Bike Bloc at the Anti-War Rally
Thread started by
PC at 03.13.07 - 4:13 am
The ride info thing has it starting at 11:30 on Sunset and Vine, but the clickable interactive route map has it starting at Sunset and Glendale and doing a sort of twenty-mile loop around the area. Is that a route from another ride, or did you change your mind?
reply
No, didin't change mind about the event. II didn't post an interactive map, that is just the example on the form to post a ride.
meet 11:30 am at sunset and vine.
sexy03.13.07 - 3:18 pm
reply
OK, Sexy, sounds good. I'll bring a roadworthy bike and a spare tube.
PC03.13.07 - 3:34 pm
reply
Fuck Art, Let's Dance!*
*Where "art" is defined as "needless wars of aggression" and "dance" is defined as "riding bicycles on city streets."
PC03.13.07 - 4:32 pm
reply
paint $7.56 Home Despot, 1 sheet 50 cents Goodwill..... 2 hours of my time....
Riding for what you believe in...... priceless
Redtsunami03.13.07 - 11:52 pm
reply
I'll be going to this rally (probably sans bicycle) to show support. However, I hate to say this and I know I will seem crazy for saying this.... but the real and humane solution to this unjust and illegal occupation of Iraq is not to pullout but to double or triple the current level of troops to 350-400 thousand troops maybe even 500 thousand. Arguing over a "surge" of 20,000 troops is pretty much irrelevant at this point.. All that would likely do is secure Baghdad enough so that news media crews there would be able to paint a prettier picture of this silly war.. something of a good feelings send off for Bush and a good ole polishing up of the republicans in time for the 08 elections.
You see the US Army
originally had asked for 400,000 troops to properly invade and pacify Iraq. Now if you listen to ANYONE when it comes to invading and occupying a country you listen to the military. these are the guys that live and die for this shit. These are the guys who have studied wars and have war gamed everything and know about all the nuances and realities of how populations act in times of war they dont care about politics they care about cold blooded facts on the ground. they care about their soldiers. some undersecretary of defense or other politically appointed individuals or washington think tanks dont necessarily care about this stuff, they care about their political agenda. Before the invasion Rumsfeld eventually lobbied to reduce the troop levels to half of the Army's reccomendation. He was no dummy. He had an agenda. I'll get into the theory later.
Consider the troop level required for an occupation of this size for a minute. Iraq, a nation of 20 million people, just like any other nation of any size has a complex civilian infrastructure. This includes court systems, law enforcement, local and regional governments, health ministries etc.... all of these things are what hold a society together. When a country's military and police are destroyed a successful occupation must include enough troops to step in and act as a de facto police force in order to preserve as much of the civilian infrastructue as possible so that the population doesn't become chaotic and disolve into civil war. As a quick example compare the level of police force (and private security) per capita that exists in Beverly Hills versus the much lower level of police and private secuity that exists in South Central Los Angeles. Consider the availablilty of lawyers and judges and the tax base available to fund the civil infrastructure. The less cops per capita, the less available funding and support for court systems to settlle everyday disputes, the more likely "street justice" occurs. Someone stole your TV. You gonna call the cops? what if the cops don't exist? What then? Street justice. The more street justice the more likely there will be reprisals and revenge which lead to escalations and heightened distrust for the government (government in the case of Iraq at this point means the US occupational forces.) In Iraq, all of these types of disputes continue to occur regardless and likely more so becasue of the war and people will continue to need a way reach just settlements. Lack of this kind of local justice causes fragmentation into gangs, vigilante groups, and militias as a means of "keeping your shit protected." NONE of these essential civilian services were provided because simply put, there weren't enough US "cops' there to keep the peace. When I say keep the peace that assumes that the occupational forces observe human rights and are careful to observe the geneva convention et al. The US occupying forces as it turns out are under manned and therefore overwhelmed able only to keep a semblance of control via bullying and terroristic tactics. Our troops have no choice but to commit war crimes in order to terrorize the population into compliance because the current per capita ratio of troops to civilians is pathetic.
If the powers that be in United States truly wanted a real solution to this illegal and unjust occupation. It would send in a force that understands and respects human rights numbering as I said in the range of 400,000 troops as the Military originally had asked for. This military force is not one that is slapped on the hand when committing war crimes (as it has been) but one that is properly trained according to the geneva convention and account-able for all it's crimes just as the people of Iraq would be accountable for their crimes with a just and due process. Once people can trust that the US is a fair judge and law enforcer, Iraq will be on it's way to becoming peaceful and the occupation can eventually be handed back to a strong democratically elected government by the people with restored court systems, health ministries, local law enforcement, and local and regional governments.
Why or how did the powers that pushed for this war end up going with a plan that the military itself predicted would fail? How did these powers miscalculate? They didn't. Because in actuality I believe this war is going pretty much as planned.
This war is actually working in favor of the warmongers' interests. Afterall it destroyed Iraq and it serves to weaken Iraq's neighbors. providing excuses and opportunities to occupy and terrorize the neighboring countries of it's choice at will. In the minds of the warmongers the only real bummer for the US is that it's international status as a beacon for just freedom is trashed completely and it is now a mega target for terrorist acts. But in their view the benefits outweigh the negatives. And the ones that publicly pushed for this war will melt away in the media. After all it will be the quite visible "idiot son" Bush who carries most of the blame not the actual war mongers who pulled the strings themselves.. I truly believe that the last thing the warmongers want is for Arab nations to be strong and to eventually unify under some sort of Pan Arab Union (like the EU). Look back at all the dirt that's gone down over the last 80 years and it all makes sense..... divide and conquer as they say. That has been the course for decades. there's too much at stake to have to negotiate with democratic arab governments that actually serve their own people. Worse yet would be if the ethnic regions actually formed nations naturally in the way that europe did for itself. That would mean negotiating with even more governments that serve their own peoples. This very same scenario is what plagues Africa by the way. A good example of what happens when a country is becoming self aware is Venezuela. Chavez nationalized that country's oil industry and now it can provide much needed funding to build up it's own infrastucture.... which means an increase in power and stability. the US economy doesnt want to be dealing with a strong civilian infrastructure to have to negotiate for oil or other goods etc. they just want to clear out the resistance near the oil fields and pump pump pump away.
