cannabisnews.com: This Isn't Like the War on Drugs 










  This Isn't Like the War on Drugs 

Posted by FoM on September 28, 2001 at 12:44:27 PT
By David Grinspoon and Lester Grinspoon 
Source: Boston Globe 

This New War, we are being told, will not be like the wars, when we knew where to drop our bombs. TV commentators repeatedly make the analogy to the ''war on drugs.'' Unfortunately there is a valid comparison between these two struggles that goes beyond the one which the pundits have mentioned. Their point is that in each the enemy is shadowy, nonlocalized, shifting, and hard to target or eradicate. All true. But there is a reason why the war on drugs is unwinnable and, unfortunately, the same may become true of this conflict. 
The problem with the war on drugs is that the enemy was misidentified from the beginning. The struggle was miscast, and the end result is a ''war'' that has done much more harm than good for our society. If we had called it a ''war on addiction'' we might have won it by now. But instead drugs were used as an omnibus enemy in which questionable moral crusades against substances that many Americans use to harmless, or even positive, effect, were lumped in with the real enemy: addictions to heroin, crack, and amphetamines. The legitimate rights of Americans to the pursuit of happiness were targeted along with legitimate enemies: a smaller list of genuinely dangerous and addictive drugs. This imprecise targeting has led to the incarceration of millions of innocent Americans and a lessening of freedoms and civil rights for the rest of us. It has fostered a lucrative trade in illegal drugs, created a drug-industrial complex of testing labs and teen boot camps with an economic life of its own, and caused a general erosion of trust in our law enforcement, political, and justice systems. The cynicism, cruelty, corruption, and dishonesty of the war on drugs has helped erode the social contract at the foundation of our society. A war with a Big Lie at its heart causes massive collateral damage to the society which mounts it. This war will never be won because it was originally launched under false premises in which unjust goals have been lumped together with just ones. The similarity with this new war is that we are again in danger of framing the fight in the wrong terms, thereby creating new enemies and igniting a conflict which we cannot win. Only this one could have much more horrible consequences. This is a unique moment when we are able to pause and contemplate if not the beginning of the war, certainly a well-defined moment of terrible escalation. The people who planned the attacks on Sept. 11 were clearly smart. It seems there are some things about us that they have understood better than we have understood ourselves. They may also understand some geopolitical realities better than we do. They will stop at nothing. The brainchildren of Edward Teller may soon be available to them. One of their goals is to frighten and shock us. This they have done. But we suspect that their ultimate goal is to provoke a world war between Islam and the West. All the talk of ''This is war, let's show them what we're made of'' and even ''bomb Afghanistan back into the Stone Age'' causes us to fear that our government, with the blessing of a public whipped into war fever, will give the perpetrators exactly what they want. Will we, with our response, play right into their evil hands? All eyes are now on America to see how we respond. Our response will define our relationship with the rest of the world for generations. If we identify specific perpetrators or legitimate targets that threaten more of the same, then force is justified in removing these threats. But if we lash out with force just to show the world how tough we are, and if we kill many innocent civilians, then we may create hundreds of bin Ladens and thousands of suicide bombers, help foment radical Islamic revolutions among moderate states, and ultimately bring upon ourselves and the world much greater destruction. This war must be against hate, inequity, and blind, unthinking nationalism. Along with any military response, we must look honestly at our role in the world, at all the sources of anti-Americanism, legitimate and illegitimate, and proceed with our eyes open. Let us learn from the failure of the war on drugs that if we misidentify our enemy and frame our struggle incorrectly, we will do harm to many innocents and democratic institutions, and we will all lose. David Grinspoon is a planetary scientist and author of ''Venus Revealed.'' Lester Grinspoon is associate professor emeritus at Harvard Medical School and author of ''Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine.'' This story ran on page A21 of the Boston Globe on 9/28/2001. Source: Boston Globe (MA)Author: David Grinspoon and Lester GrinspoonPublished: September 28, 2001Copyright: 2001 Globe Newspaper CompanyContact: letter globe.comWebsite: http://www.boston.com/globe/Related Articles & Web Site:Marijuana The Forbidden Medicinehttp://www.rxmarihuana.com/ Drug War Redux  - Reason Magazinehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10983.shtmlDon't Oversell an 'Idea War'http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10977.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #25 posted by FoM on October 02, 2001 at 11:51:40 PT
Friendly Reminder
Come Together - Tuesday, October 2 at 8 p.m. ET 
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread10993.shtml#11
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by Rambler on October 01, 2001 at 22:20:32 PT
part 2
                                               Of course, the establishment would have you believe that the guerillas sprung from the global forest like the Big Bad Wolf
                                               going after Little Red Riding Hood. It relies heavily on the American faith that bad things have only two sources: accident or
                                               someone else's evil. The idea, such as was imbedded for centuries in maritime law, that a collision often involves divided
                                               fault, is alien to us save in a few instances such as when an abused spouse shoots her husband. Yet we must now face our
                                               proportional responsibility not only in the name of honesty but in the name of survival. Nations can not well endure on such a
                                               diet of denial as ours.                                                The question of what one should do at this moment is clouded by another truth: there may actually be no adequate defense
                                               against that which we fear. To believe that we will be safe if we only ban, search, and spy on enough things, and jail enough
                                               people on enough specious grounds, is a path towards madness. Like the individual suffering from agoraphobia, we will
                                               become prisoners in our own rooms.                                                The possibility of no available defense is frightening until one realizes that we live happily with it every day in other contexts.
                                               For example, no husband and wife adequately protects themselves from being murdered by each other or by their children.
                                               Yet, most do not sleep in bulletproof vests nor pat the kids down each time they walk in the house. That's because we have
