War Cry

WAR CRY By Ted Rall

The Case for Regime Change

NEW YORK -- Making the case for United Nations
intervention against the United States, Iranian President
Mohammad Khatami told the organization yesterday that
military action will be "unavoidable" unless the U.S. agrees
to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.

In a much-anticipaed speech to a special session of the U.N.
General Assembly held in Brussels, Khatami launched a
blistering attack against American leader George W. Bush,
accusing him of defying U.N. resolutions and using his
country's wealth to line the pockets of wealthy cronies at a
time when the people of his country make do without such
basic social programs as national health insurance.

"Nearly two years ago, the civilized world watched as
this evil and corrupt dictator subverted the world's oldest
representative democracy in an illegal coup d'�tat," said
Khatami. "Since then the Bush regime has continued
America's systematic repression of ethnic and religious
minorities and threatened international peace and security
throughout the world. Thousands of political opponents and
ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and
imprisonment. Basic civil rights have been violated. This
rogue state has flouted the international community on legal,
economic and environmental issues. It has even ignored the
Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war by
denying that its illegal invasion of Afghanistan -- which has
had a destabilizing influence throughout Central Asia -- was
a war at all."

Khatami said the U.S. possesses the world's largest arsenal
of nuclear weapons, weapons "that, when first developed, were
used immediately to kill half a million innocent civilians just
months after acquiring them. No nation that has committed
nuclear genocide can be entrusted with weapons of mass
destruction."

"Bush has invaded Afghanistan and is now threatening Iraq.
We cannot stand by and do nothing while danger gathers.
We can't for this tyrant to strike first. We have an obligation
to act pre-emptively to protect the world from this evildoer,"
Khatami said.

As delegates punctuated his words with bursts of applause,
Khatami noted that U.S. intelligence agencies had helped
establish and fund the world's most virulent terrorist
organizations, including Al Qaeda, and the Taliban regime
that harbored them. "The U.S. created the Islamist extremists
who attacked its people on September 11, 2001," he stated,
"and Bush's illegitimate junta cynically exploited those attacks
to repress political dissidents, make sweetheart deals with
politically-connected corporations and revive 19th century-
style colonial imperialism."

Khatami asked the U.N. to set a deadline for Bush to step
down in favor of president-in-exile Al Gore, the legitimate
winner of the 2000 election, the results of which were
subverted through widespread voting irregularities and
intimidation. "We favor not regime change, but rather
restoration and liberation," he said. In addition, Khatami said,
the U.S. must dismantle its weapons of mass destruction,
guarantee basic human rights to all citizens and agree to
abide by international law or "face the consequences."

Most observers agree that those "consequences" would likely
include a prolonged bombing campaign targeting major U.S.
cities and military installations, followed by a ground invasion
led by European forces. "Civilian casualties would likely be
substantial," said a French military analyst. "But the American
people must be liberated from tyranny." Khatami's charges,
which were detailed in a dossier prepared by French President
Jacques Chirac, were dismissed by a representative of the
American strongman as "lies, half-truths and misguided
beliefs, motivated by the desire to control a country with oil,
natural gas and other natural resources." National Security
Minister Condoleezza Rice denied that the U.S. maintains
weapons of mass destruction and invited U.N. inspectors to
visit Washington to "see for themselves that our weapons are
designed only to keep the peace, subject of course to full
respect for American sovereignty."

The U.N. is expected to reject any conditions for or
restrictions on arms inspections.

Experts believe that the liberation of the United States
will require a large ground force of European and other
international troops, followed by a massive rebuilding
program costing billions of euros. "Even before Bush,
the American political system was a shambles," said Prof.
Salvatore Deluna of the University of Madrid. "Their
single-party plutocracy will have to be reshaped into true
parliamentary-style democracy. Moreover, the economy
will have to be retooled from its current military dictatorship
model -- in which a third of the federal budget goes to arms,
and taxes are paid almost exclusively by the working class -
to one in which basic human needs such as education and
poverty are addressed. Their infrastructure is a mess; they
don't even have a national passenger train system. Fixing a
failed state of this size will require many years."

(Ted Rall's latest book, a graphic travelogue about his recent
coverage of the Afghan war titled "To Afghanistan and Back,"
is now in its second edition. Ordering and review-copy
information are available at nbmpub.com.) COPYRIGHT
2002 TED RALL RALL 9/25/02

This is really excellent!
thanks Dante!