So... as for urging for a pullout.... it's not in the war monger's interests to pullout right now for fear the region would break in to smaller autonomous nations. The planners and pushers don't want that. So try as you might, I would be very surprised if a pullout happens in the next decade even... an extra 20,000 troops....? Like I said, that's probably just barely enough to secure Bagdad and make for better news headlines.... it wont solve the mess the US has created of that nation and it wont quicken the pullout either, it's not designed to. Doing what the military wanted in the first place 350-450 thousand troops....? that's the key to sucess and of course THAT will never happen either since it would probably require reinstating the draft and a huge sum of taxpayer loot.
sooooo we go back to the occupation dragging out over the next 5-10 15? 20? years with blips in the headlines reminding us to collectively dismiss all Arabs are crazy suicidal half humans in mud huts.... and emboiling people to debate about insignificant troop surges. it will be bunsiness as planned... delaying the reunification of Iraq, prolonging civil war and thus destabilizing neighboring governments and giving excuses to harass Iran and Syria and whom ever else is not on board with the warmongers' interests.... I believe that's the goal here. The people that run our government are not stupid by any means. Sure, the main puppet, Bush, is an absolute ignoramus (though seems cool to party with) but he is the consumate puppet. He is that special someone who isn't capable of comprehending all these issues and thus relies mostly on his "advisers" - the war pushers and architects, the Rumsfelds, Cheneys, Kristols, Feiths, Wolfowitzs, PNACs, AIPACs, the Energy Lobbies the Evangelicals the Military Contractors and all the rest.... they are getting pretty much what they all wanted: Mainly a weak Arab region (for the foresee-able future) and a lot of confusion in the public debate (for the foresee-able future) and a chance to take care of biz (for the foresee-able future.) at the low low cost of 1000 or so troops per year and umpteen billions in taxpayer dollars.... somewhat stomach-able figures for the time being...
Think of the broader picture here. We're talking decades of shannanigans beginning with the creation of Iraq in 1920 after the fall of the ottoman empire in WW1. The country (along with most other countries in the region) was drawn up by French, British and others who drew straight fucking lines right through well recognized ethnic regions. (They too knew what they were doing) Ethnic regions that take thousands of years to form their own power structures and ways of conducting business.. Similar to the ethnic regions formed over the same period of time in Europe or any other region in the world. Look at the maps. Ever wonder why Middle Eastern nation's borders look so funny? Drawing the borders the way they did is tantamount to somebody deciding to redraw italy's border with france with a straight line. And the only way to make those two distinct ethnic regions to get along politically would be to rule with an iron fist so there is no question of seperation. That's exaclty the type of ruler Saddam and his predecessors were... Military bullies supported first by British influence and later by US influence in the region. (are you aware of the
US imposed coup that installed the Shah of Iran in 1954? same situation) Had the British French and US not had a hand in it you'd likely see three seperate countries where Iraq is. Kurdistan to the north. A Sunni dominated nation in the middle and a Shite nation to the south. This is why Saddam's government was a secular government, it had to be to aid in keeping the peace. Now instead, today, it continues, as planned, to be a complete fucking mess, a civil war of ethnic regions divided and conquered once again for decades to come. word.
Roadblock03.14.07 - 1:35 am
reply
But saying "No War!" is way easier that all of that.
ubrayj0203.14.07 - 10:10 am
reply
Is anyone riding from echo park or downtown that morning?
slimegreen03.14.07 - 10:48 am
reply
"But saying "No War!" is way easier that all of that."
haha true... but saying No War is not much of a solution. now that the US is occupying Iraq, wrongful and unjust as it is, we have a responsibility to protect and stabalize the Iraqi people. It's the humane thing to do and it would improve this country's standing in the world.
Roadblock03.14.07 - 11:42 am
reply
Without Iraq, how will war profiteers make money through unfulfilled no-bid government contracts and then move its headquarters to Dubai like Halliburton is doing?
spiraldemon03.14.07 - 12:02 pm
reply
we could spend the half trillion funding new fuel technologies, providing education and opportunity to the new generation of american workers.
oh wait sorry that doesnt fit the agenda. Mc Donald's needs less intelligent workers so they can be happy getting paid $5/hr pushing a button to spit out happy meals. my bad back to plan A.
Roadblock03.14.07 - 12:12 pm
reply
wow, I'd want a machine that spits out happy meals with the push of a button!
spiraldemon03.14.07 - 12:22 pm
reply
In the spirit of intentions and vocabulary, I try to refer to these events as "Peace Rallys".
What if our government had sent 40,000 engineers and Peace Corp volunteers to share some of the good things about our society, before our "Commander in Chief" decided to drop bombs?
I remember people being prosecuted for sending medicine and teddy bears to Iraq.
Apparently, not enough people heard or listened to Hans Blix (Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector) and Scott Ritter (U.N. Weapons Inspector 1991-1998) before our government blew the opportunity to prosper by sharing the wealth.
Wild Bill03.14.07 - 1:37 pm
reply
It's not necessarily a question of "saying 'no war' is easier than all that." Not everybody buys into the Pottery Barn, we-broke-it-we-bought-it argument. I think that even with 500,000 troops we would still end up making things worse, and the region would still end up splitting into semi-autonomous ethnic/sectarian enclaves. The entropic decline of Iraq as a "country" (before eventually stabilizing in some radically different form) is pretty much a fait accompli at this point. Pulling out, whether it's done quickly or gradually, is the only...well, I was going to say "solution" but that's not really accurate. Pulling out is the only thing to do. The rest of the coalition figured that out a long time ago. How much longer is it going to take for us?
