Anti-War Protesters Need to Find Other IssuesTo the Editor,
I hope that none of those anti-war protesters ("Tucson and War," March 27) gets injured while protesting, because it will take the paramedics forever to get there and treat them. Even innocent citizens not involved in the protest needing emergency treatment were put at risk because of the protester's planned traffic jams.
Where are these folks when there isn't a war going on?
I wish they would get this excited about other important issues like education, or foster kids who need a mentor, or helping poor elderly citizens to live more respectably when the war is over.
Meet Emil Franzi, Sheepulace MemberTo the Editor,
Mr. Franzi's assertion ("Give War a Chance," March 27) that he is paleo anything is quite simply a bunch of bull. As our nation makes a half-hearted effort at pounding the crap out of some stripped-down version of a nation, it becomes quite evident who the neo-cons really are. Support globalism? Check. Get easily whipped up into a frenzy because 50 years of poorly executed foreign policy comes back to bite America in the ass? Check. Willingness to fork over constitutional rights in exchange for "security"? Check.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with Franzi's position that the rank and file of the paleo-right supports this foolish act that the president of the United States has embarked on. I was living in New Hampshire and helped Pat knee George I firmly in the groin back in '92. I'm out protesting against this act of blatant stupidity because this is against everything America stands for. That's as simple as one can put it. There are many deeper issues here, as most of the apathetic paleos will figure out for themselves, as the economy continues to tank and the war spreads in a hop-scotch pattern across the globe to consume what little territory the empire doesn't already control.
The Greens have been screaming for years that we're going to run out of oil, and guess what? Production is slated to reach its absolute peak this coming year. Yup, folks--in 2004, the curve peaks and never goes back up again. And guess what? Many paleos are outdoorsmen as well, and wouldn't think of messing up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for the sake of feeding this oil addiction. So, in order to feed our overly-aggressive preference in automotive transportation and our near-sightedness in developing forms of alternative energy (with whispers of oil-company suppression), we choose to circumvent the free market and take it by force. Or at least make sure that the ever-dwindling supply is under our firm control.
Nah, Franzi's right--this is entirely about protecting American/Iraqi freedom. Coincidentally, it becomes quite a convenient diversion to the panic-stricken sheepulace, allowing the neocons to shred the Constitution with their blessing during the coming times of elevated terrorism threats. It's not just the war, it's the empire that the war is attempting to establish which draw the real patriots to the anti-war movement. The emerging progressive movement is sucking them up, maybe that's why he's missing them?
Oh, and I have to include the obligatory anti-war protester statement that I support the troops too (duh). I'm an American and am intelligent enough to be able to separate the people from the act.
Meet Emil Franzi, FascistTo the Editor,
Hey Franzi! Have you and your little buddies become choir boys for Pax Americana? Judging by your brays, shrieks, and squeals, I'd say you've all bent over and grabbed your ankles to allow George II and the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) to fill you to the brim with their special type of propaganda.
Do you really, truly believe that our armed forces are fighting to free Iraq? Ludicrous! Even members of the CATO Institute realize that this little "war" is nothing more than the expansion of U.S. imperialism, an expansion of the burgeoning U.S. empire. What happened to the argument that we are attacking Iraq in order to destroy Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction"? Did all of you (including the cavalier administration of Bush and friends) drop this in order to foist another less-than-credible reason upon the video-saturated public for unsubstantiated aggression?
Moreover, did you think by quoting Jeff Smith's drivel (first appearing in the Citizen) that the dissenters would fall to their knees and ask for forgiveness? Smith is the one who is selfish and ignorant and intellectually numb. If he truly believes that the anti-war demonstrators of this nation are skewed with their thoughts, then he just isn't aware of the facts: Our nation wants Iraq as an U.S. protectorate for strategic purposes. Besides, Franzi, Smith was never a leftist. Reread his unfocused diatribes of 10 to 15 years ago, and you will realize that he has always been a closet fascist.
I shall concede that Saddam Hussein is a madman, a psychopath of dangerous proportions, but this is an easy concession. Yet, George Bush is on this same level of pathology: To attack Iraq after years of starving its population, after removing nearly all of that nation's weaponry, after literally crippling a Third World nation is downright cowardly.
I am somewhat amazed that you included Charles Heller's comments in your article. Although he is misguided about why the current administration should wage war with Iraq, he is dead-on with his criticism of the Patriot Act. I did not expect such clear insight from an editorial of such fascist proportions.