                                               found other ways of assuring the safety in these relationships based on means beyond those used by the military and police.
                                               Similarly, despite the often heated nature of labor negotiations, I have never heard of a mediator going into the conference
                                               room fully armed.                                                To define the possible solutions to this crisis as only those of war and security is to admit defeat, for it is on this level that we
                                               are most vulnerable. Yet these appear to be virtually the sole tools our establishment understands. Thus not only has it
                                               brought unprecedented shame and danger to this land, it proposes - with unbridled hubris - to compound its errors by more of
                                               the same.                                                The rest of us, whether out of moral sense or pragmatic grasp, must no longer enable such madness but tell those who have
                                               failed and betrayed us that they may not, must not, damage further our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. - SAM
                                               SMITH
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by Rambler on October 01, 2001 at 22:19:51 PT
Right On!
ACCESSORY BEFORE THE FACT  Among those who escaped injury in the recent disasters was an American establishment responsible for the costliest military defeat against a foreign adversary ever to occur on home soil.  CNN didn't tell you that, but aside from the internecine Civil War, the largest number of American deaths in battle on our
    mainland prior to the recent assaults occurred during the Revolutionary War - about 4,500. Actual battle deaths - not all on the mainland or even in our colonies - during the War of 1912 were 2,300; the Mexican War, 1,700; the Spanish American War, 400; and at Pearl Harbor 2,400. In September, over 6,000 Americans were lost when the biggest and best funded military in world history was defeated by a handful of guerillas armed mainly with knives. In normal circumstances there would be talk of courts martial (as there was in the case of Pearl Harbor) and impeachment (as there was during the Vietnam War). Instead we have been conned into waving the flag on behalf of an establishment that has shamefully failed the country through a combination of arrogance, greed, stupidity, unpreparedness, carelessness, and
                                               corruption.
 Consider, for example, the fact that we are now getting lessons on patriotism from politicians and journalists who spent the past decade tossing American sovereignty down the drain in the name of "free trade." Consider that our military, alienating the restless in scores of country, turned out to be a cause of our troubles rather than of their elimination. Consider an  intelligence establishment that help train the guerillas who have now turned on us. Consider the politicians who undermined our safety to please the oil and defense industries or who endangered our lives in order to support Israel and gain the campaign rewards that followed. Consider a foreign policy intelligentsia that could not tell the difference between realpolitik
                                               and realstupid.                                                This is not cause for unity, flag-waving and loyalty to the latest political puppet of a decadent elite that has led us into such a  crisis. It is cause for shock and anger, for citizen inquiries and investigations into the questions the think tanks, Congress
                                               and the media refuse to ask, and for a Solidarity-type movement in which Americans who love their land, the freedom they once possessed, and the decency to which they aspire come together not just to bring peace in a war-mad moment but to
                                               cause a transformation in how power is exercised.                                                I was asked the other day what I would do if I were president. I declined the hypothesis because, I said, the only way that  would happen would be if the Green Party had come to power, which would mean that America would have already have been acting in a far different manner than it is today and thus the attacks would have been far less like even to have occurred. I might have added that it was a little late to be seeking the advice of those who have repeatedly sought a different course and who, in return, have been scorned, kept off the ballot, not invited to debates, and blacked out of the media.  Further, the American establishment, despite its shameful and disastrous failure, refuses even now to listen to other than
                                               itself. Check this out by counting how many minutes on mainstream TV or inches in your paper are devoted to non-military,
                                               non-violent solutions to our problem. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Rainbow on October 01, 2001 at 18:47:39 PT
Sole
yes i see that you choose your words carefullly. But it is hard for me to think that an intent by these police tactics are not meant to intimidate. The bombing runs over Germany were definitely not needed as the war was over so the "sole" intent must have been to scare the hell out of the rest of Germany. Those bombing runs were just as bad as the nuke in japan. I believe that war was just bout over as well. Why 2 nuke bombs? One to show them what we can do and the other to intimidate and scare them into believing we would do it again. That last one had a "sole" intent to intimidate because it had no added effect but to kill and show that we would kill again.As far as the SWAT and other police activities. Do you really think that the broom stick up a person's anus is not solely for intimadation and terror? If not what is it for? Why do the SWAT team guys dress up like Nintendo warriors if not to "sole"ly intimidate and terrorize. Are the stun grenades and stories of activities done to intimatdate and scare others? Well they sure do so they maybe one of the reasons but you are right not the "sole" reason. I would say that terrorism does not have to be black and while with a "sole" purpose. Our government has found many ways to justify terrorism and I guess they might do it by making their "brand" not soulful.yes I think pacifism is much better than killing someone. But I agree if someone trys to harm my family I will gladly resist and fight back.of course I have told my local sheriff and FBI that if they want me I will come with my hands up and please do not kill my family with their tanks. I also agreed to hold a plastic gun in my hand if they are intent on killing me if they don't hurt my wife and kids.I suggestted that to our friend barry McCaffery everytime I sent him email celebrating another death in his WosD.So I do think you narrow definition is quite convinient for the American politicians too. They can say they do not condone terrorism because they have other agenda items. But hey once your dead your dead. And if you are scared to hell of the American police, FBI CIA etc then you are terrorized.Thanks now I know how the wordsmiths can put spin on terrorism.I did visit your site and was amazed at the incongruence between it and your words. I figured you to be a devils advocate to get us talking.cheers