PC03.14.07 - 2:01 pm
reply
Uh, I believe in what my Daddy should have done... is to PULL OUT!!!
Joe Borfo03.14.07 - 2:40 pm
reply
Hey, Roadblock, that's a really well-reasoned argument - thanks for posting that. I think it's pretty obvious to most thinking people that the nonsensical information we're being fed about this war is obscuring the real motivations behind it.
Based on what I know right now, I still support a troop pullout, because I see that there's a lot of money going into Iraq, a loss of human life, and no end to the chaos there. Now, you may very well be right; that the only way to regain order is a massive troop influx. I just think that would require a huge expenditure of cash, a lot more people will die, and I am not completely sure I trust the Bush administration to make it work. Maybe this situation is all by design, but I'm not certain of it.
I do think that if the money spent by this country on the war would have been invested in alternative energy research, the US would be in a much better position for the future. I strongly suspect that the Bush administration is not acting in the public interest, and they're using the resources of this country to maintain the status quo for all their corporate pals, which means keeping the current energy infrastructure intact as long as possible. Bush and his cronies are former oil men, and I think they know that the likely disruptions in the supply of cheap oil could dramatically alter the American way of life and corrupt the profit structure for the companies that are based on the old, cheap oil economy. I have heard the counter-arguments to the oil crisis issue, and while I think that it's been overplayed as a catastrophe in some cases, I still think we're looking at significant, unavoidable changes in the coming decades - changes that this country is not prepared for.
Even though I am currently in favor of a troop pullout, in large part because there's a lot of things I don't know for sure, what you're saying makes sense, and I'm keeping an open mind to it. You definitely have a much better understanding of world history than what I have from my public school education!
angle03.14.07 - 3:55 pm
reply
Roadblock--I see what you're saying with the whole PNAC "a new Pearl Harbor" agenda. Looks like you've done your homework.
I am against war. Pragmatists have both helped the world and fucked it up. How the fuck do we get out of this with as little loss of life as possible--for now, and in the future? Your proposal is interesting. It could be an effective solution. But still, it is hard to swallow for me.
tern03.14.07 - 5:09 pm
reply
I can’t believe my first post on MR is a political rant but I couldn’t help myself. I'll try not to do it again. You’re well informed and you make excellent points, Roadblock, but I have to disagree with your conclusion that we need to send even more troops. I think it’s a day late and a dollar short. A troop increase of the number you suggest in the current climate, wouldn’t produce the same effect as it would have 4 years ago, which I think is what you’re saying.
At this point, the troops are only seen as aggressors in the region. Like you said, this is due to insufficient troop levels to begin with. I don’t think it was necessary for them to resort to bullying and terrorist tactics. Indeed it was easier for them to do so, given that they were undermanned and overwhelmed, but a more defined and narrow mission, say protecting the infrastructure, might have lead to a better outcome. Maybe that was the mission, and I’ll stand corrected, but that’s actually not my point and I digress. Consider an increase of 200,000 troops instead of 20,000. Like you said, it would probably require a draft and cost a bit much (Dubya’s already resorted to sending over injured troops from Ft. Bragg). Our presence has created tension in the region and we’ll only multiply that tension. Civilians will only expect more of the same bullying and terror. It could influence more civilians, more foreign fighters and more extremists to take up arms against the US, which would be disastrous for our kids, since they’ll be less experienced and less inclined to fight as opposed to the current soldiers who are theoretically there voluntarily. We don’t need to provide more targets. The civil war is already underway, so who’s side would we fight on? Do we antagonize Iran by siding with the Sunnis? Or do the neocons/oil tycoons risk severing relations with Saudi Arabia by overtly siding with the Shiites? While a surge of the proportions that you suggest would be contrary to the interests of the sickos that started the war, it would also be contrary to everyone else’s.
I think a better (ie, idealistic and naïve) start would be 1) to engage the region’s powerhouses, Iran and Saudi Arabia, in a discussion of how to handle Iraq together. And I mean a real discussion, not like what Condi has recently been talking about, which will only fail and serve as a future justification for a war with Iran. And 2) focus on the whole Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which is the other (if not more influential) reason for Islamic aggression towards the West (the other being the post WWI imperialism you described). Hey, we ride bikes in the streets of LA, why can’t a guy dream about world peace?
Now I haven’t read Rolling Stone in years (ie I’m not a FAM, I swear ; ), so please forgive me, but there is a pretty crazy article this month that I came across. It doesn’t look good people, peace rally or not. Peep this: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031107E.shtml
gonzo03.14.07 - 5:36 pm
reply
more troops = more casualties. both for the us and "our" "enemies"
wheels03.15.07 - 1:18 am
reply
Roadblock
You write very eloquently. People have said you made some valid points, no point is more valid then when you say "I will seem crazy for saying this."
You argue that "the most humane solution to this unjust and illegal occupation of Iraq is not to pullout but to double or triple the current level of troops to 350-400 thousand troops maybe even 500 thousand."
So you are saying that to solve this crime of Illegal occupation is to increase the amount of troops by up to three folds, therefore allowing the crime to keep on being committed .
The reason you state, those that know how to fight war, wanted 400,000 to start with. If we would have illegally invaded and occupied Iraq with 400,000 troops, things might of worked out much better and the country wouldn’t be in the sectarian mess that it is in now. You are saving an illegal activity is OK, as long as you have the right amount of people to as to minimize the death and injury. The act was wrong no matter how many people are involved or not. There is nothing humane about having a greater amount of an occupying force in someone else country. It is the opposite of humane, to have foreign army occupying another peoples land .