Oh gee ... did I call you a fascist? I meant a raving, ignorant, inflexible, tight-fisted, brown-shirted fascist. Are you not aware of how your statement about (militant) Islam also describes our nation's current administration ... specifically, our current president? "They despise democracy, personal freedom, progress and commerce" almost perfectly describes Bush's warped perspective.
Fascism seeks to pervert the truth. Franzi, you and your little buddies are perverting the truth by insisting that Bush, Inc., have our best interests in mind. The PNAC wants US subjugated, ignorant, intellectually numb; and Bush is their poster boy. And you fatheads are their acolytes.
You're not a "paleo-libertarian Republican," Franzi. You're a fascist. Admit it; therapy will be easier.
Meet Emil Franzi, Alien From SpaceTo the Editor,
I wonder where Emil Franzi's article "Give War a Chance" gets its basic premise. What planet does he live on? Coverage of anti-war protests is limited at best, while coverage of the war and its supporters is the business of the Bush administration and the national media. If we actually HAD a state-run press, the coverage could not be any more biased--from fictitious numbers of protesters worldwide to reporters "in bed with" the military--there is little alternative to the government's point of view offered. Unfortunately, The Weekly adds little to what there is.
As to the diversity of war supporters, it is mirrored by that of the war's detractors. Mr. Franzi's article was included, perhaps, to "balance" the pictorial review of the demonstration (which, as a pictorial essay, did not show any of the depth or complexity of protesters arguments against the war). The difference is that even though you only offered "photo bites" of the protesters, his article was essentially an editorial for his own position. The thing that unites all of them is their absolute ignorance of U.S. foreign policy in the region (or elsewhere for that matter). In Australia, 1 million protesters demanded, "U.S. please explain, why did you install Hussein?" Can Mr. Franzi or any of his pals answer that question?
If The Weekly really wants to offer something to the "discourse" about the war, perhaps you would consider running a long, in-depth piece on the violence that appears to unite many (not all) of the war supporters, as evidenced by their hateful shouts, one-finger salutes, squealing tires and other signs of general testosterone poisoning in the face of peace advocates vigils and demonstrations. Is it that as supporters of this war they have no problem promoting and engaging in pre-emptive violence? Is it Gulf War Syndrome? Is it just a generalized repulsion for anyone's opinions other than theirs, the Bill of Rights and Constitution be damned?
Meet Renée Downing, Hateful LiberalTo the Editor,
I'd like to thank The Weekly for publishing Renée Downing. She is such an exemplar of the stereotypical modern liberal that I could almost believe that she's a plant writing tongue-in-cheek. But, alas, she seems to be serious. Her April 3 column, "A Fine Line," however, has spurred me (finally) to write a response.
Ms. Downing has apparently not been following the news very closely. While she covers herself by pointing out that her column was written on March 26 in order to make the deadline, her position isn't supported by much resembling reality, even then. First, she asserts that "The invasion of Iraq is ... more imminently disastrous than any of us imagined ... "
Then she writes that Halliburton "marched into the Basra oil fields to start collecting its share of the pelf," and "America's children are dying to enrich Texas oilmen." Ah, yes, the obligatory "it's all about Oooiiiiilllll!" reference. According to the Wall Street Journal, the following companies bid on work in Iraq prior to opening of hostilities: Kellogg Brown & Root (a Halliburton subsidiary); Bechtel Group Inc.; Parsons Corp.; Louis Berger Group and Fluor Corp. (as a partnership) and Washington Group International. Kellogg Brown & Root already had a contract to fight oil well fires with the U.S. government.
Let me inform Ms. Downing of something: Those companies are the largest engineering and design contractors operating in North America. I'm not at all surprised to see them on the bid list. I'm willing to bet they bid on just about every large government construction contract out there. Small women-owned contractors just aren't of a league to do that kind of work. Ms. Downing states that Halliburton is "the designated reconstructor of Iraq." Really? Have some documentation to back that up?
I didn't think so.
Then she steps in it: "Once again our government has gotten the country into a bad war for stupid reasons." Really? Bosnia was for stupid reasons? Kosovo? I didn't hear any complaints from Ms. Downing's compatriots over that. Which "bad wars" was she referring to? Oh, right: "Forty years later, we've marched back into Vietnam." Check. Sorry, I was distracted by the lack of rice paddies.
I'd like to thank Ms. Downing for illustrating what Charles Krauthammer pointed out last year: "To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil." Or possibly insane.
Hate blinds people. It's obviously done so here.