Dante Rosati wrote:

> WAR CRY By Ted Rall
>
> The Case for Regime Change
>
> NEW YORK -- Making the case for United Nations
> intervention against the United States, Iranian President
> Mohammad Khatami told the organization yesterday that
> military action will be "unavoidable" unless the U.S. agrees
> to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 fm Wed. 8-9pm PST.
live stream kxlu.com

Yeah Dante!

I've thought of this all along, and wondered when someone would actually write down an account like this. As if we never bombed the shit out of Hiroshima...

I've just printed it out to take to work tomorrow!

Cheers,
Jon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dante Rosati" <dante.interport@...>
To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:33 PM
Subject: [metatuning] War Cry

> WAR CRY By Ted Rall
>
> The Case for Regime Change
>
> NEW YORK -- Making the case for United Nations
> intervention against the United States, Iranian President
> Mohammad Khatami told the organization yesterday that
> military action will be "unavoidable" unless the U.S. agrees
> to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.
>
> <etc...>

someone finally had the guts to come right out
and tell it like it is.

-monz

----- Original Message -----
From: "monz" <monz@...>

> someone finally had the guts to come right out
> and tell it like it is.
> -monz

He's been doing that for a long time:

http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/

dB
* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

> > this evil and corrupt dictator subverted the world's oldest
> > representative democracy in an illegal coup d'�tat," said
> > Khatami. "Since then the Bush regime has continued
> > America's systematic repression of ethnic and religious
> > minorities and threatened international peace and security
> > throughout the world. Thousands of political opponents and
> > ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and
> > imprisonment. Basic civil rights have been violated. This
> > rogue state has flouted the international community on legal,
> > economic and environmental issues. It has even ignored the
> > Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war by
> > denying that its illegal invasion of Afghanistan -- which has
> > had a destabilizing influence throughout Central Asia -- was
> > a war at all."
>
> So do you guys all *really* feel this way about the US?

Its not talking about the US, its talking about Bush and his cronies.

> > We can't for this tyrant to strike first. We have an obligation
> > to act pre-emptively to protect the world from this evildoer,"
>
> Do you really believe the US s hould be attacked by the UN?

This is satire, its not a real speech.

> > "The U.S. created the Islamist extremists
> > who attacked its people on September 11, 2001," he stated,
> > "and Bush's illegitimate junta cynically exploited those attacks
> > to repress political dissidents, make sweetheart deals with
> > politically-connected corporations and revive 19th century-
> > style colonial imperialism."
>
> And these are more of your honest feelings about the US?

the US >government<, more specifically the Bush royal family.

> > guarantee basic human rights to all citizens and agree to
> > abide by international law or "face the consequences."
>
> Do you believe that the US human rights record is worse than most other
> countries and that the UN (representing those most other countries) should
> liberate the US to provide those human rights to the US populace?

The US government has a double standard when it comes to the human rights of
people in other countries, that is we dont mind if the foreign government
abuses its people as long as it does what we want when it comes to oil.
money, or access to our military bases.

> This paragraph is the most interesting, in this article that you gentle
> fellows are so enamored with.
>
> I recall some of you stating you were pacifists. But when it comes to an
> article advocating bombing the US, the pacifism goes out the
> window. Do you
> really believe the elimination of the US is the mest route
> towards peace and
> better respect for human rights worldwide?
>
> - Jeff

its satire, Jeff, as a way of making a point. Its not meant to be taken
literally.

Dante

----- Original Message -----
From: "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@...>

Dante, Kraig, Jon, Monz, David,

You responded:

>So do you guys all *really* feel this way about the US?

All I did was post a link to a site for Ted Rail cartoons.

dB
* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

hi Jeff,

> From: "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [metatuning] War Cry
>
>
> Dante, Kraig, Jon, Monz, David,
>
> You responded:
>
> > This is really excellent!
>
> and
>
> > I've thought of this all along, and wondered when
> > someone would actually write down an account like this.
>
> and
>
> >someone finally had the guts to come right out
> and tell it like it is.
>
> and
>
> >He's been doing that for a long time [telling it like it is]
>
> in response to an article that describes the US president as:
>
> > this evil and corrupt dictator subverted the world's oldest
> > representative democracy in an illegal coup d'�tat," said
> > Khatami. "Since then the Bush regime has continued
> > America's systematic repression of ethnic and religious
> > minorities and threatened international peace and security
> > throughout the world. Thousands of political opponents and
> > ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and
> > imprisonment. Basic civil rights have been violated. This
> > rogue state has flouted the international community on legal,
> > economic and environmental issues. It has even ignored the
> > Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war by
> > denying that its illegal invasion of Afghanistan -- which has
> > had a destabilizing influence throughout Central Asia -- was
> > a war at all."
>
> So do you guys all *really* feel this way about the US?

i do.