It would make no sense to have a force of the same soldiers that are responsible for creating the disorder in Iraq, stay and create order. Only if there was more of them doing the same. Yes that is the answer, have more of the troops from a foreign country that they don’t want there, be there to secure them. The same troops that have bombed out cities like Falluja, The same troops that have killed over a half million Iraqi’s. Kidnapped and tortured so many people for reason that where mostly hearsay. If there was valid reason for picking up people that, may I repeat the "invading, occupying forces" felt threaten by, there is a proper way that those forces should go about trying to get information or detaining those individuals, that don’t violate human rights. Those force that you want to increase don’t do things that way, they have an intelligence department CIA that has spent billions of dollar and 50 years to perfect a way torture people They call it Kubark. (put that in a search engine and read the manual, its not torture lite, it torture perfected) They have used it on the people Iraq and people all over the world. The action of the US military in Iraq doesn’t not make it a valid force to be trusted to create order.
The most humane thing the United States could do in Iraq is to remove all of its forces and it bases off the land. All signs of anything US should be gone, the only thing that the US should be allowed to do is pay war reparations. The money we are spending to occupy that land right now, could be spent much better by the people who have to live there, to rebuild it in a way that is suitable to them.
Foreign so called peace keeping troops, have all the problems of any occupying army, the abuse, and atrocities are the same, dictatorial powers, murder, rape , and torture, all come with it.
You don't have to look any further then Hatiti with there Brazilian, before that US peacekeepers who kidnapped their president, then french and candian peacekeeping troops, all the artorcietys that still happen their today.
Why is there an army of 150,000 people in country of 20 million people? What makes you think that the army is trained and there mission is to police foreign countries? This same country that made it unsafe to live there, is now what you are calling for to control this country. You say they are "The US occupying forces as it turns out are under manned and therefore overwhelmed able only to keep a semblance of control via bullying and terroristic tactics. Our troops have no choice but to commit war crimes in order to terrorize the population into compliance because the current per capita ratio of troops to civilians is pathetic." That give them the validity to do what they have done, and how does that assure the people of this country and Iraq that the US forces will "When I say keep the peace that assumes that the occupational forces observe human rights and are careful to observe the geneva convention et al."
When you go to War you don’t do it to observe human rights, the US army has soliders and commnaders that do not observe human rights, that is not there objectives. War is not done to spread democracy, it is done to get the spoils of War, the booty. In this case, control of the region. Control of the oil, that may be controlling who it is sold to. Most importantly to make sure that the petro dollars goes back to the Untied States, like it does now is Saudi Arabia. (90% of every dollar spent on oil in the Saudi Kingdom
goes back to the US, either through buying US security, i.e. money lent to the treasury promise to pay back later, or through US contract work done in the Kingdom, or as the Royal family has invested in everything that is US,stock and corporations). Also to make sure the dollar, and not the Euro is the main currency traded on for oil. Most importantly control of all the economics of Iraq. Law have been passed by the Coalitonal Provisional Authority to allow 100% foreign ownership of all iraq industries.
Even if you could have a US military force that does respect human rights, which you can’t. They are soldiers trained in war, not policing. They are taught to kill or be kill, to devalue human life to
survive.
What in the world would make you think that the people of Iraq will, and could ever trust a US force to police them. The US forces lost that trust long ago, with all of the atrocities they have committed in Iraq. Murder, rape, kidnapping, torture, stealing and looting. As of yesterday the US won’t even allow one of their own soldiers to stand trial in an allies country (Italy) for murder of there number two intelligence agents, while saving one of their reports after being held hostage.
The pottery barn point is so silly. If I walked into pottery barn or most any other store and broke something, the store would ask if I’m OK and write off the lose of the product. If I came in and broke a
bunch of stuff, they would ask me to leave. If I came into a store and trashed it in the manner that the United States and the coalition has done to Iraq, they would make me leave, if I didn’t they would call the security or the police to have me removed, and possibly prosecuted for criminal activity. If I was someone, that nobody could get out, they would do whatever they could to get me out of there store before I damaged it anymore, they wouldn’t want me to bring in three or four of my friends to so call clean it up. They wouldn’t want my family and friends to support my staying in the store.
Saying No To War, is not easy to those in congress, it would be way easier if we said, send more troops, reinstate the draft, spent more money, you are patriot if you do that and traitor if you call the troops back. If we keep on pushing the issue Congress, will be forced to take action to end this. Saying No To War is essential to me, I don’t want to see innocent peoples life wasted on account of my countries actions, whether it be people from the middle east, or guns for hire from the US or wherever the contractors hire them from. I don’t want to see this country wasting more money while doing it.
More troops will cost more money, will destroy more lives.
Take this for what it is worth, you argument is resonates Ronald Reagan’s, peace through strength.
.
sexy03.15.07 - 12:53 pm
reply
so when is this thing? i don't see a date. i only see 1130am at Sunset and Vine.
t.bone03.15.07 - 1:45 pm
reply
03.17.07
this saturday at 11:30 am
look to the right of the page, the third little black diamond with the bike in it. I just noticed what that was, very cool touch "Black diamond rides".
sexy03.15.07 - 2:00 pm
reply
ahhh i see it now. thanks!
t.bone03.15.07 - 2:16 pm
reply
Scroll down towards the bottom for a chilling representaion of how much money we're dumping into Iraq:
http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php?id
angle03.15.07 - 4:25 pm
reply
Did I mention what a good idea it would be to show up to this ride with a roadworthy bike and a spare tube (or at least a patch kit)? Well, now I'm mentioning it. See you there!
(The pace is always easy with these protest rides so don't be scared...just bring a bike that isn't held together by rust and chewing gum, is all I'm saying.)
PC03.15.07 - 5:13 pm
reply
I'm nobody's sycophant, but have to agree with RB's notions. We broke it and right or wrong, we are now obligated to fix it. Fixing it half-assed will never work.
Funny, my daughter and I participated in a peace rally/march last year and it was laced with more anger than a 1977 Black Flag gig. Hypocrisy comes in all forms and it was a valuable life lesson for my daughter to see this first-hand and recognize it without me having to point it out. There's a time and a place for everything and anger at a peace event is worse than a fart in an elevator.
