March 2003 posts
M.O.L.O.J. and Buffy Watcher's Against the War!!!! Sound off!!! (ot) And write to Congress! -- Rochefort, 19:41:59 03/17/03 Mon
This is nothing but a futile gesture maybe, but I can't be heard! This administration is 1 part lunacy and 2 parts bald greedy violence and imperialism. I'd love to just see a big list of philosophical Buffy watchers sounding off. And maybe tell us all what forms of resistance you're taking? There's not enough resistance! More resistance!
[>
This buffy watch is pro-war! -- Corwin of Amber, 20:10:04 03/17/03 Mon
1. Name the lunacy. Saddam Hussein has violated UN resolutions for 12 years with impunity. France, Germany and probably Russia have coluded in selling prohibited items - weapons and chemical/biological weapons precursors.
2. If we wanted oil, we could simply decare victory in Kuwait, Saudi Araba, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Our troops are already in place, and they don't have a military to speak of, since they depend on us for their protection.
3. Imperialism. If we were acting in an imperial manner, we would be behaving VERY differently. We wouldn't have bothered with the UN, and instead of keeping al-quaida POW's in Cuba, we'd have lined them up and shot the lot of them.
4. What keeps all this in check? 200 million American voters. The minute I see ACTUAL IMPERIALISM (invading and annexing small countries for our sole economic benefit of us) I will start voting against this administration.
[> [>
This one isn't -- Shiraz, 10:19:03 03/18/03 Tue
"1. Name the lunacy. Saddam Hussein has violated UN resolutions for 12 years with impunity. France, Germany and probably Russia have coluded in selling prohibited items - weapons and chemical/biological weapons precursors."
Actually, all of the sales of prohibited items, centrifuges, growth mediums, reactor parts, et. al. took place before the first gulf-war, and you've left off one vendor, the U.S.. Our beloved republican administrations (Reagan and Bush Sr.) had no problem with Saddam's little WMD peccadilloes when he was using them against people we didn't like, such as the Iranians and the ever-so-inconvenient Kurds. In fact there's a rather infamous film clip of Donald Rumsfeld *hugging* Saddam Hussein back in the eighties.
It's one of the great ironies of this whole situation that Colin Powell's UN presentation could have been much more effective if he'd said:
"We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, because we sold them to him, and here are the receipts!"
"2. If we wanted oil, we could simply declare victory in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Our troops are already in place, and they don't have a military to speak of, since they depend on us for their protection."
You're right, this isn't DIRECTLY about oil, but I'm kind of confused about your logic. You, see we already have the Middle East's oil (including Iraq's) through the magic of global capitalism. What's more, as all oil is the same it really doesn't matter who's producing it, it all costs the same. The advantage the Middle East has is that has a lot of oil, and that it's easy to get at. This means that middle-eastern oil (sitting under nice, easy to extract from desert) has a much higher profit margin than American oil (sitting under tundra) or British oil (sitting under arctic oceans).
Where the situation gets murkier is when you look at the people who would be profiting from REBUILDING Iraq's oil infrastructure after the war. The name leading the list is good ol' Haliburton (former CEO Dick Cheney), supplier of oil infrastructure equipment to shady dictators for over 20 years! Why this AMERICAN firm was even working in Iraq AFTER the Gulf War AT THE TIME sanctions were in effect WHILE the Veep was at its helm. This firm stands to reap a huge windfall from any rebuilding efforts.
What's more, there have been very recent statements issued by the administration stating that Iraq may have to pay for its own reconstruction out of its oil revenues. In other words, once the bombs stop falling Iraqi oil infrastructure will be rebuilt by the VP's old firm and then the oil fields will either be sold or licensed to the presidents old business partners; with the newly-liberated Iraqis picking up the bill.
The whole thing just stinks to high heaven.
"3. Imperialism. If we were acting in an imperial manner, we would be behaving VERY differently. We wouldn't have bothered with the UN, and instead of keeping al-quaida POW's in Cuba, we'd have lined them up and shot the lot of them."
You're thinking of Roman-style imperialism, where anybody we don't like or who has something we want just gets eliminated. That's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about here is the 19th century concept of Imperialism (practiced, at the time, by much of Europe), which is based on the idea that a nation must achieve total, practical, on-the-ground supremacy in any area of the world where the nation has significant national interests.
For example: During the nineteenth century Britain's textile industry relied on cotton imports from British India. The Suez Canal, built and controlled by the Egyptian King, was vital to this trade. Therefore, when financial problems (caused by the building of the canal) threatened to destabilize Egypt, England stepped in to quell unrest and prop up the monarchy, turning Egypt into a British client state. Then, when a religious uprising in the Sudan (then nominally controlled by Egypt) threatened Egypt, the British sent in an army to crush the uprising, this put the Sudan under British control. Now that the British controlled the Sudan, they had to worry about the myriad of forces which could threaten it from Central Africa, i.e. the expanding French and German influence, banditry, religious conflict and slave traders. As a result, in an effort to secure the route to India, the British government found it necessary to control much of East Africa. [Yes, I know this is a simplification, but the main point is entirely valid - England had no real interests in East Africa aside from the perceived threat to the Suez.]
This administration's policies are uncomfortably similar to this take on foreign policy.
"4. What keeps all this in check? 200 million American voters. The minute I see ACTUAL IMPERIALISM (invading and annexing small countries for our sole economic benefit of us) I will start voting against this administration."
So, invading small countries and installing friendly regimes is O.K. by you? We tried that in Iran, with somewhat less-than-stellar results.
Also, those American voters are the ones really getting the shaft here. Go back and look at our president's foreign policy speeches when he was campaigning. They were full of statements like: "we shouldn't be the world's policemen", and "this country should not be involved in nation-building". One could rationally argue that the American people were duped by false advertising. Moreover, by the time we have the chance to choose again, it will be too late, we will be committed, most likely for the remainder of the decade, to the occupation of Iraq, and this administration has no clue how we're going to pay for it.
Finally, It just has to be said that I'm against this war (for whatever good it will do), not because of any inherent pacifism, but rather because we don't have a reason to attack. A fundamental concept of international relations is the causes belli, which simply means that for one nation to go to war with another, there must be a reason for their action.
"We don't like their leader" is not a reason.
"They might be up to something" is not a reason, especially if you can't offer any proof.
What are reasons to go to war?
Iraq invades Kuwait - Good reason, as another friendly nation's sovereignty is being violated.
Japan bombs Pearl Harbor - Good reason, as we were being directly attacked.
Heck, I'll even take the controversial stance that intervening to stop the in-progress massive killing of civilians within a sovereign nation's borders is justified.
But if you want me on board for this war you'll need to show me some solid, objectively verifiable proof that Saddam is in material breach of the resolution 1441; not this sham smoke and mirror evidence which dissolves under close scrutiny. (i.e. the dossier that turned out to a plagiarized grad-student essay, and photographs of trucks that we "just know" contain bad stuff).
I get kind of picky about this kind of stuff when I'm asked to give my blessing to the slaughter of thousands.
-Shiraz
"Killing a stranger without malice or satisfaction, other than the craftsman's pride in a job well done, is such a rare talent that armies spend months trying to instill it into their young soldiers."
-Terry Pratchett "The Fifth Elephant"
[> [> [>
Finally some rational arguments! Thank you!!! -- Corwin of Amber, 13:14:23 03/18/03 Tue
Thanks for the post! I've been trying to find a liberal with rational arguments against the war for weeks!
>Actually, all of the sales of prohibited items, centrifuges, growth mediums, reactor parts, et. al. took place before the first gulf-war, and you've left off one vendor, the U.S..
If that's true, it doesn't invalidate my point...there was no UN ban on the sale of such items to Iraq at that time, so it was perfectly legal. I'll admit that it was unwise, but hindsight is 20/20. And this is no justification for our allies to sell them NOW, during such a ban.
>You, see we already have the Middle East's oil (including Iraq's) through the magic of global capitalism.
My point exactly. I was concerned with refuting the liberal conspiracy theory that President Bush is doing this to enrich his own pockets through seizing Iraqi oil fields. The amount of Iraqi oil on the market is currently limited by UN sanction. With Hussein out of Iraq, and in compliance with UN mandates, that cap comes off, supply goes up and the price goes down...and oil men make LESS money.
>Where the situation gets murkier is when you look at the people who would be profiting from REBUILDING Iraq's oil infrastructure after the war. The name leading the list is good ol' Haliburton (former CEO Dick Cheney), supplier of oil infrastructure equipment to shady dictators for over 20 years! Why this AMERICAN firm was even working in Iraq AFTER the Gulf War AT THE TIME sanctions were in effect WHILE the Veep was at its helm. This firm stands to reap a huge windfall from any rebuilding efforts.