rainbow
ps sometimes my words are not chosen perfectly but then I hope my point gets across. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by dddd on October 01, 2001 at 18:19:46 PT
Thank you FoM
...I dont mind the new formatting thing at all......... 
the words are the most important part,and I can still use dots to seperate my comments,and annoy punctuationally retentive readers........I'm happy,,,,,,,and the new text condenser saves space......LoL.......ddd..................................................d
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by FoM on October 01, 2001 at 17:23:30 PT
dddd
Check out how I did this article. It has spaces and paragraphs. I used >brphttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread11006.shtml#12
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by freedom fighter on October 01, 2001 at 16:49:38 PT
Gosh, tdm, I am
not afraid of terrorists nor am I afraid of our "government". I am truly afraid of you. 
To some folks, facism is already here. Hilter did not announce that he would start killing the jews. It was after he did the vile deed for a while. People said nothing. Some even cheered. 
The reason I am afraid of you is because today it is Bin the terrorist and tomorrow, it is freedom fighter the terrorist.
I want you to know that there is no such a thing as a reformed pacifist. Either you a pacifist or never was a pacifist to start with. You can not say that you used to think non-violence is the way and you changed your mind thinking that violence is the answer. To me, it means you were never a pacifist.
I truly fear you for you think your life is more important than the Freedom or Liberty. Sure, you may be alive but what good your life will be if you are just a slave.
Why do we need Homeland Defense Dept.? Out of 250 millions americans, half of us are already armed.
I know I can not change your mind, but I want you to know I fear you.ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by dddd on October 01, 2001 at 06:47:58 PT
Professor tdm......
..My friend,,,I must reluctantly disagree with one of your statements,;">But reality dictates that I am in more danger today from terrorists than from my own government."News Flash...Bush has just declared a new office of "Cyberspace Security",(FOX News,Los Angeles,6:05 AM , 10/01.01)........_________________________________________________________________________________..anyway,,,I am not as scared of terrorists,as I am of the terror that our own evil empire will unleash through foolish war-mongering, and the terror of the same government,as it furthers the rape of our Constitutional rights,in the name of an insane,fake "war",on something,,,not a country,,,not a person,,but on a THING!....and I fear that the term "drugs",is quickly becoming interchangeable with,"terrorism"....I dont trust our government very much at all....They are so freekin' lame,they neglected,(perhaps purposly),to even make sure we have fair,and accurate elections!...These are the same assholes who have declared this lunacy of a "War on Terror".................I'm sorry to sound so harsh,and please dont be offended tdm,,, you are cool,and my remarks are not all aimed at you,,,but I am more terrified by our government/media/ corporate insanity,than I am by the idea of terror from abroad....To say that our government response is "overkill",puts it mildly.....it's like we are thinking we can kill a cockroach,with an atom bomb!.....and, speaking of cockroaches,,,the current plan of the evil empire,,is alot like saying "we will hunt down and kill every cockroach in the world!",,,there is No Way,,,,,unless we could hire ORKIN,for a million billion,to tent the entire earth with a big tarp,and exterminate all terrorists,using the latest Monsanto product.............; "TERROREX"......"Targets Terror at the Source"........they could garner public support by having TV commercials,,,with a bunch of cartoon bin Laden looking guys,,putting together bombs,,and then a big spray can of TERROREX enters the picture,,and the shocked terrorists look up in terror and say;"Terrorex, Oh No!)..........  .. .. .. ..I've already said too much...............JAH Shine on You tdm..............ddddP.S.FoM...This new automatic text condenser thing has really cramped my style,,,but I dont mind,,,I've already adjusted to it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by tdm on October 01, 2001 at 05:43:39 PT:
protection and pacifism
What I do not understand is why you think our "government" will protect you.True that what I want them to do -- respond to the terrorist attacks with full-scale war against the terrorist nations -- and what they will likely do -- respond in a practically apologetic manner inviting further attacks as a result of our moral weakness -- are very different things. Hence my attempts to garner support for the first scenario.I agree that I am ultimately responsible for my own safety. I am also horribly afraid that our country is on the road to fascism. But reality dictates that I am in more danger today from terrorists than from my own government. At the very least, the government hasn't yet stated that it is their duty to God to kill all Americans. Wishful thinking that the U.S. government were more committed to complete individual freedom, and opposing military action against terrorist nations because of that, is to deny reality.I don't support everything our government does. But I am able to separate my domestic agenda to regain our lost liberty from my need for military protection. I suppose if I had my own military I'd handle it myself.To Rainbow -- Words are very important to me so I choose them carefully. None of the examples you cited of U.S. "terrorism" possessed the characteristic of sole intent to kill innocent people, and some were in defensive response to the initiation of force against us. Has the U.S. government ever initiated the use of force? Yes, and those actions were morally wrong. Have they ever killed innocent people? Yes. But neither of these facts makes our government terrorist by my definition.As to pacifism: I am a reformed pacifist. May be hard to believe, but it's true. (Visit my website if you have any doubts.) Today, I hold a man's life to be the standard of value. Using my life, my existence, as my guiding principle, I have rejected pacifism as a morally valid option. Practicing pacifism means sacrificing my life for another's. This is morally reprehensible by my value standard.Sincerely,
tdm
demoss.org
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by freedom fighter on September 30, 2001 at 15:36:11 PT
Back in the Revolutionary days
tdm, I want you to know that I do understand and know what you meant to say. And that does bother me.
Back in revolutionary days, many folks hold the same thought that you have. They say how can we possibly fight against a country that so powerful. We might as well ask them for protection. Just a few had to prove otherwise.I would like to think that these 7000 folks who died in NYC died for our freedom and liberty but not for our security. Because if we start worrying about our security, we do not deserve our freedom or liberty.I do understand you but do you understand my point of view? Like Neil would say, it only takes 500 good men to bring mightly U.S government down on its' knee. What I do not understand is why you think our "government" will protect you. I know you thought it was their job but they have not done the "job" right for the last 50 years.In the name of Liberty and Freedom
ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Rainbow on September 30, 2001 at 10:10:06 PT
Who's a terrorist
Thanks you provided a great definition. - "Still haven't heard a definition of terrorist so I'll at least give my own. A terrorist is someone who initiates the use of force to make an ideological statement, and who does so with the sole intent of killing innocent people. It is this intent that distinguishes a terrorist from others who intiate the use of force and which makes them the greatest threat to my safety."I would say this definition fits many of the actions taken by the USA military and police.
Did the military think that naplam would just pass over the children and not harm them? Did the USA think that the roundup spray in Columbia would just pass over the children and animals and do nothing to them? Did the USA think that spraying paraquat on marijuana in Mexico would not affect the children of the USA or Mexixo? Did the USA think that the bombs over Dresdon and Nuremberg (I think) would not kill everyone and they did since the type of bombing basically sucked all the oxygen out of the air. And why did the USA bomb the cities of Japan - did they think the children would not be affected?This sounds like terrorism to me. What about the SWAT raids on innocents and marijuana guilties? Some were so terrorized they tried to defend themselves and were shot dead. Ask Alberto Sepulveda who did as asked and was shot in the back by a SWAT guy - oh my gun accidentally went off (second instance for this guy).So it seems we spread terror all over the world. mess with us and we will kill you. Hey we can even train you how to be terrorists and give you money - Osama and the Taliban got our money.So I think the problem is the policy of the politicians and military commanders. If they would not take some of these stupid and drastic actions there would be a lot fewer people mad as hell at the USA. And who suffers? Yes you are righ you and I and FF. We not live in fear of the terrorists and the ones who are supposed to be our friends the police.The problem is more deep rooted. Canada does not seem to have a problem with terrorists, neither does Belize (except forthe USA), neither does Jamaica (except for the USA).Sorry if you support the terrorist ways of the USA then you are a terrorist as well just defined a little bit differently in the propaganda world of the USA.I personally abhor terrorism by any state. I think though the USA politicians live by it and are not able to stop. They live and believe their own propanganda and are trying to get us to believe it as well.Wait till Martial Law happens and if it does you might be turning to the terrorists and Mafia for help?CheersRainbowPS Try to be a pacifist and not support killing. The first Bush is credited with killing 175,000 children. His diplomats all but said it was OK for Iraq to overtake Kuwait then we killed.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by tdm on September 30, 2001 at 07:08:35 PT:
first-hand self defense
FF, given that you would choose to defend yourself against organized crime rather than enlist the aid of the police tells me we aren't likely to ever understand one another's positions regarding war. Mostly, this makes me even angrier at the drug war and what it has done to our respect for law enforcement. The police, in violating the rights they were supposed to be protecting have violated the contract between themselves and the individuals who pay them for protection.In cases other than one-on-one combat, I must still rely on police (or military) protection because it's beyond my capabilities. It's a shame and a travesty of the drug war that they've convinced you you're better off on your own than requesting their help.Best of luck,tdm
demoss.org
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by freedom fighter on September 29, 2001 at 22:42:51 PT
Cops are the last people I would
ask for help....,tdm,I have been threatend before, called the cops. Took them 30 min. to get to my house.No, I will defend myself. I will protect my family and myself. And then I will call the cops. Moral of the story;One of my lady friend who took her harmless dog for a walk and came upon a male who some how feel threatened by her dog and threaten the owner. So, the dogowner called the cops. She was ticketed for harboring a dangerous animal. That dog is 10 yr old. Heck, the male had threatend the lady. That dog, I am dogsitting right now. Oh, she will bark but do not bite.In my book, f# k the cops. I cannot rely or trust them to defend or protect me or my family. So, I will have to shoot first and then talk.There are big difference btwn a criminal or a terrorist.. I'll give you my definition of what a terrorist is.A terrorist is just a freedom(their idea of what freedom is) fighter who did not win the war. In other word, a freedom fighter or a patriot is just a terrorist who won the war. And there is a difference btwn dumb and smart terrorists. A dumb one will kill the innocent ones. The smart one will just kill the politicians. Read an article in my local newspaper a couple days ago, back in 80's terrorists kept on killing Russia people. Did you know what the Soviet Union did? They did not get on T.V. proclaiming they are going war against these terrorists. They said nothing. And you know what they did? They hunt these bastards down. They tourtured and killed one by one. Their bodies found in dumpsters all over the towns.. Pretty soon, terrorists get their message. Leave Soviet Union alone.Moral of this story;You do not need to make war against nations to kill the terrorists. And probably most important, you ought to learn how to defend and protect yourself because cops are the last people who will defend or protect you. They are willing to shoot you first then talk. Think about that!Hope I am not picking on you!! :)ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by tdm on September 29, 2001 at 20:46:38 PT:
definitions and moral foundations
Still haven't heard a definition of terrorist so I'll at least give my own. A terrorist is someone who initiates the use of force to make an ideological statement, and who does so with the sole intent of killing innocent people. It is this intent that distinguishes a terrorist from others who intiate the use of force and which makes them the greatest threat to my safety.I only see one other thing I can say that might have any impact here. FF, as others have done here at CNews before me, let me say how awful I feel for you that you were affected so directly by the insane drug war. I can only inagine how horrible your experiences were. With no intention of downplaying the impact that had on your life, I must still ask a few more questions.For argument's sake, if one of your friends were killed by the mafia and you knew there was a hit out on you as well, to whom would you turn for help? Would you contact the police or would you just let come what may? As disgusting as their actions were against you in the drug war, would you turn down the protection of the police if your life were in imminent danger? That is how I feel about our current predicament with terrorism. I think my life is more important than any other value or principle. This leaves me with no choice about what we should do because my own life is my primary value.Respectfully,tdm
demoss.org
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #11 posted by FoM on September 29, 2001 at 10:05:08 PT