Jeronimo03.15.07 - 6:07 pm
reply
People that see the victimization of the rest of the world, might just have some real reasons to be angry. Victims who call for maximum punishments for the perpetrators, that commimtted the crime, you may not think they are right for feeling that justice must be served.
Those that attend a peace rally, or a rally to stop government atrocities are so ingross, and take pain staking efforts to education themselve on what their government is doing in their name, to people they don't even know, on their tax dime. They see all the wrong that is being done and yes they are probably very upset and pissed off. The streets are a place they decide to let there anger be known, at a political rally, where expressing ones view is not only acceptable but expected Around other people who know why they are so angry and understand and empthazie with those feeling. Does your child and you even understand where those emotion are coming from. That is real anger, not I'm a teenage who decided to be part of sub-culture, where it is cool to act pissed off.
Great, lets fix it. But it can't be fixed, not by a military occupation. Its out of our hands, we can never fix it. If you crashed my car and didn't know how to do body work. You could try and try all you wanted to, but you wouldn't be able to fix, you would most likely make the car worse off. I would insist you just leave it alone and I'll take to someone who can fix, or figuere it out myself. If it was doing the people of Iraq a favor to stay, I would be all for it. It is not in that countries interest to have the United States police them, they are going to have to work it out for themselve, or maybe with the aid of other Arabs. The US being there will cause more harm and avoid what will be eventually.
The United State is so indebted financially to the rest of the world, the two things we have is our military might, to bomb a given area to where it is not recognized, and the fact the world economy is ran on the US dollar. Thats is our two big prizes. If we stay in these wars, we are going to go so much farther into debt and, then need more debt to maintain the US military. The rest of the world countries who are lending us this money is getting tired of it, if they stop lending us money, that when the whole house of cards collapes. They our caught in a hard place, keep on lending money they know they will never see again, to keep there own economies going, or stop lending and watch their own economies collapes, just as we will. They are trying to get away from the US dollar as soon as possible. The more money we borrow to, continue this mess the sooner our economic demise. That will bring a real low living standard in this country. That is just another reason why a costly continued occupation won't work.
The above reason discounts the people who's country we broke and continue to stick around againist their wishes.
sexy03.15.07 - 6:59 pm
reply
Jeronimo:
I think that anger is not misplaced in this case. This administration has acted in a reckless and inhumane manner using a cloud of deceit and misinformation to foster an agenda that is completely counter to the public interest, and may in fact do irreparable damage to our country and its relationship with the rest of the world.
Do I condone commiting violent acts in protest? No, I don't. Am I going to be angry? Fuck, yes.
I'd suggest the Topanga Days Festival if you'd like to make s'mores and sing along with Peter, Paul & Mary songs.
angle03.15.07 - 7:00 pm
reply
What's that you say? People are actually
upset about their government killing thousands upon thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women, and children in their name, while mortgaging the average American's grandchildren's economic future to line the pockets of their corporate cronies? How...
impolite of those people. They should, like, wait until something really bad happens before they get all huffy!
PC03.16.07 - 12:05 am
reply
I believe that words like "fix" and "broken" shouldnt be used. unfortunately those metaphors tend to be misleading. there is really nothing similar about an inanimate object such as a car and an entire nation of human beings that eat breathe and live together as a society with history, complex power structures and alliances. this is about the lives of 20 million human beings who, for the most part just want peace and calm in their lives. we all want that dont we at the end of the day?. no one wants to be occupied or in a war. no matter what.... certainly the majority of the Iraqis hate the US at this point. but there are different levels of hate and hate can turn into "like" depending on circumstances that the occupiers can shape. they hate the US because of what the US did to them. BUT you can always repair feelings by showing understanding of wrongs and showing that you are sincerely working for peace and reparations.
how many out there hated someone for a wrong committed against you only to change your mind when you felt that person offered a sincere apology? I mean a SINCERE apology and not only that but an effort to make good on damages. pretty fucking rare when someone does that in this country but when it does happen we feel better about that person.the warmongers weren't taught that type of lesson in school seems like.
My whole argument is not about whether the war is wrong or whether we're angry. Of course the war was wrong of course we're angry. believe me I've never been for this war. I was part of raging email list flame wars about 9/11 then Iraq with co-workers representing the full spectrum of political thought. people at my work became enemies in real life over these flame war/debates. lol. I'm on record saying that Iraq had absolutely no WMD. I said this in the summer of 2002 and I never waivered because I didnt buy into the BS. people cursed me and told me I was fucked in the head. even the most left wing of my comrades were wondering what was wrong with me. haha so what I'm saying is... I think this war is complete bullshit from day minus fucking zero. BUT those of us as the anti war crowd didnt do enough to make it stop. personally I just didnt have the time or energy to hit the streets. I wish that I had done more. I know a lot of people were in the anti war crowd were in the same boat. so here we are. seem like we have three options:
PULLOUT
at this point moving forward a pullout would leave a power vacuum and the various peoples and power structures would fight it out for at least a few years. they would finally tire themselves out like solution A and it would go down much the way the civil war went down for us.... lots of blood. (the civil war caused the most casualties to us of any US war) likely in the same manner, Millions in Iraq will die not just from fighting but from starvation and mismanagement of economy health food essential services. that's a dirty solve, inhumane as it is, it would eventually lead to an independant Iraq or some sort of fragmented 3 nation situation or maybe even a merge with Iran. and maybe that is the best solution.... The Iraqi people anbd the world would not soon forgive the US that's for sure....
CONTINUE WITH CURRENT LEVELS OR SMALL INCREASE
if we continue with the same troop levels or an increase of 20k troops (basically nothing) then the US will continue in it's quagmire it is in today. there is probably a medium level civil war happening right now meaning it can get much worse than this. this will go on for the entire time the US military is there or until the Iraqi people wear eventually wear themselves out.. meaning kill each other and kill US soldiers. essentially keeping Iraq 3rd world status. this is why there is a ton of strife in 3rd world countries. the governments have no funding and no presence and outside forces influence decision making. when a govt has a weak presence then crimes occur and people get away with it. outside forces take advantage of it by exploiting resources. when there is no punishment for crimes people tend to commit them more both blue collar andwhite collar crimes.. more crimes means more citizen militias form for protection. do you all realize that gangs and mafias are essentially undertrained under educated citizen militias? when there is no civil means to settle a dispute... what ever it is - a murder or a property dispute... then there is street justice. I've seen simple property disputes escalate to murder here in the states. imagine when that goes down in a society with a much weaker govt?. when those things happen citizen militias begin to seek justice. When there is a rule of law and plenty of enforcement and a good economy.. crime stats go down. when there are fewer cops per capita, disrupted economy then crimes go up. more cops = less crime. better civil infrastructure=less crime better economy=less crime
what I'm saying here is, for the most part the Iraqi people will resent the US troops. HOWEVER the US military like it or not are the defacto police and purveyors of the economy. and according to the US army's own pre-war estimate they are undermanned and underfunded. that there was a call from the military for more troops befroe the war is fact. that the level of troops were not given is fact.. there's no disputing it. further more I tend to believe that the US Army was generally honest in it's prewar estimate. when a police force is undermanned and underfunded the individual cops are forced to act like bullies and terrorists in order to be effective in their control of the population. they are forced to terrorize the population into compliance. that's terrible but that's nature. it's still wrong.
We can't have that climate if we want to successfully bring the peace and bring Iraq into a stabilization.
SINCERE ACTIONS
again, if the Iraqi people could see and understand that the US was putting in say, trillions on it and really working to solve problems they would change their minds about the US. I'm not talking photo-ops with troops and kids. I'm talking about really actually working to set up things like well funded and fair community based court systems - well funded and community based cosntruction and reconstruction hire local electricians and contruction workers instead of having halliburton do it (or whom ever insert private american company name here) rebuilding Iraq... if people started to get jobs and be treated with respect and human rights by an strong and clearly present occupational force they would feel more secure. how quickly a job opportunity and a paycheck change people's attitudes.
yes a good majority would still resent the troops and there would still be those who would try to attack. but that's when the US military as the overwhelming power, must act with true honor and simply withstand the hit, it's painful but to have patience and gather evidence and prosecute via a transparent and clearly fair trial that would win hearts and minds. once people see that the US truly wants to make good that's when the tides will turn. but the US cant waiver for a second. you have to always work with compassion... the US military is the occupier it is bound by the geneva conventions to act in honor-able ways. I'm sorry but at this point having a police force of 150,000 troops is not honor-able and it encourages the troops to be bullies and to engage in terroritic methods to maintina control. they will always be resented under these inhumane circumstances. these are fucking human beings. they deserve compassion.
AINT GONNA HAPPEN
I'm pretty reason-ably certain that the US is not going to be honor-able in resolving this war first and foremost because of costs. but that doesnt mean the idea shouldnt be out there in the debate and that people shouldnt eventually understand what it really means to illegaly occupy another country and maybe next time if there are honor-able people in our nation still they will take time off of work and get in the streets in anger. righteous anger. you really want to make it hurt? to effect change? stop commerce because of it. disrupt the economy because that's the only thing that matters to the war mongers. if people got sick of shit and stopped spending their money (for whatever reason) then business and money interests would stop with the shananigans. that's what is so powerful about french society. they will attempt to shut their whole country down and take to the streets if they see fit. that's part of their culture because they know that's how people get heard. when it hurts a fatcat's pockets he wont be so quick to do stupid shit like push for war.
WHAT REALLY GOING ON
finally, I dont believe that the money interests and war mongers that have disproportionate sway over our government will allow an absolute troop pullout and I believe they do not want an all out increase either. their pocketbooks WANT a low level war. because their goal is not to restore Iraq as a soveriegn and strong democratic nation I believe they want to see an Iraq that is weak and in perpetual strife. I believe that the goal is simply to keep the nations in the middle east weak and fighting with each other.....
ever wonder why Iraq was our ally in the 80's and the US helped supply Iraq with chemical weapons systems and intelligence in Iraq's war with Iran..... but then our government was supplying IRAN on the DL with weapons as well? Look up the Iran contra scandal. now why would the US supply weapons to both sides andespecially to an acknowledged enemy??? divide and conquer.
and yes... people should rise in anger.we just have to try to make it effective. there's only so many resources individuals have versus the nearly overwhelming resources of money interests.
Roadblock03.16.07 - 12:58 am
reply
I was pretty stunned to learn a few months back that a bunch of generals got together several years ago and decided that on the on the outside chance that the US ever NEEDED to invade and occupy Iraq, the necessary troop levels would be like 4-600k.
It really makes you wonder: Did they ever want this to succeed.
RB's contention that this was intended to fail seems to ring true.
On the other hand ... levels of stupidity this great are not unimaginable.
I do belive that as a nation we should be responible global citizens and clean up our messes, right our wrongs, and do whatever we can to minimize uneccesary death and suffering.
However, I think that at this point the US can in no way be considered an honest broker here. There is no way that US can simutainously occupy Iraq and maintain peace. Especilly at this painfully late point in the game.
We have totally fucked this up and there really is no good answer.
Honestly, every suggestion I have heard is basically a matter of choosing between us (as in humanity) being fucked, really fucked, and being more fucked all in different ways that are really impossible to estimate or quantify.
While I wholeheartedly oppose imperialisim, invasions, occupations, external regime changes, and other mlitary shennagins; at this point I'd be willng to accept any solution that would minimize the loss of life, limit suffering and foster en enviroment where real democracy, justice, and mutual respect could flourish in iraq. Even if that ment a mega-surge and re-enforcing for some, the idea that an army can or should be a problem solver.
The problem is I dont think a mega-surge is either possible or could be effective.
I think its impossible, because, honestly, there just aren't enough troops.
More importantly however, while it might look good on paper, and in some ways is the most sensible plan. I thinnk it would be totally ineffective because the US has pissed away all of its crediblity and a US army in Iraq will always be an occupying Army.
A bigger oppucation would just incite insurgents, invite terrorists, create more targets and more opportunities to for terrorists to strike at US troops. The response would be a military police state that would attempt to stamp out terrorisim through force, inimidation, and the violation of privacy.
Imagine the patriot act on crack and streoids enforced by solders instead of cops.
Even the UN or a global dominated force would have a tough time bringing this situation back to order, but for the US this is going to be impossible.
Sadly.
Shit.
......
Let's Ride.
PS
I have visited a lot of message boards and the level of debate about war and peace tends to be way less informed and way less civil. I'm not surprised though. I know how my ridazz roll.
trickmilla03.16.07 - 11:25 am
reply
I agree Trickmillzz that a real and effective troop surge would never happen. we dont have the money integrity or the troops to do it.... but I believe it's good to point out what it really takes to be an honest broker in any situations moving forward.
since the US won't act with integrity then the next best idea is to pull out..... unfortunately that wont happen either. The outcome would not be friendly for the interests in the region. The powers that have sway in our government are not interested in letting Iraq figure itself out independant of our influence and for that there will always be resentment in Iraq.
sooooo what's left. looks like years and even decades more of news headlines telling us that arab kamikazes are running loose chopping heads off and blowing themselves up while at the exact same time we have f16 cluster bombs nukes apache helicoptors and 2 ton missiles blowing them up and their families property women and children civilians. but that activity is branded to us as brave while they are branded to us as cowardly for doing essentially the same shit. it's like a weird carnival of mirrors and smoke.
how do you stop it? stop it with your money. vote with your dollars. spend wisely. find out who you are supporting when you buy that nifty new gadget or watch that nifty new commercial. the advertisers you see on TV and that support the media are the ones who hold the sway. stop patronizing them specifically. that'll teach them the most value-able lesson....
anyhoo. see you guys, I'm off to the Netherlands. I'll be back on hear if I'm not too baked and find an internet cafe. PEACE in the Middle EAST.
Roadblock03.16.07 - 11:57 am
reply
when're you comin back? we'll go try to create a diversion at LAX... make sure those drug dogs aren't payig attention... ;-)
FuzzBeast03.16.07 - 12:33 pm
reply
Yeah, lots of good, reasonable discussion here, I've been on other boards where the second it gets political things turn ugly & personal, so I guess this says something about us as a group.
No solutions from me here, but a quote I like that sums a lot of it up for me was uttered by one of the military's own guys (wish I could remember who) a few years back, essentially, "the armed forces are good at killing people and breaking things, not acting as a police force".
mr rollers03.16.07 - 1:02 pm
reply
yah that's a good quote Steve, i agree with u on that one. And i too noticed that people get very touchy when it comes to this topic. It shows that Ridazz are more open minded and are tolerant of different thoughts. We can have a good talk/debate without getting outta control and uncivil. RIDE ON!
t.bone03.16.07 - 1:28 pm
reply
Oh man for sure... The soldiers don't want to be police. That's beneath them and its unfair to require it of them. They aren't inclined to care about human rights. They are trained to kill which means that the enemy is demonized in all their training propaganda. So I wasn't kidding when I said that they would need to be trained in the geneva convention and held accountable for their crimes for this to work.
All I'm hoping for is to get a clear picture of what's ethically and morally right to do. What will lead the US out of iraq in the best way possible for the Iraqi people, and then for our military. The US goverment fucked up in a huge and terroristic way. From this point on there are A lot of options out there. If we have a clear picture of a humane ends....... We can work towards it and in the future when the warmongers start rattling sabers about some other country I will hear the sound and associate it with the insanity and inhumane savagery of this catastrophe.
The only time a war should be fought is when the armies are lined up on the border and have enterd your land. Otherwise. I'm too content to be bothered conquering other nations. If this is all about oil... Shit, ride a bicycle and pay them a lil more for their friggin oil so everyones happy.
Yup on the flyaway as we speak..... Pretty relaxing to hit the redline and bounce to the flyaway. The flyaway is free for another week or so with metro ticket. Go metro. I gots to find me a worthy bicycle in Holland. Somehow I don't think that's a problem. :)
I guess I won't be hitting the protest on saturday afterall. but I wish all of you luck, love and a strong compassionate voice.
Roadblock03.16.07 - 3:33 pm
reply
I'm looking forward to seeing Ozomatli.
Cutter03.16.07 - 4:21 pm
reply
Two, one two three four
Ev'rybody's talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, is-m, is-m, is-m.
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
C'mon
Ev'rybody's talking about Ministers,
Sinisters, Banisters and canisters
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,
And bye bye, bye byes.
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
Let me tell you now
Ev'rybody's talking about
Revolution, evolution, masturbation,
flagellation, regulation, integrations,
meditations, United Nations,
Congratulations.
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
Ev'rybody's talking about
John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rosemary,
Tommy Smothers, Bobby Dylan, Tommy Cooper,
Derek Taylor, Norman Mailer,
Alan Ginsberg, Hare Krishna,
Hare, Hare Krishna
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
etc.
Joe Borfo03.16.07 - 10:30 pm
reply
Otherwise known as "the song that makes me cringe at peace rallies." :)
Not that it isn't a great song...
PC03.16.07 - 10:32 pm
reply
I'll have you know, good sir, that I have been out of the closet as a hippie ever since birth. Even when I was a punk hippie.
I'm just saying, you know, hearing that song at peace demos makes me groan inwardly (or outwardly) in the same way that tie-dye and all that other shit does. Because it makes us look just a tad bit like we're trying to live, or re-live, some 1960s fantasy rather than carry across a message about what's going on right now.
I mean, if we're going to be all self-indulgent and show up at rallies in retro costumes and sing period songs, can't we switch it up a bit every now and then? Like, everybody wear a suit and tie like civil rights demonstrators and sing "Michael, Row The Boat Ashore"? Or like striking coal miners in the 30s and sing "Down On The Picket Line"? Or like anti-Apartheid protesters in the early-to-mid 1980s and not sing anything, because music sucked in the eighties? You know what I mean?
Admittedly, I am whining here. I should just be happy that at least they're not singing fuckin' "Imagine."
PC03.16.07 - 11:32 pm
reply
I don't care what people are signing or chanting. I just hope that our message is loud enough to penetrate the muffle of the corporate media curtain.
No more complacentcy folks. It's time to share our vision of the future. Let's make some noise! Sure, anger doesnt solve anything. What matters most is solidarity and the will of the people to get together and do what it takes to incite change throughout this nation and the world by projecting a common vision of peace and progress.
To me this isn't about politics. It's using my potential to change the world. Too hopeful you might say? Fuck, I'd rather live like this than be a pig in a cage.
Ride On!
Joe Borfo03.17.07 - 2:04 am
reply
I'm gonna try and make this in the morning... if I don't, I dont... but I'ma gonna try!
FuzzBeast03.17.07 - 2:19 am
reply
Aww shit, I didnt realize how tired I was until I laid down, when I work up an hour or two ago, I realized that's probably cause i'd been up since 5 am yesterday, almost 24hrs by the time I got some sleep, and I'd done maybe 35 miles last night...
sorry guys.
Hope the whole thing went well.
FuzzBeast03.17.07 - 4:59 pm
reply
Thank you to everybody who came out to the ride Saturday I felt that it was a success. Special thanks to DJ Chicken Leather (friend extrodinar) who came through at the last minute with a wireless microphone and mixer. Big Bike Dan, as always, carrying the sounds system around and taking the day off work.
We rode around 20 miles, around the outskirts of the protest, in the front of the march for a brife moment, and around other areas of the city. The response was mostly positive to the the ride and it's message. We recieved a few thumbs down from people who drove cars in $50,000 and up range, (new black Cadillac where especially representing in this catergory). Lots of supports from people in Pirus on Highland and SUV's throughout the ride (just because a person drive a gas guzzlng car doesn't mean they support Bush and the Wars.)
While stopped in traffic one guys said, "lets bring the troops home, drop 3 bombs and get it over with" then, traffic started moving again, we gave me back the microphone and drove away in his new Mercedes. I really wanted to know what he meant by drop 3 bombs?
Gearn noted, the respone that shocked him most was,
"Who Cares".
We rode around the parking lot and the outskirts of "The Grove". Security showed up ready to make a 'human wall' to make sure we didn't go into the promade shopping area. We had no plans of doing so. Before going over to that area, we all decided not to, due to the fact we might accidently hit somebody with our sign post and didn't want to take that risk of possibly hurting someone.
For those that weren't one of the last eight riders on the ride, Joe Borfo saved the day(ride), when he took everybody home with his version of a Fire and Brimestone style sermon of the rides theme. Everybody in the ride, joined in with "Amens" and "i feel it". Big Bike Dan and I started in with our own preaching. Joe started the sermonon at Highland and Melrose. People started coming from their cars and out of stores jumping up and down in support of what Joe was saying. When the ride made it to Hollywood Blvd, all of the people leaving the main rally went crazy for the sermon. It was so much fun.
Up until that the point all of the SpokeN'Dissent ride and even the Arlington West ride, had me and Big Bike Dan dominating the Microphone, We would speak of the same facts, reguarding the horrors of the war and encouraged people to lobby their congressmember to de-fund the war. I would end up repeating the same thing, It was redondent', but approriate because, we would be passing new groups of people as we road down the street, who didn't hear the message before. Even though the system was powerful and the message on point, it was "bland".
Joe Borfo did what we have been hoping would happen with the wireless microphone system. Joe's imagination and playful street theather, brought a level of fun and inspiration to the ride, while remaining serious about the issues. I envision the SpokeN'Dissnet ride to have people with their hands out to take the mic, taking it to new levels, with what they have to say, instead of looking around for who is going to take the mic next.
Those that want to come to the rolling protest and participate in their own way without taking the microphone are not ony, "just as important", they are always wanted and welcomed.
If you are againist these wars, and want to tell the rest of the city about it, while, riding your bike, come out to the next SpokeN'Dissent ride Sunday April 1st, 12 noon at Hollywood and Argyle. We may have a special SpokeN'Dissent "tax day ride" on Sunday, April 15th,
to remind, all those taxpayers that they can partipate in democracy, and demand that those taxs dollar they are forced (or choose) to pay, not be spent on War.
Stay Active!
sexy03.18.07 - 11:14 pm
reply
Santa Barbara, does it up right.
Not scared to get on their bicycle to do political action.
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/03/195330.php
sexy03.19.07 - 2:08 am
reply
That guy in the black Cadillac was priceless; it's the first time during one of these rides that I've actually seen somebody double back in order to heckle us twice! I almost wish I'd been able to understand what he was yelling about.
I think this ride finally proved that a rolling demonstration can be done Ridazz-style, with flair and a theatrical sense of humor and fun (but without trivializing the issue, or seeming self-indulgent like a lot of the people at rallies who go overboard with the puppets and stilts and such). This element of energy and style, I think, is important because it deftly sidesteps the widely held notions that a lot of people have of "protesters" being angry or bored people who just have a need to be pissed off at stuff.
So I encourage some of you who may think you're a little bit too cool to show up to a demonstration bike ride at noon on a weekend to come on down and give it a whirl. Bring your creativity and your energy and, um, your bike. Leave at home whatever preconceived notions you may have about political events being a drag. After all, it can't be a drag if
you're there, right?
PC03.19.07 - 3:18 am
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
