|2003-02-19 15:38, by Julie Solheim-Roe|
Great articles about the recent world-wide peace protests and the impending war... about oil or not? And the St. Petersburg Times on-line reminds us 'Do not overlook importance of antiwar protests' despite Bush and Blair's defiance of them.... and we must REALIZE that indeed we are involved with what is perhaps the largest peace protests in world history. As In These Times reports:
"New York—The massive, coordinated outpouring of anti-war protest in more than 600 different cities across the globe on February 15 was something unprecedented in world history. Commentators reached and grasped to come up with anything to compare it with: The parties that wreathed the world during the millennium? The revolutions of 1848?
I keep hearing on these right-wing radio stations and in 'their' blog articles, that the right says it doesn't want or advocate war... but they compare our current situation with what Churchill went through in England with Hitler's impending threat. One compelling argument is indeed analogous to this recent time in our history. The question they ask: do the peace rally-ers think that this is peace? If Iraq/ Saddam Hussein are indeed planning on creating 'weapons of mass distruction'... what are they planning on doing with them? .., is the argument. They add that therefore the anti-war movement is helping Saddam. Another question put to 'us' is: Why don't we have signs about Saddam instead of Bush. I'd agree with this one. Saddam indeed is using the protests which seem mostly against Bush and Blair to prove his innocence. That isn't right. It is true that WWII would not have been so huge, had Churchill been heeded much earlier in the game. The more time Hitler had to prepare for his own aims.
It was a vast event, the largest protest in history (involving an estimated 10 million people worldwide). An attempt to stop a war before it even started, it saw the marshaling of a new, autonomous, self-organized resistance that began with the globalization movement and now threatens to bring on board masses of mainstream, middle-class citizens."
You can read Senator John McCain's latest stance on this. Good food for thought, to follow all the politics of this complex situation.
How could we disarm Iraq, then? I heard an interview on the radio over the weekend with a Daniel Rosenthal about the brilliant idea of using the Arab League in disarming Saddam. (this is all I could find on him in English in Google} --- I also think it might have been on the Gary Farber show -- but the only thing I can find in Google is this blog which is quite mysterious.... anyone?)
Well, this Rosenthall said that the general collective psyche of the Arab nations, feel very slighted by the U.S. and they don't believe their Middle East radio broadcasts about democracy. From much knowledge and first-hand research into the subject, Rosenthal deducts that by the U.S. utilizing the political power of the Arab League, which was created at the end of WWII by the British Government, there would be a great change in attitude towards the U.S.
He also cited Bush's great mistake with his now infamous 'axis of evil' speech of over a year ago. That by grouping your enemies together, you give them a common cause for aligning where it wouldn't have been obvious before. For example, the secular philosophy of Saddam is quite opposed to the orthodox fanatics of Al Queda... and they would be considered just as much enemies as the U.S. and Al Queda are. Furthermore, North Korea is now known to be a supplier of military arsenals to Iraq. .... If anyone knows where we can find out more about Rosenthal, please help!