Come Together - Tuesday, October 2 at 8 p.m. ET 
Come Together

A night for John Lennon words & music. Dedicated to NYC and it's people.

Tuesday, October 2nd   8pm(ET) 

TV-PG

His music inspired a generation and continues to influence the world. Now Turner Network Television and The WB proudly present a live simulcast of a very special musical event: COME TOGETHER: A NIGHT FOR JOHN LENNON'S WORDS & MUSIC. A concert of prayer and healing for New York City and its people, the live broadcast will air on Tuesday, October 2 at 8 p.m. ET from Radio City Music Hall in New York. 

Academy Award® winner Kevin Spacey will host the spectacular event, which will feature some of today's best musical talents -- Dave Matthews, Moby, Stone Temple Pilots, Nelly Furtado, Shelby Lynne, Alanis Morissette, Cyndi Lauper, Lou Reed, Marc Anthony, Yolanda Adams, Billy Preston, Craig David, Natalie Merchant, Rufus Wainwright, Sean Lennon and more -- in unique performances of Lennon's most beloved songs. Ben Stiller, Dustin Hoffman, Edie Falco, James Gandolfini, Julia Stiles, Steve Buscemi and Tim Roth will be special segment presenters. For more information on John Lennon and his music go to AOL Music, Keyword: John Lennon. 