Does Dick Cheney have proven connections to Haliburton currently? He had to leave the company when he rejoined government service, how much connection do you have to your last job? Is there any evidence of say, kickbacks from Haliburton to Cheney? It seems like you're making a logical leap here with scant real world evidence. Connect the dots!!!
I'll have to concede the point about 19th century imperialism for the moment, simply because i'm uninformed about that period of history. I'm gonna check it out though.
>So, invading small countries and installing friendly regimes is O.K. by you? We tried that in Iran, with somewhat less-than-stellar results.
That's simplifying the situation too much. Hussein's Iraq has demonstrated it's aggressive tendencies and it's willingness to use chemical and biological weapons...thats a fact...it invaded Kuwait, and gassed and used anthrax against the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
Is allowing this regime to stand as it is, all right with you?
>What are reasons to go to war?
>Iraq invades Kuwait - Good reason, as another friendly nation's sovereignty is being violated.
>Japan bombs Pearl Harbor - Good reason, as we were being directly attacked.
What about missiles being shot at our aircraft? Or did you not know about this?
>Heck, I'll even take the controversial stance that intervening to stop the in-progress massive killing of civilians within a sovereign nation's borders is justified.
Amen to that. So if Hussein started gassing Kurds again, you'd want us to invade?
[> [> [>
1441 -- Grant, 13:19:40 03/18/03 Tue
But if you want me on board for this war you'll need to show me some solid, objectively verifiable proof that Saddam is in material breach of the resolution 1441; not this sham smoke and mirror evidence which dissolves under close scrutiny. (i.e. the dossier that turned out to a plagiarized grad-student essay, and photographs of trucks that we "just know" contain bad stuff).
Based on your argument, I take it that you have very little idea as to what resolution 1441 actually says. You seem to be stating that we need clear proof that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction before you will accept the use of force. That is very simply not what Resoution 1441 requires. I am quoting here the important passage (read the whole thing if you want here):
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
1441 clearly puts all the emphasis on Iraq to provide evidence that they no longer have weapons of mass destruction. A material breach does not necessarily mean proof that weapons of mass destruction exist, but rather that Iraq is not following the above guidelines. And even Hans Blix admits that Iraq has not followed the resolution. Perhaps the most obvious example is the report that Iraq filed, as they were required to under section 3, which was incomplete, full of lies, and largely a photocopy of a report published back in 1992 after the Gulf War. Section 4 states that publishing a faulty report is a "further material breach," so Iraq is also guilty. There are also a number of other material breaches. Such as the lack of "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access." Hans Blix has spent the last month or two talking about how the inspector's access is improving, which begs the question of how access that is suppossed to be "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" can improve. Obviously, Saddam has committed another material breach under this section of the resolution.
There have also been several recent findings of weapons clearly in breach of previous resolutions which dictated exactly what arms Iraq could have. The missiles that Saddam has recently (and very slowly) destroyed are just one example. Another is the recent unmanned probe discovered by inspectors, which was readily capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons to neighbouring countries. There have also been several warheads discovered recently that were configured so as to drop chemical or biological weapons. You may not be completely familiar with these last two, as Hans Blix has strangely decided to not talk about them when he delivers his reports to the Security Council. You would think that as an inspector he would be highly motivated to tell the council of these major violations by Iraq, but for some reason he thinks it is acceptable to bury these violations deep in his reports while at the same time loudly announcing that Saddam occassionally allows them to speak to a scientist without tape recording the conversation.
The critical concept behind 1441 is that it is up to the disarming nation, and not the United Nations, to prove that it is disarming. The recent disarmament of South Africa followed this path, where the South African government provided full access and documentation from the beginning to prove that it had disarmed. It did not play games with the inspectors in the hope that the whole inspections thing would die down, as it had every other time it was tried over the past 12 years, and the inspectors could be removed again.
Iraq is clearly in material breach of 1441, and thus faces the "serious consequences" threatened in that resolution. You may not feel that the requirements set by that resolution are stringent enough for war, but that does not mean you get to remake the requirements at a later date when it suits you to change them, as the French have attempted to do. Another important legal note is that the Gulf War never actually ended. There was no peace treaty, merely a ceasefire based on Iraq following the United Nations resolutions and disarming. Thus the case here is not the case for the start of hostilities, but rather the case for the resumption of hostilities based on the fact that one party is no longer holding up its end of the deal that stopped those hostilities in the first place.
I get kind of picky about this kind of stuff when I'm asked to give my blessing to the slaughter of thousands.
I have heard this point quite a lot, about the horrible cost of war. In this case, I think that that argument is a little uncompelling. The upper estimate of civilian casualties during the first Gulf War is 2,500 to 3,000. Certainly not a number to be taken lightly, but, to put it in some perspective, Saddam Hussein killed 5,000 Kurds in a single chemical weapons attack on Halabja. The total number of Iraqi casualties, military and civilian, in the first Gulf War is between 21,000 and 35,000. Certainly a large number of deaths, even though the overwhelming majority of them were military. Looking at these numbers in a vacuum, I could understand a reluctance to engage in a war that could very likely lead to tens of thousands of casualties.
However, in this case there is a cost of peace that most people seem to be ignoring. According to UNICEF, 5,000 children under 5 die in Iraq each month because of the need for sanctions and the way Saddam Hussein's regime institutes those sanctions. That means that 60,000 Iraqi children die each year under "peace." That is over twice the total number of Iraqis who died during the Gulf War, except the casualties of this peace are entirely civilian. Each year we allow the Hussein regime to continue, we are sentencing another 60,000 Iraqi children to death. So there is clearly a moral cost of peace that needs to be weighed in this decision as well. Taking one of the worst case scenarios involving civilian casualties and assuming that this war will kill 10,000 innocent civilians, then that means as a net result the war has saved 50,000 lives that year. It is sad that such arithmetic is necessary, however, when you are dealing with a sadistic monster who tortures his own citizens for fun, such deadly arithmetic become the reality.
Fortunately, I do not think that there will be a large number of civilian casualties in this war. During the first Gulf war, only around 10% of the bombs dropped were "smart" bombs. Most were the old fashioned "dumb" bombs that have no guidance and are simply dropped from high altitutes in the hope that they land on their targets. It is these bombs that cause most civilian casualties, as they have a tendency to miss their target and hit nearby buildings. According to current Department of Defense estimates, 90% of the bombs dropped in any upcoming war with Iraq will be smart bombs. This will significantly cut down on the risk of collateral damage. Meanwhile, I think this may be the first time I have ever seen one army prepare for a war by doing everything they can to avoid any casualties on the other side, both civilian and military. The current "shock and awe" plan of war was specifically designed to destroy infrastructure instead of soldiers, in the hopes that those soldiers will surrender rather than fight. And every effort is currently being employed to convince the Iraqi army to surrender rather than fight. It is certainly not fear that leads us to this tactic, as the American Armed Forces could roll over anything Iraq could throw at it with ease. It is rather a desire to avoid as many casualties as possible. The fact that we are working so hard to avoid these casualties gives me a lot of faith that this war will not be a bloddy one. Rather, at the end of the day Saddam and his death cult will be gone, a major threat to global security will go with him, and the Iraqi people will be free from a brutal dictatorship for the first time in decades.
[> [> [> [>
What I find puzzling -- Sophist, 14:30:16 03/18/03 Tue
is the disconnect between the two main points you raise:
1. The UN resolutions are directed solely at Iraq's weapons program.
2. The brutality of Iraq's government to its own citizens is not mentioned in any of the UN resolutions.
There are 2 issues at play here, the moral case for invasion and the legal one. The focus on UN resolutions seems to undercut the moral case, yet that, by itself, has no legal justification (however compelling it may seem otherwise).
JMHO, but a good deal of the problem faced by the US/Brits is the failure to articulate one simple, convincing argument for invasion. It may be that there is no such single argument, that multiple arguments are necessary. In that case, I would suggest it's important to identify them clearly and acknowledge that they are separate and distinct. I don't know many lawyers who would make such a hash of the case as I've seen from the US/British administrations. Blair is much better than Bush, but even he can't seem to Get it Done (there, made a BtVS reference).
Since you've made quite an articulate response, let me ask you (and Corwin) to address some of the points that, JMHO, are bothering thoughtful people.
First, the moral issue. Putting aside whether Iraq is legally in compliance or not, the moral question raised is When is a preemptive strike justified?
I'm not sure I know the answer to this question, but I do have serious doubts that Iraq's mere possession of chemical weapons qualifies. Notwithstanding the terminology everyone employs, those are not what I'd call WMD (at least not any more so than any bomb in the Iraqi arsenal). Even if they were, my own view is that only the actual use of such weapons (in the absence of other reasons) would justify an invasion; otherwise I can't distinguish Iraq from many other countries in the world.
