Friday, May 23, 2008

Progressives for Obama: It's About War and Peace, Not Simply Race and Gender (and Scuds towards TelAviv)

On the left is a picture I took in Saddam's Palace of a mural of scuds headed towards Israel. It was the room Saddam used for receptions and he would sit in front of it receiving guests.

It's now used by the Special IG for Iraqi Audits. I took the picture the week before Easter. A SIGIR auditor died a week later in a Rocket Barrage on the Green Zone.

I posted these over at Prairie State Blue (the folks who switched to a flowers logo from an anarchist bomging picture) and they deleted the post and seemed to have banned me. I can no longer log in and post diaries.

Progressives for Obama get the idea though. The election is about rockets and war and peace. The P for O have the solutions all tangled, but they understand the real issue and I share their disgust that it's not talked about more.
The decisive issue in this election is about war and peace, between Barack Obama's proposed diplomacy with Iran to end the war in Iraq, and the hawkish stance of his two rivals, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, who favor an escalating the tensions with Tehran even to the point of war.

The mainstream media, and some of the blogosphere, continue to miss the danger of an escalated war as they blog and dabble over race, gender and numbers of pledged delegates. The antiwar movement and most Democrats have been fairly silent about these differences as well.
Steve Chapman did write about war yesterday in Mythmaking for the Next War. I wrote him yesterday and sent him a copy of the picture.

I wrote a tyrant doesn't need a big arsenal these days; or a soviet size Army or Air Force. A few nukes and a delivery system is enough. When dictators advertise --as Saddam did with his murals-- and has the where-with-all financially to make good, we should take him seriously.

War and Peace, Aggression and Survival, are the most important issues. The P for O crowd nailed that just right.

4 comments:

Dr Bermangolu said...

"I wrote a tyrant doesn't need a big arsenal these days; or a soviet size Army or Air Force. A few nukes and a delivery system is enough. When dictators advertise --as Saddam did with his murals-- and has the where-with-all financially to make good, we should take him seriously."

No, Bill.

A country also needs a reason. No one has any reason to nuke Israel, because no one whatsoever would get away with it. Everyone knows this. Your pictures of rockets are cute, but they were for public relations; meant to impress, sort of like pictures of you in camo running around Baghdad don't mean that you are actually a combat soldier in Iraq.

You can, of course, make the assertion (since it isn't an argument) that the scary Muslim government of the week is simply "crazy" (apocalyptic was the term I just saw you use).

There were two reasons you were banned from Prairie State Blue. The first is that you keep putting up little GOP trial balloons and people got tired of them, since they were not only all wrong, they also faded immediately when they got no traction. The second is that you just got back from a long trip to Baghdad. How did you pull that off, Bill? It's not really a place you can just get to by going to a travel agency. Who sponsored you? Could it have been...you boss?

Bill Baar said...

The Army Corps of Engineers.

Nobody sponsered...just go ahead and apply for a job at USAJOBs.

Yes, but at least I had a real identify behind what I wrote... so you're from Praire State blue.

For someone banned, I seem to have a very loyal following from there.

Dr Bermangolu said...

No, I'm not from Prairie State Blue. I went to Prairie State Blue because you referred to it. Am I allowed to do that?

I like posting on your site. You keep drawing these weird conclusions that seem to come directly from neo-con central. Obama has dinner with someone at some large banquet, and suddenly he's in the man's pocket. Obama serves on a charity board with a former Weatherman (and a bunch of socialites) and this makes him a Weatherman too (but not a socialite). You see a mural on a palace in Baghdad. This is "proof" that Saddam was going to launch a suicidal missile attack against Israel. And now Iran, Iraq's former enemy, is now also going to launch a suicidal missile attack against Israel. How do you know? Because they are crazy. Puny little Iran (just like puny little Iraq before it) is now as big or bigger a threat to the United States than the Soviet Union was because, hey, they're all crazy Muslims out there.

It's really funny to watch. You do all of this spinning and lying with such seriousness. When we were arming Iran and Iraq (and Al Qaeda for that matter) no one was saying anything about the global Islamic threat. Now it's all you seem to talk about. What changed? 9/11? But Iran and Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. But it doesn't matter. What matters is that you always need a big enemy to be afraid of.

Bill Baar said...

You seem to know the reasons I was banned. You named two of them. That's more than I was told.

There were folks sounding the alram on radical Islam long before 911 but it really took 911 to awaken the rest.

I voted for Gore-Lieberman in 2000 because I feared how Bush's self-deprecating humor would translate into Arabic. I had paid attention to Prez Clinton's warnings and it's why I was opposed to his impeachment. I didn't think Clinton's speech to the Joint Chiefs was an attempt to use fear to distract Americans from Monica with Saddam.

Joe Lieberman is the same guy I voted for in 2000. The rest of the party has changed quite a bit... I feel pretty consistent myself.