Proceeds from ticket sales will benefit New York City relief organizations including the American Red Cross, September 11th Fund, International Association of Fire Fighters, New York Fraternal Order of Police WTC Fund, The National Organization for Victim Assistance, and The Twin Towers Fund in addition to the Violence Policy Center, The Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March. For donations and more information, go to: http://www.helping.org 

http://www.tnt.tv/Title/View4/0,5878,341134|1353|~,00.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by FoM on September 29, 2001 at 09:52:01 PT

Article from The Jerusalem Post
Don't Fight the Last War: http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/09/28/News/News.35448.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by FoM on September 29, 2001 at 09:24:45 PT

Information on School of the Americas
SOA Watch
http://www.soaw.org/

Protesters March On
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10349.shtml

School of Americas Reforms Are Ploy, Nun Says
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread5785.shtml

Column: A School That Should Be Closed
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread3612.shtml 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by freedom fighter on September 29, 2001 at 08:41:54 PT

individual freedom ??
"We did not CREATE these terrorists. These terrorists are the creation of a philosophy that despises the very idea of individual freedom that you and I cherish."I now must ask you where and how did the terrorists create that philosophy? The countries that I mentioned that we have already bombed in past are the same countries that you mentioned. With Japan, when we bombed them, we came back and helped them rebuild their country. Now, Japan have greater respect for us. We do not see Japan terrorists coming down here. But, we did not do this to Afghanistian or Sudan or Iraq or Libya. 
And we wondered why the talibans are carrying america made stingers. Why did not we go back and disarm the population and feed their children? Do you think Bin Laden would be sucessful in building his empire if we did just that, go back and help these afghan people? To me, a hungry child well fed does not make a good terrorist. Same thing with the Iraq, why did not the US go in and capture Saddam? He is a war criminal. It seemed to me that we have this bad habit of just bombing the population and not solving the real problem which create more terrorists. I really cannot understand why we should nuke a country or two based on this theory that the government has to defend and protect me or you. The world have enuff nuclear bombs to destory the earth seven times or more. I agree that the government's duty is to protect and defend its' citzens. I agree we should "smoke em" terrorists out. 
I have to ask myself why the government did bother to chase and arrest 600,000 pot heads including me who grew a plant because the government used this excuse, to defend and protect you, while the terrorists breeze thru the borders. So what makes you think that the government is going to do its' job which is to defend and protect our rights to freedom? Because you or that philospher said so? There is no doubt only less than 10 terrorists arrested and went to court last year.
In my book, only person who can truly defend and protect my freedom is myself. I know what is like when our "government" invaded my house. I know what is like to be accused by unknown informer. I know what is like when the "government" said no charge if your son snitch. I am under no illusion that America do have freedom and liberty.For I want you to understand that your first comment would grace every major newspapers while my comments would never be printed. I am not here to get you all worked up. I love my country and I do not fear our "government". You said we should just bomb or nuke these countries and then, deal with the "mistakes". Why should we compound mistake after another mistake? So you can feel safe? I agree that we should go after the terrorists if we do have the evidence. Yes, we are in danger. Our greatest danger is not the terrorists. We need to understand that it can be right here.
Someone said in the movie "Patriot", "it is not one tryant 3 thousand mile away that is the danger, but the 3000 tryants right under our nose." I can tell you the names of several countries that are great however, that does not answer the question, why do we think we are the greatest? Do we truly pratice what we preach? Do we like what we see in the mirror? My daily newspaper are printing statements like Kill them, Revenge! and I am so proud of my plastic flag. I do not like what I see in my mirror. I am going to defend my freedom and liberty what is left by holding on to this thought of what John Lennon said. "All we need is Love and Give the Peace a chance." Respectfully Yours
ff
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by dddd on September 28, 2001 at 23:59:09 PT

This is The War on Drugs....on drugs...
..Money is far more destructive than crack,meth,heroin.........our government,and it's politicians are strung out on money.They have recently made it obvious that they will do anything to support their habit............... .....................................
I'm thinkin' this is the beginning of the end......This War on Terrorism,is the equivelent of a war on ANYTHING........!.......There are no limits to what our government can do....The War on Terror pretty much covers it all.Searched,,,detained,,investigated,,,probed,,,,incarcerated,,,,,F*#ked,,,any one of theses could be justified in the War on Terror...................................And the marketing of this sort of "America unites",,or "America on Alert",,in the media......It's as if the government is now allowed,or has allowed itself,to advertise,in the airways it controls...The news is contolled and manipulated by highly paid experts, whos check are paid by us sheeple......this may seem like a far-fetched analogy,,but it's like the government has become much like a corporate entity in the media....Not many eybrows were raised by the ondcps media campaigns,or the millions of dollars paid to advertising,and public relations firms,using our tax money,,,but now,,,now we have the federal/military monster,that basicly has complete control of the national media,,,and it appears to the public,as if it's all normal.No one wants to believe that the news they see is censored,and manipulated by the government....no not in this country,,,after all,we have a free press,,,dont we?.......Ted Koppel would tell us if things were different,,,,wouldnt he?,,,and no one tells Stone Phillips,or Mike Wallace what he can or cant say,,,,right?........................dddd
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by Rainbow on September 28, 2001 at 22:33:46 PT