If the case for a preemptive strike is based upon the treatment of Iraqi civilians, I'd have to say this point is not being made clear by anyone.
On the legal front, I'm going to do this briefly because this is getting too long:
Why does the US get to decide if Iraq is in compliance with UN resolutions? Why isn't this up to the UN?
Personally, what I find most disturbing of all is the attitude of the Bush administration. I believe that the interests of the US are best served by a stable international order in which the prevailing ethos is that no nation acts on its own. Bush's policy undercuts that stability by demanding freedom of action for the US over the often frustrating demands of consensus. In the short run, the need for consensus is frustrating (which hardly justifies ham-fisted diplomacy). In the long run, it's essential.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: What I find frightening -- luna, 16:23:29 03/18/03 Tue
What is most disturbing is Bush's inability to gain any substantial allies by diplomacy. This suggests to me that he is not capable of managing international relations in any way more complex than waging war.
In spite of all the points raised in earlier posts about the Bush rationalizations, I still see no reason why we must have war immediately. What will Iraq do in two months that it didn't do in the past 10 years? Why can there not be some delay and attempts to heighten inspections, use incremental buildups of troops, give increasing tough deadlines?
It seems very likely to me that at least one reason is that the Bush administration realizes that its current domestic support is still largely built on its scare tactics and the ignorance of the US population--possibly they deserve what they get if they still think that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11, but in fact I believe that Bush, Cheney, & co know that eventually the constant harping on color-coded "terror" alerts would lose its ability to stifle all dissent.
I believe this war is as much about the next presidential election as it is about oil.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Allies -- Grant, 18:12:59 03/18/03 Tue
What is most disturbing is Bush's inability to gain any substantial allies by diplomacy. This suggests to me that he is not capable of managing international relations in any way more complex than waging war.
I'm sorry, that statement betrays a fundamental lack of awareness in the current situation. How do you possibly justify saying that America has no substantial ally when we have 45? Yep, 45. 30 fully supporting and 15 supporting privately, at least according to Colin Powell, who I tend to trust on such things. Further, Bush got a unamimous vote in favor of resolution 1441. He can hardly be blamed that certain nations (COUGHFRANCECOUGH) had no intention of actually following the resolution and were just buying time. Further, if you believe Tony Blair they were very close on passing a final resolution, setting an ultimatum and five criteria, based on the suggestions of the inspectors, that Iraq would need to meet to avoid the use of force. Then France stepped forward declaring unilaterally that it would veto any further resolution no matter the circumstances, any hope of that collapsed as the undecided countries on the security council realized that it no longer matter how they voted. If you examine the situation carefully, you will see that Bush has been a master diplomat. The only countries that strongly oppose the war right now are France, Russia, China, and Germany. Frankly, the only one of those countries in which it is suprising to find them opposing the United States is Germany. I'd be very surprised if there ever was a security council resolution or foreign policy issue in which China, Russia, and France did not oppose the United States.
In spite of all the points raised in earlier posts about the Bush rationalizations, I still see no reason why we must have war immediately. What will Iraq do in two months that it didn't do in the past 10 years? Why can there not be some delay and attempts to heighten inspections, use incremental buildups of troops, give increasing tough deadlines?
It is exactly this kind of attitude that is threatening to make the United Nations an answer to a trivia question. Iraq has been ordered to disarm for 12 years. There have been at least 18 mandatory resolutions passed demanding this disarmament. Don't these resolutions mean something? Or should Saddam Hussein get some sort of special pass that exempts him? I wish there were a way to solve this issue without war, but I cannot see it. The only possibility seems to be an overwhelming threat of force, which was the approach the US, UK, and Spain were trying to work through the security council. Unfortunately, France worked to undermine that from the beginning. Saddam never had to fear that the UN would authorize force against him as long as France was promising to veto any resolution no matter the circumstances. Therefore all he needed to do was play games with the inspectors long enough for the pressure to fall off again, and eventually he could kick them out again and go off on his merry way.
The other problem with waiting is the moral cost of peace. If we contain Saddam, we need to have sanctions to assure that he cannot get the tools he needs to make more weapons of mass destruction. Because of the way Saddam passes off the costs of these sanctions to his people while he lives happily in luxurious palaces, thousands of Iraqis, most of them children, die each month. That is the cost of delay and containment, so any position in support of delay must acknowledge that it is on very tenuous moral ground.
It seems very likely to me that at least one reason is that the Bush administration realizes that its current domestic support is still largely built on its scare tactics and the ignorance of the US population--possibly they deserve what they get if they still think that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11, but in fact I believe that Bush, Cheney, & co know that eventually the constant harping on color-coded "terror" alerts would lose its ability to stifle all dissent.
I believe this war is as much about the next presidential election as it is about oil.
Domestic support for invading Iraq has always been relatively strong, but it has fluctuated. And it never really has had anything to do with scare tactics, unless you consider a conclusion that we might not want to let Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction part of some scare tactic. I don't think that anyone in America has ever felt that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11. The problem is that Saddam Hussein clearly has ties to terrorists. Whether you feel that the ties to Al Qaeda have been proven, he has basically announced his ties to all kinds of Anti-Israel groups, all of which have ties to a number of other radical islam terrorist organizations. Even with the greatest degree of inspections and containment, it would be impossible to stop Saddam from smuggling WMDs to one of these groups. 3,000+ Americans are already dead because we did not treat threats like that serious enough during the nineties, and, frankly, I'm not willing to sacrifice another 3,000 just so we can have the highest degree of moral superiority during this war. In fact, I would have thought that the moral superiority of any attempt to rid the world of Saddam Hussein would be self-evident, but apparently there are those who think that George W. Bush is a bigger threat. That is true ignorance.
As to the election argument, that is as questionable as the oil argument. Bush has taken considerable risk to support this policy. His domestic support number fell to their lowest level because he supported disarming Saddam through force if necessary. However, his numbers have risen dramatically in recent weeks, which I would attribute to a realization of the public that Iraq cannot be disarmed peacefully, and that the United Nations is not up to the task as long as France sits on the Security Council. And if you think that someone could only support war with Iraq for political gain, explain Tony Blair. He has pretty much nothing to gain through this war and everything to lose. Yet he supports it because he strongly believes that it is the right thing to do. And I agree with him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Allies -- luna, 21:49:24 03/18/03 Tue
How do you possibly justify saying that America has no substantial ally when we have 45? Yep, 45. 30 fully supporting and 15 supporting privately.
I can say that a good many of those are bought and owned by the USA, and I can say that private, non-military support is an oxymoron. I can also say that no major nations except Britain are part of the "allies."
I also see no evidence that there is any real moral motivation in our action. Why are we not intervening in North Korea? Where were we in Rwanda? Our sudden realization that the Iraqis must be rescued this minute, even if we have to kill every one of them to do it, is just not credible.
Bush has taken no political risks because he has silenced the opposition and muzzled/bought off the media.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What I find frightening is more than that.... -- Briar Rose, 20:05:10 03/18/03 Tue
It's that the only reason why Blair is all gung-ho behind Bush is that he wants US help in his "continuing terrorism troubles" with Ireland and the IRA.
He stated from the beginning of Bush's "War on Terrorism" that England will support all efforts to stamp out terrorism, because England knows from terrorism, lives with it every day and that he is in league with the US to stamp out terrorism wherever it exists.
So I wonder if Bush/Blair will take on the gangs in the big cities of the US next? Talk about terrorists with big body counts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What I find frightening is more than that.... -- Celebaelin, 04:52:26 03/19/03 Wed
Sorry, but I have to correct you there. The current situation with terrorism, or at least terrorist bombings and murders rather than sectarian intimidation, is that it is functioning at a zero level and difficult negotiations are being held to bring Loyalist and Republican factions together in a functioning Northern Irish parliament. Britain has, in a sense, defeated terrorism in Northern Ireland (Eire is a separate country and their co-operation was of course essential). The participation of President Clinton in the initial stages of this process was much appreciated, particularly his tangible efforts in scrutinising the activities of Noraid, the US group which provided funding for the IRA allowing them in turn to buy weapons through their terrorist connections world-wide (Libya, Nicaragua, Colombia, Afghanistan etc.).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I have to disagree with you here, BR -- Rahael, 05:48:48 03/19/03 Wed
I do know one aspect about the British Government's fight against terror. It has a big impact upon my life. They personally ensure my family's daily safety, keep a watchful eye on things, and have generally shown themselves to be alert and ever ready to help.
And I am not the only person who hoped that if anything could happen after the atrocity in New York was that the international situation got very very very frosty for certain groups. And I think to an extent it has impelled certain ones (with great reluctance I might add) to seek alternatives.