> > We can't for this tyrant to strike first. We have an obligation
> > to act pre-emptively to protect the world from this evildoer,"
>
> Do you really believe the US should be attacked by the UN?

since i live here, no, of course i don't believe that,
because it would threaten my own life and security.

but i *do* believe that the current administration should
seriously consider that an attack from the UN *could* be the
consequence of its (the Bush administration's) own
ill-considered actions and plans.

> > "The U.S. created the Islamist extremists
> > who attacked its people on September 11, 2001," he stated,
> > "and Bush's illegitimate junta cynically exploited those attacks
> > to repress political dissidents, make sweetheart deals with
> > politically-connected corporations and revive 19th century-
> > style colonial imperialism."
>
> And these are more of your honest feelings about the US?

about all things following in the footsteps of Nixon, Reagan,
and Bush Sr., yes.

> > Khatami asked the U.N. to set a deadline for Bush to step
> > down in favor of president-in-exile Al Gore, the legitimate
> > winner of the 2000 election,
>
> Is it the means by which presidents are to be elected through the
electoral
> college as opposed to the popular vote you object to here? If so, are you
> lobying to have the Constitution changed to support electoral vote or do
you
> favor a revolution, on UN intervention?

a peaceful and bloodless worldwide revolution would be the best
solution, IMHO.

OK, so maybe it's not realistic ... but the dream is the first
step towards achieving the reality.

> > guarantee basic human rights to all citizens and agree to
> > abide by international law or "face the consequences."
>
> Do you believe that the US human rights record is worse than most other
> countries and that the UN (representing those most other countries) should
> liberate the US to provide those human rights to the US populace?

i'd rather not give an opinion on that without doing further
research, but i am convinced that the US human rights record
is far worse than what most of its citizens believe it is.

> > Most observers agree that those "consequences" would likely
> > include a prolonged bombing campaign targeting major U.S.
> > cities and military installations, followed by a ground invasion
> > led by European forces. "Civilian casualties would likely be
> > substantial," said a French military analyst.
>
> This paragraph is the most interesting, in this article that you gentle
> fellows are so enamored with.
>
> I recall some of you stating you were pacifists. But when it comes to an
> article advocating bombing the US, the pacifism goes out the window. Do
you
> really believe the elimination of the US is the mest route towards peace
and
> better respect for human rights worldwide?

i am a pacifist. i believe that the elimination of *all*
nations is "the best route towards peace and better respect
for human rights worldwide". it's time we came to terms with
the fact that all 6+ billion of us live *together* on this
little rock.

the rest of the world already admires and aspires to be much
of what the USA is, mainly because it is so exposed to our
culture thru our rampant and aggressive capitalism. but other
cultures around the world have been well-established for centuries
(or even millienia), and many of the people in them have a
strong resentment of our bullying everyone else, and i don't
blame them.

most of Africa now lies in shambles as a result of European
colonialism, and what does the USA do to help out? ... our
oil companies go there, rape the land of its resources, pollute
what they leave behind, take the money, and run. it's not
a pretty record.

much of the rest of the world looks on as they see us becoming
bigger energy hogs than we already are, wantonly consuming
as much of the world's resources as we can afford to buy
and leaving a vast legacy of trash and pollution in our wake.

blatantly telling the governments of these countries that
they'd better do things our way or risk destruction is not,
IMO, a healthy way to fix the world's problems.

-monz

--- In metatuning@y..., David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "monz" <monz@a...>
>
> > someone finally had the guts to come right out
> > and tell it like it is.
> > -monz
>
>
> He's been doing that for a long time:
>
> http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/

when i clicked on this, a pop-up window for the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia came up. now i liked the article that dante posted, but this i
can do without . . .