Terrorists
School of the Americas - Well known military school to teach the paramilitaries and others who made up the death squad in Central and Latin America. probably Columbia as well.
SWAT Teams who terrorize Americans by bashing in front doors of dangerous people instead of waiting till they were alone at a shopping market or drug store. Alberto Sepulveda found out what terror is. FBI terrorized the people and yes children of Waco, Ruby Ridge, Rainbow Farms for what? They had a different life style in Waco and were fairly peaceful, yes yes Korash (sp) supposedly did some spanking and had some strange view on marriage but to kill all those people?And our friends at Rainbow Farms - The FBI had a tank and highy armed people acting as observers - I think one ofthe observers shoot Tom what 8 times I heard? He was one of the most peaceful people around.The terrorists are using the tools that we have capitalized on and used many times. I know the Japanese attacked us I am not that dumb. I have been on the Arizona and rode past it everyday on my way to school (by boat) as well as viewed the bullets holes in Buildings at Hickam. But the war was almost over and were still dropped not one but 2 nuclear bombs. I presume we would have dropped another (terror).The naplam and agent orange are still having the poor effects on people. I still see that young girl walking down the road burned to a crisp. Yes we did a great job there just as we are doing a great job on the citizens of the USA who just want a little peace a quiet and smoke some pot for medicinal use.So yes the police we have are terrorizing some of the people of our great land.Cheers
Rainbow
PS Peace to you. Please there isno need to shout. I can read.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by tdm on September 28, 2001 at 22:16:00 PT:

what's a terrorist?
Perhaps some definitions are in order here. Rainbow, how do you define a terrorist? Hard to debate if we don't have some common definitions. The School of the Americas, the School of the SWAT, the FIA on our own people.I'm not sure what any of this means or what it has to do with terrorism. Could you enlighten me? I honestly don't know.We also are the ones promoting biological warfare - Agent Orange in Vietname, Roundup Plus and bacteria in Columbia, Nuclear radiation in Japan.Agreed that using those chemicals in Vietnam and Colombia was environmentally unsound. Not sure that justifies nuking the U.S. And as for Japan, you will please recall that THEY ATTACKED US. And just as we decided to use nuclear weapons then in our own defense, we shouldn't rule them out now.We also support terrorist countries - Noriega, Columbia, the Taliban, bin Laden etc.Please refer to my earlier comments about what creates terrorists or terrorism.

demoss.org
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by Rainbow on September 28, 2001 at 21:50:38 PT

But who is really the terrorist?
Might as well start nuking every country on this earth. Is that what you are saying?Well might as well nuke the good ole USA since we create terrorists daily. The School of the Americas, the School of the SWAT, the FIA on our own people.
We also are the ones promoting biological warfare - Agent Orange in Vietname, Roundup Plus and bacteria in Columbia, Nuclear radiation in Japan.Sorry but the USA is also a terrorist state if yoyu consider these things. We also support terrorist countries - Noriega, Columbia, the Taliban, bin Laden etc.I agree love and a move back to our Constitution might help.We probably need another Boston Tea party before it is too late.Rainbow
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by tdm on September 28, 2001 at 19:13:55 PT:

reply to freedom fighter
Might as well start nuking every country on this earth. Is that what you are saying?No. I am saying that some countries, the ones I listed, are sponsors of terrorism and should be dealt with as the threats to freedom that they are. Should we nuke them? If it comes to that, yes. We should use every means at our disposal to defend ourselves.There is no higher value than a man's own life. Since September 11, I see the governments of terrorist nations as a very real threat to my own life and I expect my government, to whom I have agreed to give a monopoly on exercising violent power, to defend me with everything they've got. I'm not asking them to initiate violence; the initation of violence has already been perpetrated by people protected and supported by those countries I listed. I am now in imminent danger and I expect the U.S. government to keep up its end of the bargain.I learned long time ago that there are three things that men should not fight over. Wine, Women and Religions.I must repeat. This is not a war over religion. This is a war defending the citizens of this country against vicious attacks on our life and property. Just because GWB and all the congresscritters sang "God Bless America" doesn't mean I should refuse to let them defend me lest we begin a holy war. They're the only defenders I've got.Of course, we did bombed them in past and did heck of a lousy job. We also starved them by sanctions. All in the name of defending our freedom?I'll need your clarification on which countries you're referring to before I can address this directly. However, as I've said in other posts, whether or not my government has made mistakes in the past has no bearing on my claim that they are now required to protect and defend me today. If they've made mistakes previously (and I admit they have), we can deal with that once I am safe from foreign terrorists.Why can we just defend their rights to freedom too? Why can we just feed the hungry children so they may not become terrorists?I refer you to Onkar Ghate's quote in my previous post.I beg your forgiveness, but our country is not the greatest in the world. We do not pratice what we preach.Again, irrelevant to my protection. Nonetheless, I must ask which countries you feel are "greater?" I don't claim this country is perfect, only that it is the best. I'll gladly discuss why you might think otherwise.And finally, we have no right to defend our freedom if it is truly us that created these terrorists in first place.We did not CREATE these terrorists. These terrorists are the creation of a philosophy that despises the very idea of individual freedom that you and I cherish. Your argument is the same one used by drug prohibitionists to villify all drug users as responsible for terrorism. Drug users buy drugs. Terrorists are funded by selling drugs. Ergo, drug users are responsible for terrorism. That argument doesn't work against drug users and it won't work against the entire United States.Sorry if my tone is harsh, ff. I just get worked up sometimes.Yours against Prohibition,
tdm
demoss.org
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by freedom fighter on September 28, 2001 at 18:03:55 PT

