Fueled by the question of Kurd nationalism, the Turkish people have overwhelmingly polled against basing US Troops in their country. They are afraid that, should Saddam fall, Kurds on both sides of the Iraqi/ Turkish border would rise up in revolt and attempt to form their own nation-state. Interested only in the problems of today, the Turkish people and the Turkish Parliament have put their own future in jeopardy. It would be nice to use Turkey as a base in this war, but I don't believe it is at all necessary. Iraqi troops are massing in the northern no-fly zone, and those skies will become extremely unfriendly once American jets re-establish air superiority. Of course, air power alone cannot win a war. I believe that instead of two broad east-west fronts moving toward each other to converge on Baghdad, there is a better strategy. We can have our airborne units harrass all of Iraq while ground forces make a clockwise circle run inside the Iraqi borders, starting from Kuwait, passing Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and Iran, sanitizing the countryside from its Iraqi military presence, paying special attention to taking out scuds, taking Baghdad last of all. Having won the war without Turkey's "help", we could then completely end our aid program to them. After all, bribed allies are not allies at all.
I came across the following letter recently and it shows precisely how divided the Left are. Meanwhile, I have added FNC so I can be sure to watch the very first cruise missiles fall on Baghdad. I still remember that night when I was in the sixth grade and the bombs fell on Baghdad. We were eating dinner, it began during the evening news. The ghosts of Vietnam were exorcised from America in the following months. Those were heady days, but not without costs. More British soldiers were killed by Americans than by Iraqis. Thankfully, they have remained our allies, truly our only ones.
1ST stop Afghanistan
2ND stop Iraq
3RD stop FRANCE!!
and now, the delightful "split left" letter:
Friends,
I apologize for harping on the Patriots for Peace controversy, but the
latest developments are the last straw. We met last night to try to work out
our differences, and operate effectively as a democratic coalition. Basically,
we wanted to simply get the poster made up that we had decided upon doing A
WEEK AGO! Mind you that the only reason that publicity for this event has
already been delayed so long is because of Patriots for Peace's refusal to
abide by the decisions voted on democratically BY THEMSELVES INCLUDED!
At last night's meeting we thought we had it all squared away, with Patriots
for Peace volunteering to make up the poster that we had decided upon the first
time (our mistake for allowing them another chance, i guess), and once again we
find out today that our decision had been vetoed by the CEO of Patriots.
Therefore, we have gone an entire week without a poster or any publicity
because of them. This is either stalling, sabotage, or simple childish
selfishness. With a war looming almost imminent, for a so-called pacifist
group to stall on an anti-war event simply because they are not the "leaders"
of it and "bigger" than the rest, is simply destructive. As it is said, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
This is not meant as a simple diatribe against Patriots, but simply so that
other activists and anti-war groups may take heed that, to put it bluntly, they
do not play fair.
They have said that they are going to send a poster tonight showing exaclty
what we had voted on, but this will only be after repeated calls and e-mails to
them telling them that if they do not "play fair" and democratically, and that
if they do not want to work with the coaltion on an equal basis, then they
shouldn't--they should leave.
Have you heard about the latest campaign in the dorms? GLBQTUVWXYZ students are trying to get the American Red Cross flyers appealing to people to give blood taken out of the dorms. This is because the ARC has a policy of not accepting blood from people who have recently had multiple sexual partners. This apparently excludes a large section of the gay population from being able
to give blood. Apparently these signs asking people to donate blood offend those who are disqualified because of their choice of lifestyle. Well, guess what? Choices have consequences! If you don't like being reminded of the consequences, maybe it's because you've made bad choices. Let me play out another scenario to you folks: I lived in England for a year. There is a miniscule chance that I was exposed to Mad Cow Disease. There is no reliable test for Mad Cow disease, because it has a long dormant period. Because of my lifestyle choice to live in England, the American Red Cross will not accept my blood. I am proud to have spent time in the British Isles. The minor hardship of not being able to give blood really doesn't bother me. I wasn't aware of it
when I went to the UK, but the information was there for me to see had I chosen to. I think the reason some GLBQTUVWXYZ students feel oppressed by the innocuous Red Cross signs is because they have a guilty conscience. My
conscience is clean about living in the UK. Shouldn't theirs be clean about their homosexuality? Listen to your conscience. It may very well be God trying to tell you something.