England does have some idea of the cost of terrorism, and so do I. It's enormous, uncalculable. And they are ideologically motivated to keep pursuing you, and it is frightning because you never know when you will stop being 'undesirable' enough for them to not want you to be eliminated. When they stop blackmailing you with threats on the lives of loved ones back home if you don't stop talking about them. When they stop hanging around your house, and know every thing about your movements, and when one day you won't be scared about talking to people of your own community on random encounters because you don't know who they support and whether they know who you are.
I am very very grateful for all this. Inexpressably grateful. I wouldn't be able to fall asleep at night without it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Small correction of Anglo-centric view point -- Rahael, 05:55:38 03/19/03 Wed
Crap! I always do this. I meant to say that Britain knows the cost of terrorism. (I really didn't meant to type England!)
[> [> [> [>
Re: 1441 -- Shiraz, 15:35:03 03/18/03 Tue
First:
"4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations *and will be reported to the Council for assessment* in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;"
From this statement its clear that the body which decides whether Iraq is in material breach, and then what to do about it thereafter, is the UN Security council, not the U.S.. This means it is up to U.S. and UK to make the case to the rest of the Security Council; The fact that you, or secretary Powell beleives Iraq to be in violation is ultimately irrelevant if you cannot convince the rest of the members of the council, and ultimately we have failed to do so. In the end we were unable to convince even Canada or Mexico, quite literally our closest allys, to support our position.
"Perhaps the most obvious example is the report that Iraq filed, as they were required to under section 3, which was incomplete, full of lies, and largely a photocopy of a report published back in 1992 after the Gulf War."
This was the U.S. state department's read on the situation, the inspectors themselves merely said the report was incomplete.
"There are also a number of other material breaches. Such as the lack of "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access." Hans Blix has spent the last month or two talking about how the inspector's access is improving, which begs the question of how access that is suppossed to be "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" can improve. Obviously, Saddam has committed another material breach under this section of the resolution."
So, what you are saying is that because the inspectors are getting more cooperation from Iraqi officials now, that their previous level of cooperation is grounds for war. So obviously if the Iraqis were smart they wouldn't cooperate at all. Besides which, "access" and "cooperation" are not the same thing; access is passive, it merely requires that Iraq not interfere with the process of inspection, cooeration, however, is active it implies that officials are assisting the inspectors in their efforts.
"There have also been several recent findings of weapons clearly in breach of previous resolutions which dictated exactly what arms Iraq could have. The missiles that Saddam has recently (and very slowly) destroyed are just one example. Another is the recent unmanned probe discovered by inspectors, which was readily capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons to neighbouring countries. There have also been several warheads discovered recently that were configured so as to drop chemical or biological weapons. You may not be completely familiar with these last two, as Hans Blix has strangely decided to not talk about them when he delivers his reports to the Security Council. You would think that as an inspector he would be highly motivated to tell the council of these major violations by Iraq, but for some reason he thinks it is acceptable to bury these violations deep in his reports while at the same time loudly announcing that Saddam occassionally allows them to speak to a scientist without tape recording the conversation."
O.K. Here are the smoke and mirrors I was talking about.
1. The Al Samoud missle, a definate breach of the UN's requirements on the range of missles Iraq was allowed under 1992 guidelines, but only by 20-30 miles. These were hardly doomsday weapons. Furthermore, once the violation was brought out, the Iraqi government did start destroying them, as I recall over two-thirds of their total stockpile have been destroyed to date in the two weeks since they've started the process.
2. The Unmanned Probe, also known as an observation drone. We've got them too, their called Predator drones. Also from descriptions I've read of this supposed super weapon, it would be hard pressed to harm a flock of birds, to quote The Guardian:
"appears to be made of balsa wood and duct tape, with two small propellors attached to what look like the engines of a weed whacker."
3. The "warheads configured for biological or chemical payloads". I assume your talking about the aluminium payload tubes which were the centerpiece of Colin Powell's presentation. These aroused some suspicion as they seemed to be very highly machined for their stated (allowed) use as conventional weapon payload tubes. Several experts have said that these were designed for WMD payloads, while more have stated that they wouldn't be useful for this purpose. Either way, as there was no Chemical or Biological residue on the tubes, their use as WMD dispersion devices cannot be proven, or even reliably inferred.
(more to come)
-Shiraz
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: 1441 -- Grant, 19:14:26 03/18/03 Tue
From this statement its clear that the body which decides whether Iraq is in material breach, and then what to do about it thereafter, is the UN Security council, not the U.S.. This means it is up to U.S. and UK to make the case to the rest of the Security Council; The fact that you, or secretary Powell beleives Iraq to be in violation is ultimately irrelevant if you cannot convince the rest of the members of the council, and ultimately we have failed to do so. In the end we were unable to convince even Canada or Mexico, quite literally our closest allys, to support our position.
Actually, no. The resolution is clear that any "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq...shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations." It does not leave it up to the council to decide if these false statements or omissions are material breaches, it declares quite fully from the beginning that they are. Indeed, pretty much all the members of the Security Council, including France, are in agreement that Iraq has been in material breach of 1441, so that much is very clear. The assessment clause signifies that the inspectors are to report these material breaches to the security council, so that the security council can decide what it wants to do about it. Of course, the resolution promises "serious consequences" to any breach, but apparently "serious consequences" merely means that we will have Hans Blix ask nicely for more access in a slightly harsher tone. And, frankly, geographic proximity is very meaningless when it comes to international politics. Otherwise shouldn't we call North Korea the closest ally of South Korea?
This was the U.S. state department's read on the situation, the inspectors themselves merely said the report was incomplete.
Really? Because Hans Blix reported: "Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions [about UNMOVIC's "unresolved disarmament issues" with Iraq" or reduce their number." He is therefore saying that the declaration was both incomplete, failing to answer the questions that the inspectors presented to Iraq about the issues central to its further disarmament, and largely a mere reprint of previously submitted documents. Hans Blix is hardly an employee of the U.S. State Department, and he has admitted throughout the entire process that Iraq has not provided the "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" demanded by 1441.
So, what you are saying is that because the inspectors are getting more cooperation from Iraqi officials now, that their previous level of cooperation is grounds for war. So obviously if the Iraqis were smart they wouldn't cooperate at all. Besides which, "access" and "cooperation" are not the same thing; access is passive, it merely requires that Iraq not interfere with the process of inspection, cooeration, however, is active it implies that officials are assisting the inspectors in their efforts.
First of all, Iraq has never cooperated to any significant degree. When they have cooperated, it has largely come at the last possible moment when they had no other option. Further, my main point was a rhetorical one. The idea was that many who claim that Iraq is not in breach of 1441 at the same time claim that cooperation is increasing. This is impossible, as 1441 demands "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access," and obviously access and cooperation that come gradually cannot fulfill these criteria.
Meanwhile, in this case cooperation means providing "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access." Remember that these inspections necessitate full access to Iraqi records, factories, laboratories, military bases, and scientists. Providing access to these things, as well as full and honest declarations, are what I, and the many others who use the term in relation to this issue, mean by cooperation. And Iraq has not cooperated, in a number of ways. It is therefore in material breach of resolution 1441.
I am further a little alarmed that you seem to think that Iraq should not have to cooperate with disarmament. The simple fact of the matter is that it has never been the responsibility of the United Nations or some inspectors to prove that Iraq has not disarmed. It is the responsibility of Iraq to prove that it has disarmed. That is the way disarmament works. Saddam, however, has offered no proof, and instead has done everything possible to see that the inspectors had no way of knowing what the status of Iraqi disarmament was. It is certainly possible that Saddam has completely and fully disarmed, at least except for all the illegal (and undeclared) missiles and drones inspectors keep finding. This is not, however, very plausible, as Saddam has been given 12 years, 18 resolutions, and umpteen different chances to show some kind of evidence, and has not. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
1. The Al Samoud missle, a definate breach of the UN's requirements on the range of missles Iraq was allowed under 1992 guidelines, but only by 20-30 miles. These were hardly doomsday weapons. Furthermore, once the violation was brought out, the Iraqi government did start destroying them, as I recall over two-thirds of their total stockpile have been destroyed to date in the two weeks since they've started the process.
Iraq had an illegal weapon that they attempted to pass off as a legal weapon. They were caught, and given a deadline to destroy all of the missiles. The deadline came, no missiles were destroyed, and Saddam merely agreed "in principle" to destroy the missiles. Now, almost three weeks later, he has not finished destroying them. This is not what I call cooperation or the actions of a government that is willing to disarm.
2. The Unmanned Probe, also known as an observation drone. We've got them too, their called Predator drones. Also from descriptions I've read of this supposed super weapon, it would be hard pressed to harm a flock of birds, to quote The Guardian:
"appears to be made of balsa wood and duct tape, with two small propellors attached to what look like the engines of a weed whacker."
Well, I would hate to disagree with the Guardian, which as everyone knows upholds the highest in journalistic standards particularly in dealing with any issue involving the United States, however, Hans Blix has deemed the weapon of sufficient concern to merit further investigation, so he obviously did not believe that it was harmless and could easily fall apart. Indeed, his stated reason for not talking about the drone, which he stated in his report was not declared at all and was a breach of the requirements of 1441, was that he was not sure yet if the drone was tied to any chemical or biological weapons programs. Meanwhile, US intelligence has discovered that Iraq has a drone capable of flying 312 miles, far exceeding the 93 miles limit placed upon Iraq's drones. Iraq is allowed to have such 93-mile or less drones as long as they declare them, so the question is why they did not declare this drone if it is so harmless. It should also be quite obvious why such drones are a concern, because there are few better ways of flying large amounts of chemical and biological weapon to a neighbour with far less chance of detection than with a normal strike requiring larger missiles or planes.
3. The "warheads configured for biological or chemical payloads". I assume your talking about the aluminium payload tubes which were the centerpiece of Colin Powell's presentation. These aroused some suspicion as they seemed to be very highly machined for their stated (allowed) use as conventional weapon payload tubes. Several experts have said that these were designed for WMD payloads, while more have stated that they wouldn't be useful for this purpose. Either way, as there was no Chemical or Biological residue on the tubes, their use as WMD dispersion devices cannot be proven, or even reliably inferred.
Actually, I was referring to the 125 mm cluster bombs which were clearly configured for use in distributing chemical and biological weapons. Even Iraq has admitted that they were configured solely for that purpose. And, they were also not declared. Iraq has claimed that these bombs were left over from a previous program and were simply forgotten. Now, if this were an isolated incident, I might be willing to believe them on this point. Unfortunately, inspectors seem to keep coming up with small things that were either not declared or actually are far more dangerous than they were declared to be. Add that to the lack of cooperation and the past actions of Iraq, as well as all the unaccounted for chemical and biological weapons that Iraq claims to have destroyed without providing any proof, and it suddenly seems like Saddam Hussein is not so interested in disarmament after all. What a surprise.
As a final point, I would just like to question why you seem convinced that Colin Powell is engaged in some kind of smoke and mirrors show, while Saddam Hussein is clearly doing his best to disarm. What has happened that a tyrannical dictator who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people is taken to be more believable than the United States Secretary of State, a man who has served his country with honor and distinction for many, many years.
[> [> [>
Nicely said, Shiraz, thanks. -- Rochefort, 16:37:42 03/18/03 Tue
[>
This buffy watch is pro-apathy... -- ZachsMind, 21:56:14 03/17/03 Mon
Didn't you guys read Biological Warfare and the Buffy Paradigm? Okay I just kinda sorta scanned it myself. Personally I think Shrub's secretly a big fan of the Buffy tv series, cuz it's kinda obvious that's where he gets his military strategy. Brood for years, then disregard everything your friends are saying and just go in there and kick some ass. Or die trying.
If Buffy's America, that would mean Xander's Germany, Willow's France, and Spike's Russia. Maybe England's gonna be Faith, but I'm afraid Spain's just Dawn. I mean I love her, but I don't know if I liked her better when she was whining or now when she's just standing around accepting her martyred state of the forgotten sister, y'know?
"I'm just gonna sit over here and do some more research on Saddam. If you're going in after him, we're gonna need more dirt."
"..m'kay. Potentials follow me into the basement, as far away from Spain as we c'n git."
"Yes sir Miss Slayer of Evildoers SIR!"
Y'ever notice that the president can pre-empt shows like Buffy, but Buffy never gets to pre-empt the president. Wouldn't it have been great tonight if halfway through Shrub's ramble about how tough we are and how lame they are, all the sudden Dan Rather broke in and went--
"We interrupt the President of the United States of America to bring you this latest news: Eliza Dushku has admitted that if she can't get any other show anywhere she might reconsider reprising her role as Faith next fall. If she says no again, Joss Whedon has admitted he's gonna make Andrew the lead character of a half hour show in which he gives fashion tips to demons and starts a dating service for sexually frustrated vampires. Whedon's gonna call it 'It's Andy!' and the other supporting characters will spend their time looking at Andrew funny and wondering just what his sexual proclivities are. The UPN has already turned this idea down, but the FOX network has admitted they'd consider it, but only if Emma Caulfield comes back and talks more about masterbation. We now return you to George W. Bush's presidential address, already in progress."
Protest the war? Embrace the war? Violence begets violence. I think the whole thing's silly. I just hope they get all this crap done by April, cuz I don't want news reports about the war in Iraq to pre-empt any new episodes of Buffy or Angel in what may very well be their last seasons, respectively. Fortunately both UPN and the WB don't seem to have any real news departments worth speaking of. Thank God Buffy isn't on ABC, where they interrupt programming every time Colin Powell burps in public.
[> [>
Re: This buffy watch is pro-apathy... -- Calvin, 22:26:25 03/17/03 Mon
I have decided to come clean. Bare my soul.
I am an asshole. At least, I think I am. I say this without any trace of humor. And here's why. I am more concerned with "Angel" possibly being bumped than with a war. I am also more concerned with the NCAA tournament being postponed than with a war.
Now don't get me wrong. I have several friends going in first. One of my best friends sits in the back seat of an F-15E and will being flying into the teeth of an extrememly formidable air defense system. I'm a history and political science teacher. I am well aware of the geopolitical significance of what is unfolding. I just don't care, I feel like we have all been had, and want it all over with as soon as possible.
Is it just me? I am having a hard time reconciling these two feelings. I just wanted to write and say that if anyone else out there is feeling this apathetic, I'm with you. Like supporters of Liverpool football, you'll never walk alone.
Calvin
[> [> [>
Re: This buffy watch is pro-apathy... -- Jane, 23:22:04 03/17/03 Mon
Sigh...Sadly, there is already plenty of evidence that you are the farthest thing from alone. As a former reporter, I'm also all too aware that the no-longer-so-mighty fourth estate bares much of the blame for the current pitiful state of affairs. I would like to think that individuals such as the youth (I really do hope he's a youth) above are simply unfortunate souls who insist on gleaning what they know of current affairs from the Fox News-less Network, but clearly much of the mainstream U.S. media has abdicated its duty to become the favored French, er, 'Freedom' poodles of the current administration. With so few journalists and leaders doing a decent job of questioning why the Bushies don't want to allow inspections to work, perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that U.S. public opinion seems to have broken down to those eagerly cheering on the chaos, the vocal minority who have taken to the streets to protest to deaf ears that the time for war has not come, and the silent majority who are sitting on the sidelines and wondering if a Buffy spin-off should be centered around Willow, Spike or Clem.
Of course, I'm in no position to judge. I came by this board with every intention of lurking for a few minutes to see if there were any interesting new insights on the JossVerse, largely because a long evening of discussion about the more pressing business of the RealVerse had left me too disturbed and depressed to get to sleep. Unfortunately, this is the thread I couldn't quite ignore.
For what it's worth, you're also certainly not the only one who feels like you've been had. I've had that uncomfortable feeling since roughly November of 2000. Let's just hope we can all muster the interest to go to the polls in November of 2004.
[> [> [>
You are not alone.. -- ZachsMind, 23:29:25 03/17/03 Mon
Long ago I was told I should never fret over things beyond my control. There have been protests all over the country, but the cries have fallen on deaf ears. This war will go on, and no amount of protests will stop it.
The administration has been told by its own constituents that we're not all of one mind on this, yet the president lies and says in his speeches that America IS of one mind. I didn't vote that guy into office. The Florida thing was an early indication that we've all been had. Daddy Bush left something unfinished, and there are forces in Washington which were hellbent on getting his son in there to finish the job that Clinton didn't have the balls to do.
I can't stop Shrub from sending us into war. In fact, the war against Saddam Hussein never really ended with the Gulf War. Attempts at diplomacy have gone on for over a decade, and Saddam has been toying with us. That's not disputable. In World War Two, America waited until Pearl Harbor to get involved. Only when our personal safety was threatened did we act. England had been bombed for a time before that. Germany had overtaken Poland and Austria before we Americans stepped in. THIS time, it's almost the reverse. Terrorists brought down the WTC and thrust us into a situation where we have to act, and almost as if we're reacting to our tardiness in 1942, now we're over-reacting by compensation.
I can't stop Bush from alienating 90% of the world leaders by going it practically alone. I can't do anything about the Middle East but pray for those brave men and women who stand as the human wall between us and forces against our way of life.
I also can't stop networks from cancelling Firefly, being ambivalent towards a Buffy Spinoff, and leaving Angel in a state of limbo. However, it just seems like I have a little bit more potential influence over that. An illusion perhaps, but a more believable illusion.
I have no illusions when it comes to Shrub's fight against terrorism. I've no power to stop the American government from sticking its nose into the battle over the Middle East; something that has gone on for close to three millenia with no indication of stopping. A hatred that has lasted this long is not something that single-minded crusaders can fix overnight. Not with bombs OR diplomacy.
Those who are descendants of the hate in the Middle East will either learn on their own to embrace peace, or they will cause their own extinction. I just pray they don't take the rest of humanity along with them.
[> [> [> [>
fools rush in -- MsGiles, 07:26:13 03/18/03 Tue
where Angel fears to tread..
Rant warning!
We're going out there, us UKers and you US people, to bomb innocent people in the hope we make them mad enough .. to support us? Hello? We know our chances of actually hitting Saddam personally with a bomb are about as good as they were of hitting Bin Laden (assuming a good way of dealing with criminals is shoot them without trial; we're in Judge Dredd territory there). So we're hoping that when they see our bombs the people of Iraq will go 'oh yes, of course we realise you are the good guys. Thanks US and UK, we now reject Saddam and the Dark Side. You Western governments are so good at democracy and listening to the wishes of your own people, we can entirely trust you.' Sorry, terminal attack of bitter twisted sarcasm here. I hate it when the media keep on bringing up WW2, as if it were some kind of justification. We fought back at the last minute, then. The nazis had taken over most of Europe. Chamberlain was right to try and avert war, but it had gone too far. War was upon us. This isn't the same.
[> [> [> [> [>
Saddam is baiting us, and we're falling for the trap.. -- ZachsMind, 17:39:50 03/18/03 Tue
The only way Saddam can win is to get the whole world against us (the "coalition of the willing" not just the U.S.), and with Shrub's blind help, he's getting what he wants. He's making us look like the bad guys.
He purposefully puts military equiptment and buildings next to libraries and schools so it's nearly impossible for us to fight him without killing innocent lives. He's gambling either we won't do it, or if we do, the world will scream at our arrogance, and demand justice.
We're trying to put out a fire with hydrochloric acid. It won't work. We're gonna have bloody pies in our faces. But there's nothing you or me can do to stop the madness. Violence begets violence, but if you say no to violence, violence responds by blowing you up. Say yes and you just perpetuate the cycle. Diplomacy didn't work. They tried it for twelve years. Violence doesn't work. Pacifism just makes a chalk outline. What other options are there?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
It seems to me that -- pilgrim, 18:14:10 03/18/03 Tue
violence does work sometimes. Or maybe that depends on what you mean by "work." Yeah, war is evil, and it begets evil _always_ (the non-negotiable gift with purchase). But it can effectively stop a specific act or threat of aggression at a specific time and place. Just make sure that the gift with purchase is less evil than the evil you're stopping. I mean, one of the big problems is that it is so much harder to wage peace--it takes more time, more effort, more treasure, more expenditure of national will. Diplomacy didn't work with Iraq, imo, because we didn't try hard enough to make it work--and we didn't fail just recently but for twelve years. Clinton tried to persuade the UN to threaten military action against Saddam in 1998 when the inspectors were kicked out, but the UN wouldn't go along and Congress was putzing around with impeachment. (Bad Clinton for screwing around and screwing up his ability to persuade.)
[> [>
Not apathetic just given up... -- yabyumpan, 06:17:25 03/18/03 Tue
....I spent the last 20 years working to bring about peaceful change and then I gave up. I've just come to the conclusion that humanity's not worth saving. Evolved species my arse!
[>
September Song -- Rahael, 06:52:00 03/18/03 Tue
The body that I work for has met with the Prime Minister, made representations, etc etc, so on one level, I'm actively doing something. But I don't want to get into this too much. The point for me is that whether this is a just war or an unjust war or just crazy, there are civilians who are going to die.
And I don't feel apathetic about that part of it at all
I can still remember when I was in a similar position. I understood that the war wasn't against me, personally. They were trying to get rid of the terrorists. But I might have to die all the same. I knew that a bomb couldn't differentiate, neither do bullets, and sometimes, frightningly, neither do the people fighting the war.
One thing, more than ever, cast me in despair. I thought of the friends I had made in England when I had been there for abut 2 or so years. I wondered if they would remember me, whether they knew that I might die, and whether they cared. And in my despair, I became convinced that even if they knew, they wouldn't care. Our lives had been twisted apart by circumstance and birth and history. I thought that it might make me feel better if people did think of me, that somehow I wasn't really alone. But perhaps that's all one could feel in that situation. What a terrible situation this is, all of it. Before and during and after.......
(I have made
an elegy for myself it
is true)
September fattens on vines. Roses
flake from the wall. The smoke
of harmless fires drifts to my eyes.
This is plenty. This is more than enough.
Geoffrey Hill
[> [>
Re: September Song -- s'kat, 07:30:44 03/18/03 Tue
I fall somewhere close to what you state above, Rah and not that far from yab on this - opinion wise. (I loved the poem). I also understand Roch and Zachsminds.
I still remember the Gulf War - was not for that war. Grew tired and frustrated with it very quickly and still feel it accomplished very little. But then I despise war, it seems to kill more people than it saves and just cause more violence & bloodshed over the long run. OTOH, should we stand idly by while the regimes of countries kill and massacre their citizens? Not so sure that argument works here - since I'm not convinced Iraq is doing that. There are countries that are, which we appear to be blatantly ignoring. War from what I've studied of it? Never seems to happen for humanitiarian reasons, or to save lives, rather it seems to occur for financial reasons and fear of losing territory to an enemy. Saving lives is a reason politicians give.
If I believed going to War with Iraq would stop terrorism, change the Iraquis lives for the better and in the long run save more lives? That would be one thing. But I don't believe this. Experience teaches me it will probably be the reverse. We'll only have more terrorism, more Iraqui lives lost, and more people dead. Possibly as a result of this war, we could find ourselves at war with North Korea - which actually scares me more. They are getting itchy over there with fear that the US and it's allies will go after them next. From their point of view - the superpowers are the First Evil and they are Buffy, holed up in their houses.
Terrorism reminds me a lot of Buffy's First Evil - non-corporeal, and difficult to fight. It's the invisible enemy that can pop up anywhere waving a flag in your face. Inciting you to attack false targets. Making us afraid.
Causing us to point the finger at friends and old foes a like and to our own detriment. That is the purpose of it, actually, to make us afraid and to make us attack wildly.
Humankind's capacity for violence disturbs me. Of all creatures, we seem to be the most inclined to destroy one another and in the most creative and imaginative ways. And we don't appear to care that much whether we destroy our planet in the process.
I find this war a frustrating exercise in violence and futility. Hundreds of innocent lives both civilian and military will be lost because of it. And when it is over, we won't have much to show for it, except lots of strewn corpses, destroyed buildings, and a lengthy occupation for our soliders who must stay there to keep the peace - assuming we win which is not a safe assumption. And a new enemy will sprout up in the face of the one we just fought, possibly because of it.
To me? Fighting is easy. Obtaining peace isn't. And working towards peace is a lengthy difficult process that requires lots of compromises and patience and the ability to see where the other guy is coming from.
Whether or not I voted for US president (I didn't)
or support his views seems almost irrelevant to me now. The whole thing seems like one more thing to add to my list of things I can't control and that is extreemly frustrating.
Also if this war comes to pass: it will mean the US falls into a deeper recession, it will become even less likely I'll find a job and more people will get killed.
ugh....back to Btvs which is so much more positive to think about.
[> [> [>
Re: September Song -- MaeveRigan, 08:07:27 03/18/03 Tue
What am I doing to resist? Joining others via www.sojo.net/action
But ATPo isn't really the place for politics.
[> [> [>
True words, s'kat -- Rahael, 16:19:57 03/18/03 Tue
[> [> [>
Bitter, with a side of rue. -- Arethusa, 23:20:11 03/18/03 Tue
What was that line from Time after Time? "The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas." Or something like that. Have we really run out of ideas? Is this the best we, the ersatz "greatest nation on earth" can come up with?
I visited Arlington National Cemetery years ago to see my father's grave. A shuttle drove by, filled with picture-taking tourists visiting Kennedy's grave. I stood there, trying not to cry, furious that they weren't as upset as I was. We'll go to Iraq, kill some people, and go home. Tourists. Rolling past the graves of the dead, snapping pictures of the mourners. Who might not be so very grateful that we just rescued them and their loved ones. It doesn't matter who kills you when you're dead.