tdm
Might as well start nuking every country on this earth.. Is that what you are saying?And you said,"Thankfully, that is true, as that is a war on U.S. citizens by their own government."I have to disagree. To me, it is a war on everybody on earth wither if you do or do not do drugs.I know you said that it was our noble intention not to make war against Islam but against the terrorists. However, there is just one problem with this statement, these terrorists are fighting based on their religious beliefs which might be misguided and hateful. I learned long time ago that there are three things that men should not fight over. Wine, Women and Religions. No one will win. Only way to win this hateful war is by Love."We in the U.S. live in the greatest country in the world. Our ethical foundation is individual freedom, and overall, we practice those ethics more consistently than anyone else. Defending our freedom by "bombing another country back to the stone age" is implicit in our right to self defense and necessary in this instance."These countries are very poor. They are already in stone age and we did not have to bomb them back to the "stone age". Of course, we did bombed them in past and did heck of a lousy job. We also starved them by sanctions. All in the name of defending our freedom? Why can we just defend their rights to freedom too? Why can we just feed the hungry children so they may not become terrorists? I beg your forgiveness, but our country is not the greatest in the world. We do not pratice what we preach. I am curious as to what would our response be if someone in the US actually did this terror on Sept. 11 instead of these so-called middle easterns terrorists and I am still waiting for the evidence.Biggest danger I see in defending our rights to freedom is if we are our own worst enemy. Someone once asked Richard Nixon, our ex-president, when would the World War 3 start. He answered it has already started. That was back in 1970's.
That was only honest statement he made in his lifetime.And finally, we have no right to defend our freedom if it is truly us that created these terrorists in first place. Freedom is a diffcult concept these days. Do we have what I call "Plastic freedom" or truly a free country? Is Consitution still intact? Or has it been shredded into tiny pieces that it is not taught in any classroom in US anymore?Humbly Yours
ff
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by tdm on September 28, 2001 at 16:04:35 PT:

not like the WoD
Thankfully, that is true, as that is a war on U.S. citizens by their own government.But we suspect that their ultimate goal is to provoke a world war between Islam and the West.
All the talk of ''This is war, let's show them what we're made of'' and even ''bomb Afghanistan back into the Stone Age'' causes us to fear that our government, with the blessing of a public whipped into war fever, will give the perpetrators exactly what they want.
...
All eyes are now on America to see how we respond. Our response will define our relationship with the rest of the world for generations. If we identify specific perpetrators or legitimate targets that threaten more of the same, then force is justified in removing these threats.But our intention is not to go to war against Islam, it is to cut off terrorism at the knees, to permanently cripple its support structure. To think that we could carefully identify and eliminate all the terrorists in the world is akin to fighting cancer by targeting it one cell at a time. What does this author think? That all the terrorists wear or carry some kind of terrorist identification? And just like cancer, taking them out one terrorist at a time means there is always another there ready to take his place. The only way to solve this is to target the governments of those nations which tacitly approve terrorism and who, in so doing, declared war against us on September 11. This list includes Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan and Libya.We in the U.S. live in the greatest country in the world. Our ethical foundation is individual freedom, and overall, we practice those ethics more consistently than anyone else. Defending our freedom by "bombing another country back to the stone age" is implicit in our right to self defense and necessary in this instance. Will innocent people be hurt? Maybe. But it's either take that chance or resign ourselves to more deaths here when the next terrorist attack occurs.As philosopher Onkar Ghate noted recently: The U.S. government is simply the agent of its citizens, charged with one and only one responsibility: to secure and defend the rights—and very lives—of its citizens against aggressors. If in waging war our government were to consider deaths in enemy countries as a cost that must be weighed against the deaths of American citizens or soldiers, it would be violating its most basic function. It would no longer be an agent for our self-defense, but theirs.I just couldn't say it any clearer myself.tdm
demoss.org
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment