sensationalism as they can.

<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~<font color=blue></b>