[> [> [>
Bitter, with a side of rue. -- Arethusa, 23:21:20 03/18/03 Tue
What was that line from Time after Time? "The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas." Or something like that. Have we really run out of ideas? Is this the best we, the ersatz "greatest nation on earth" can come up with?
I visited Arlington National Cemetery years ago to see my father's grave. A shuttle drove by, filled with picture-taking tourists visiting Kennedy's grave. I stood there, trying not to cry, furious that they weren't as upset as I was. We'll go to Iraq, kill some people, and go home. Tourists. Rolling past the graves of the dead, snapping pictures of the mourners. Who might not be so very grateful that we just rescued them and their loved ones. It doesn't matter who kills you when you're dead.
[> [> [> [>
Sorry about the double post. -- Arethusa, 23:24:13 03/18/03 Tue
Which is weird, because according to voy I didn't post anything.
[> [>
the poetry of war -- MsGiles, 08:02:12 03/18/03 Tue
Thanks for the poem, and the grounding thinking.
I read this recently in the Guardian, and kept it:
We are not hostages, America
and your soldiers are not God's soldiers
We are the poor ones, ours is the earth of the drowned gods
the gods of bulls
the gods of fires
the gods of sorrows that intertwine clay and blood in a song...
We are the poor, ours is the god of the poor
who emerges out of farmers ribs
hungry
and bright,
and raises heads up high...
America, we are the dead.
Let your soldiers come.
Whoever kills a man, let him resurrect him.
We are the drowned ones, dear lady.
We are the drowned.
Let the water come.
Saadi Youssef, tr. Khaled Mattawa
[> [> [>
Thank you for sharing that, Ms Giles! -- Rahael, 16:31:13 03/18/03 Tue
[>
Keep it to yourself! -- Vegeta, 07:17:54 03/18/03 Tue
Please keep your misguided peace-nik opinions to yourselve's and off this board. I come here to gain a better understanding of the shows that I love. I personally could give a damn about what you think of impending war. Save it for the Pacifist boards, weinie!
[> [>
and how about keeping it polite, okay? -- ponygirl, 08:54:26 03/18/03 Tue
No one's argument has ever been helped by using the words peacenik or weinie in a sentence. Just sayin'...
[> [>
You're out of line -- Sophist, 09:05:36 03/18/03 Tue
Rochefort's post did not make personal attacks on you or anyone else here. You didn't have to read his post. If you don't agree, give reasons (like Corwin did). But there's no excuse for berating him like you did.
[> [> [>
Agree, Sophist, thanks -- Masq, 10:24:02 03/18/03 Tue
OT threads are welcome at this board, even threads on a topic as troubling and divisive as a potential war, and they are not required reading.
As long as they are conducted with civility towards varying opinions, they can stay.
They even end up in the archives so we look socio-politically aware and well-informed for posterity. ; )
[> [> [>
Good, Sophist. Right on the money. -- Random, 14:12:26 03/18/03 Tue
[> [> [>
Ack... -- Masq, 16:35:57 03/18/03 Tue
Sorry, I erased the two posts supporting Sophist here, one of which was mine.
Trying to keep up with the double, triple, and quadruple posts today, and not paying keen attention!
At any rate--what Sophist said.
[> [> [> [>
The other was mine. Good, Sophist. Completely on the money. -- Random, 03:19:59 03/19/03 Wed
[> [> [>
Agree, Sophist -- Masq, 16:58:16 03/18/03 Tue
Repost of my earlier accidentally erased post:
OT threads are welcome at this board, even threads on a topic as troubling and divisive as a potential war, and they are not required reading.
As long as they are conducted with civility towards varying opinions, they can stay.
They even end up in the archives so we look socio-politically aware and well-informed for posterity. ; )
[>
Diplomacy as Classic-TV Performance Art -- Darby, 08:41:45 03/18/03 Tue
It was weird for a while to see US foreign policy being drawn from old cop shows...
Bush (et al) as Bad Cop. Sneer, snarl, threaten, you'd better give us what we want or I'm gonna smack you down HARD!
Colin Powell (et al) as Good Cop. I'm not sure I can control this guy! Maybe you'd better get at least a little reasonable. And you can trust me, I'm the one trying to prevent the smackdown here... It kinda sorta worked when the US was being drawn into the escalation in Israel/Palestine, almost like a magic trick. Although it wasn't as funny as when Xander and Anya did it with Andrew.
Then it was the trenchcoated guys in the alley - various Forces of Opposition would get a, "Hey! Come over heah! Wanna see some documents about Iraq? Don't tell nobody what we're showin' you!" For a bit, a lot of folks seemed to switch attitudes for the vaguest of reasons, and I figured maybe there were really reasons to get medieval on Bagdad that we peons couldn't be trusted with.
But then the Converted seemed to, one by one, convert back, and I'm wondering if we aren't in a scene where the Undercover Operative gets pulled into the Compromised Morality of the Other Side, and it's starting to seem that instead of being shown evidence, folks were somehow just convinced that evidence existed. And sometimes, when the strategy fails, the bad cop goes legitimately bad.
"Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a Threat to World Peace out of my hat!"
*Tug*
"Axis of Evil! Weapons of Mass Destruction! Not gonna continue!"
"Oops! Musta grabbed the wrong hat!"
At this point, I'm not apathetic, but I've got no freakin' idea what's going on. It feels like a bad idea, and I know the time is long past to throw a few evidence cards on the table for we potential-voter spectators, but I just don't know, y'know?
[>
A puzzled pebble for the new improved Voypond -- Tchaikovsky, 08:53:09 03/18/03 Tue
Since I got home, I have discovered that my parents have bought the Freeview digital terrestrial platform thing-y, so we now have countless opportunities to be sold things and watch travel programmes. Hooray.
On the plus side, one of the countless channels the platform carries is BBC Parliament. As a result of this and my extensive holiday, I have been watching the Commons debates on the War on Iraq. Robin Cook, (a big fish in British politics), resigned last night, giving one of the most eloquent speeches I've ever seen, and I think he convinced me that the war was mis-guided. I had been feeling rather contrary due to a lot of the knee-jerk anti-war protestors at University, who seemed to just be ill-informed rabble-rousers.
But watching the fascinating debate today, I'm getting confused again. I take all points about people dying in the war, although I also understand that the stringent sanctions imposed on Iraq, coupled with Saadam Hussein's tendency to supply food somewhat unfairly, has possibly robbed as many lives as a war would indirectly. I understand that some of Bush's reasons to go to war with Iraq are to do with his Father's vendettas and the oil market, and yet I also see France's threatened indiscriminate use of its veto as coming to a decision based almost entirely on its own commercial self-interest. I respect people who argue that war has a moral, ethical and political superiority as a strategy, (like the pretty maligned Tony Blair), and yet also people who speak out in measured tones against the war, (like Cook and Chris Smith). I find myself almost entirely unable to take a side, and ultimately find myself most angry with people who stir up propaganda on either side, calling those anti-war supporters 'appeasers', or those supporting the pro-war stance 'warmongers'.
I think I'm ultimately against the war, but if there's anything which sums up how difficult a decision it is, it is not just the Commons' split, but what I would imagine to be a split on this very board, full of intelligent reasoning people. For that reason, I am genuinely interested to hear a discussion here, but I would ask that people refrain from personal attacks on what is so obviously a contentious issue. Vegeta's attack above was unwarranted, for example.
TCH
[> [>
TCH, You are a treasure -- JM, 11:50:33 03/18/03 Tue
[> [>
A leaf on the whirlwind -- fresne, 12:25:39 03/18/03 Tue
War. To go or not to go.
Such a polarizing a concept. In Buffy. In life. Jingoistic speeches. Buffy von Clauswitz. Journalism, yellow and whatever you call non-yellow journalism. Pulitzer prizes from what source?
For every Pearl Harbor reference, I can't help but think of the fate of the League of Nations. Sad Wilson's dream. Un-ratified by the nation whose president envisioned it. I can't help but think of the Spanish American war to free Cuba. Well, I also can't help but think of the Spanish Fever, (The Influenza Pandemic of 1918) which circled the world after WWI. Killing between 20-40 million people. Contrast with the 9 million soldiers who died in battle.
Every action. Every choice echoes into the future. Branching paths of options that without Muadib like foresight, are impossible to forecast.
Hopelessly complex. Tangled in Gordian mass. Now we stand with the Alexandrian solution imminent. And as fond as I am of the young attractive drunk of legend, I'm unconvinced that burning Persepolis is really the solution.
What is the true name of pommes frites? I had some curly ones, tangled in flavorful mass, last night. They were yummy. However, is eating too much freedom really good for my cholesterol levels? Does eating them with Ranch dressing only make the situation worse?