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> Dante, Kraig, Jon, Monz, David,
>
> You responded:
>
> > This is really excellent!
>
> and
>
> >I've thought of this all along, and wondered when someone would
actually write
> down an account like this.
>
> and
>
> >someone finally had the guts to come right out
> and tell it like it is.
>
> and
>
> >He's been doing that for a long time [telling it like it is]
>
> in response to an article that describes the US president as:
>
> > this evil and corrupt dictator subverted the world's oldest
> > representative democracy in an illegal coup d'état," said
> > Khatami. "Since then the Bush regime has continued
> > America's systematic repression of ethnic and religious
> > minorities and threatened international peace and security
> > throughout the world. Thousands of political opponents and
> > ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and
> > imprisonment. Basic civil rights have been violated. This
> > rogue state has flouted the international community on legal,
> > economic and environmental issues. It has even ignored the
> > Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war by
> > denying that its illegal invasion of Afghanistan -- which has
> > had a destabilizing influence throughout Central Asia -- was
> > a war at all."
>
> So do you guys all *really* feel this way about the US?
>
> > We can't for this tyrant to strike first. We have an obligation
> > to act pre-emptively to protect the world from this evildoer,"
>
> Do you really believe the US s hould be attacked by the UN?
>
> > "The U.S. created the Islamist extremists
> > who attacked its people on September 11, 2001," he stated,
> > "and Bush's illegitimate junta cynically exploited those attacks
> > to repress political dissidents, make sweetheart deals with
> > politically-connected corporations and revive 19th century-
> > style colonial imperialism."
>
> And these are more of your honest feelings about the US?
>
> > Khatami asked the U.N. to set a deadline for Bush to step
> > down in favor of president-in-exile Al Gore, the legitimate
> > winner of the 2000 election,
>
> Is it the means by which presidents are to be elected through the
electoral
> college as opposed to the popular vote you object to here? If so,
are you
> lobying to have the Constitution changed to support electoral vote
or do you
> favor a revolution, on UN intervention?
>
> > guarantee basic human rights to all citizens and agree to
> > abide by international law or "face the consequences."
>
> Do you believe that the US human rights record is worse than most
other
> countries and that the UN (representing those most other countries)
should
> liberate the US to provide those human rights to the US populace?
>
> > Most observers agree that those "consequences" would likely
> > include a prolonged bombing campaign targeting major U.S.
> > cities and military installations, followed by a ground invasion
> > led by European forces. "Civilian casualties would likely be
> > substantial," said a French military analyst.
>
> This paragraph is the most interesting, in this article that you
gentle
> fellows are so enamored with.
>
> I recall some of you stating you were pacifists. But when it comes
to an
> article advocating bombing the US, the pacifism goes out the
window. Do you
> really believe the elimination of the US is the mest route towards
peace and
> better respect for human rights worldwide?
>
> - Jeff

hey jeff,

have you ever heard of PARODY?

sheesh.

----- Original Message -----
From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@...>

> --- In metatuning@y..., David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "monz" <monz@a...>
> >
> > > someone finally had the guts to come right out
> > > and tell it like it is.
> > > -monz
> >
> >
> > He's been doing that for a long time:
> >
> > http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/
>
> when i clicked on this, a pop-up window for the Kingdom of Saudi
> Arabia came up. now i liked the article that dante posted, but this i
> can do without . . .

I get no pop-up windows. Maybe it's because I use Mozilla.
Do you get a pop-up window for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
when you look at Peanuts on the same site?

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

Jeff,

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> I recall some of you stating you were pacifists. But when it comes
> to an article advocating bombing the US, the pacifism goes out the
> window. Do you really believe the elimination of the US is the mest
> route towards peace and better respect for human rights worldwide?

I'll speak only for myself: I'm sorry, Jeff, but you completely and utterly missed the point - that article was a mirror image of what the US is portraying about Iraq, Saddam, etc. It was meant to say "what if someone said the converse?". Indeed, what if someone *did* suggest, as Ari Fleischer did of Iraq/Saddam, that everything would be just fine if only one bullet were used to end the life of Saddam Hussein.

I find that a vile sentiment, if only for a supposed diplomatic and civilised government to openly espouse such action. And the only way to highlight the truly low nature of such behavior is to simply say "what if this were being said in regard to us?".

The article merely served to hold a mirror up to the caveman-like attitudes being shown by our (alleged) leaders.

I am still a pacifist, and will look for all ways, with all means possible, to end conflicts in non-violent ways.

Regards,
Jon

Jeff,

I mis-typed. It should read:

It was meant to say "what if someone said the converse?". Indeed, what if someone *did* suggest, as Ari Fleischer did of Iraq/Saddam, that everything would be just fine if only one bullet were used to end the life of *George Bush*?

(Fleischer suggested murdering Saddam as an effective way out of the present circumstances...)

Regards,
Jon

--- In metatuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_3239.html#3256

> Jeff,
>
> I mis-typed. It should read:
>
> It was meant to say "what if someone said the converse?". Indeed,
what if someone *did* suggest, as Ari Fleischer did of Iraq/Saddam,
that everything would be just fine if only one bullet were used to
end the life of *George Bush*?
>
> (Fleischer suggested murdering Saddam as an effective way out of
the present circumstances...)
>
> Regards,
> Jon

***Hi Jon,

You know, I read this and found it a bit peculiar, too, especially
since Rumsfeld said about a day before that that the goal was "regime
change" not murdering Hussein...

There seem to be somewhat ambiguous messages coming out...

JP

Yea we can put him along side Kissinger who allowed american citizens to be
killled in Chile. He is wanted in over 10 countries.
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/AmericanStateTerrorism.html
Scroll past the opening diatribe and you will find the real meant.

OUR MEDICAL SYSTEM IS A CRIME AGAINST OUR OWN HUMANITY

Humanity? we have no business even discussing it.

"X. J. Scott" wrote:

> Jon & all,
>
> OK.. thanks for the clarifications.
> I agree with you very much that assasination is a vile tactic and quite
> different from issues of self-defense, or even of combat in war.
>
> If we are to seek to depose Saddam because of his crimes against humanity, a
> reasonable situation would be to capture him alive and make him stand trial
> for his crimes, showing the world what sort of a person he is.
>
> I am glad that most cleared up that they did not actually advocate the
> things that the article was calling for.
>
> - Jeff
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 fm Wed. 8-9pm PST.
live stream kxlu.com

hi Joe,

> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 8:35 PM
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: War Cry (clarification)
>
>
> --- In metatuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> /metatuning/topicId_3239.html#3256
>
> > (Fleischer suggested murdering Saddam as an effective
> > way out of the present circumstances...)
>
>
> ***Hi Jon,
>
> You know, I read this and found it a bit peculiar, too, especially
> since Rumsfeld said about a day before that that the goal was "regime
> change" not murdering Hussein...
>
> There seem to be somewhat ambiguous messages coming out...

i think most people are getting the message pretty unambiguously:
the Bush administration's goal is to make Iraq yet another
American colony.

-monz

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:

> What I don't agree with from that site is that the international
slave trade
> is being run by "the Jewish Mafia".

yeah, this is an old one -- i regularly see some talk-show
participants citing this adage, though usually concerning the days
when slavery was legal in the southern states.

> In fact, these two facts alone are enough for me to realize, that,
despite
> the use of Swastikas superimposed upon the US flag, this is a neo-
Nazi site.

the thing is, jeff, that these sorts of _secret relationship between
blacks and jews_-type lies

(if you're unfamiliar with that book, check this out:
http://www.blacksandjews.com/books.html)

, and even the blood libel, are consistently perpetuated by not only
the far right but also the far left (which this site seems more like
an example of). a huge proportion of anti-semitic material comes down
to either "jews are communists" or "jews are fascists", whichever is
more effective for stirring up hatred in any given political
environment. and occasionally the twain will meet, as in the reform
party of the united states . . .

. . . anyway, my point was that "neo-nazi" implies "far-right" to me.
on the other hand, much of this propaganda is literally copied word-
for-word from old nazi tracts, so yes, in a sense that certainly
makes it "neo-nazi" . . .

> As such, I don't give any credibility to its other claims.

while i believe each issue should be decided on its own merits, there
is a point at which a party can cross a clear line between
intellectual honesty and politically-motivated, hate-fueled
propaganda. at that point, it's hard to take an attitude
substantially different from yours here, jeff.

yes only the history of genocide is useful, but few put it all is such a neat
package.
if a gang banger or a priest tells me that my mother been shot to me matters
little.
Adshcroft is a neo nazi if there ever was one

"X. J. Scott" wrote:

>
>
> - Jeff
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 fm Wed. 8-9pm PST.
live stream kxlu.com

I think the goal is to take iraq, iran and saudi arabia within a short
period, the latter two following swiftly in the interest of "security" of
holding the former.
It seems our representatives refused to listen to the people. if you
have stock, take it out and accept the loses, money is the only thing they
understand.

monz wrote:

>
>
> i think most people are getting the message pretty unambiguously:
> the Bush administration's goal is to make Iraq yet another
> American colony.
>
> -monz
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 fm Wed. 8-9pm PST.
live stream kxlu.com