What's interesting is that my father and I actually agree about that which clouds on the horizon. Somewhat odd because I'm a moderate liberal and he is the most conservative man to ever walk the earth. Now some of you may think that you hold that title or that you know that person. However, by the power of my opinion I say, you're wrong. Dad's so conservative that fill in the blank conservative thing.
However, he also has one of the greatest wills to be rational that I've ever seen, as well as being a news junky. It has therefore been interesting in our weekly conversations to agree about Iraq for completely opposite reasons.
Reasons and opinions I'm not going to elucidate here because I don't want to. Sorry. I should articulate myself more. Not giving the why's of my opinion isn't quite right and all that. However, since it has taken my father and myself months to discuss, hours and hours of tangents to come to any sort of point and I'm not sure I could even hope to capture the why of either of our perspectives in any concise way. And we're not done yet. And since he's a very healthy 71, I hope not to be done any time soon.
Anyway, by all of the above I'd expect you'd glean that I don't favor this choice. I'm inclined to think that Bush expects the Scylla and he'll get the Caribdis, but since I'm not going to give my reasons, you can take it as an opinion.
As to pro and con and apathy, in a sense, I feel as if I am helpless. My voice having no bearing on what is to be. Carried on the curving wave soon to crash on the future shore. And yet, apathetic is the wrong term. I cling to whatever floats and hope that my voice can be useful at the right moment.
[> [> [>
Bush expects the Scylla and he'll get the Caribdis -- Tchaikovsky, 14:57:55 03/18/03 Tue
That's a more or less perfect summary, for my money.
And a beautiful post, as always. Prose poetry, I reckon.
TCH
[>
With deep sorrow and helpless anger -- luna, 11:12:45 03/18/03 Tue
I see my government acting in my name to do unspeakable things. I can understand that some of you have been misled to think there is some reason to attack Iraq, but I don't understatnd why you are angry at those who disagree. This is the first time the US has ever made the first strike, and now I know how people felt in Nazi Germany. I have relatives who were there then, and now I understand their shame and helplessess.
I hope we will find someway to redeem the dream that has been lost--of a real democracy in a new world.
[> [>
I, too, feel despair. Alternatives to despair, anyone? -- Rochefort, 16:54:05 03/18/03 Tue
Many of you who posted talk about feeling helpless or frustrated. Luna's post about feeling an absense of democracy goes to the point. Those of you in favor of the war, or those of you against, do any of us feel we have any way to be heard? To influence? I'm writing letters to congress people and protesting, but I too feel the futility. But what I don't want is to give up on the real matters of the world and concede defeat with no attempt. I often think, like Luna, about Germans who watched their government go hay-wire and felt they could do nothing. At least Buffy always gets to be the one making decisions. I don't mean to make a comparison between the Bush administration and Nazis, only that if we consider this a democracy I believe we can't JUST watch Buffy. We also have to channel all the means we have into TRYING to keep this a democracy. Into trying to find ways that our voices, our objections, can be heard by people in power. That we find ways to wield power when it involves our country doing things in our name. I'm interested in ideas for how any of you are participating in democracy or having any influence. If only we could all be Joss with such a platform. If there is a democracy in which no one participates ... who has the power? In this world of media monopolies and international corporations, perhaps the responsibilities required of a person in a democracy are greater than ever. But how how how? Ideas?
[> [> [>
I think, by doing what you're doing -- pilgrim, 17:49:49 03/18/03 Tue
And, I agree, democracy won't and can't work if people give in to apathy and despair.
Back when Congress was trying Clinton for impeachment, I really think that the popular will against impeachment made itself felt and ultimately prevailed-though ymmv on that point. The popular will may be slow to coalesce and tough to read, but it does become evident, eventually. I keep telling myself: be patient, be patient, and continue to talk through letters (or my choice, e-mail) to representatives, classroom talk, church/temple/mosque talk, backyard fence talk.
Depressingly, that won't stop the bombs from falling in the short term. In the long term, though, the public may (and I think will) form a consensus about the role of US power in the world, whether we agree or disagree with the Bush team's proposition that the US must put down threats to its hegemony in the world and must forcefully insist on democracy and free trade. The Bushies obviously feel that US force can be applied (indeed, must be applied) to make the world safer and more prosperous for everyone. I'm not convinced, as I tend to think that balancing powers may be safer for everyone, and that it's better to encourage regional powers and global institutions that are strong enough to discipline US power (both military and corporate power). But that strikes me as the debate we're having. Perhaps a consensus will form so that the public will refuse the go-it-alone style we're seeing from the US now, and if diplomacy _has_ to work because it's the only game in town, maybe next time it will. And the bombs won't fall. Too optimistic?
[> [> [> [>
I don't think it's too optimistic because.... I don't know Sartre's existentialism? -- Rochefort, 20:59:59 03/18/03 Tue
I keep getting called a fatalist by everyone because I feel so powerless. What has convinced me to fight anyway is all the people who understand everything I do about power structures and the difficulty of being heard and corporate hegemony, and are fighting anyway because... because we have to ... to be alive maybe.
Maybe it's a Sartre, existential, sort of thing where you decide what a human being is and make it true by acting it. So no, I don't think it's too optimistic and I do think we need to talk in the churches, classrooms, letters to congress, heck, even the Buffy board. Thanks for the response by the way, it lightened my heart a bit.
Rochefort
[> [> [> [> [>
Well, there is something -- luna, 21:35:01 03/18/03 Tue
I can only survive in times like these by taking part in whatever protests or other actions are available. I think I would be in a fetal ball by now if I didn't go every week to a Women in Black vigil, to the Ralph Nader talk I just left, to anything where there are other people who see the world I see.
In spite of my message of despair above, and in spite of feeling that way part of the time, I truly believe we can make a difference. In the sixties, I spent years in civil rights--and things ARE better here in the deep south for most African Americans. I spent even more years protesting Vietnam--and although it took ten years, I believe we would have been there even longer, and done more damage, if it had not been for the peace movement.
And there's just facing yourself every morning. Maybe it's Camus, not Sartre--get up every day and start pushing that rock back up the hill. At least you know you did it. What else can you do--sit and do nothing? Although the government doesn't hear us, we hear each other.
You can see that Nader is an energizing man! Rochefort, stay in touch.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Perfect, Luna -- Random, 03:25:02 03/19/03 Wed
It is Camus that we can really hearken to. You just gotta do what you can -- or must -- do. "One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
What else is there?
[> [> [>
I think, by doing what you're doing -- pilgrim, 17:50:54 03/18/03 Tue
And, I agree, democracy won't and can't work if people give in to apathy and despair.
Back when Congress was trying Clinton for impeachment, I really think that the popular will against impeachment made itself felt and ultimately prevailed-though ymmv on that point. The popular will may be slow to coalesce and tough to read, but it does become evident, eventually. I keep telling myself: be patient, be patient, and continue to talk through letters (or my choice, e-mail) to representatives, classroom talk, church/temple/mosque talk, backyard fence talk.
Depressingly, that won't stop the bombs from falling in the short term. In the long term, though, the public may (and I think will) form a consensus about the role of US power in the world, whether we agree or disagree with the Bush team's proposition that the US must put down threats to its hegemony in the world and must forcefully insist on democracy and free trade. The Bushies obviously feel that US force can be applied (indeed, must be applied) to make the world safer and more prosperous for everyone. I'm not convinced, as I tend to think that balancing powers may be safer for everyone, and that it's better to encourage regional powers and global institutions that are strong enough to discipline US power (both military and corporate power). But that strikes me as the debate we're having. Perhaps a consensus will form so that the public will refuse the go-it-alone style we're seeing from the US now, and if diplomacy _has_ to work because it's the only game in town, maybe next time it will. And the bombs won't fall. Too optimistic?
[> [> [>
bill of rights defense committees -- anom, 00:00:10 03/19/03 Wed
"We also have to channel all the means we have into TRYING to keep this a democracy. Into trying to find ways that our voices, our objections, can be heard by people in power. That we find ways to wield power when it involves our country doing things in our name. I'm interested in ideas for how any of you are participating in democracy or having any influence."
I've gotten involved in the New York City Bill of Rights Defense Campaign, part of the nationwide movement of Bill of Rights Defense Committees. (Buffy fans will appreciate the heading on the latter page.) These groups focus on 1 of the domestic effects of the war on terrorism: restrictions on civil liberties & constitutional rights in the name of national security. Members include those for, against, & undecided on war on Iraq. We're concerned about provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act, some of Bush's executive orders, & the leaked draft of the DSEA ("Patriot Act II") that threaten some of the very freedoms our troops are supposedly going into Iraq to protect. (At the NYCBORDC meeting I went to, 1 man told how someone he knew had put up a web page basically saying "question everything," w/a picture of a shed in a desert (which had apparently been labeled by the U.S. gov't. as evidence of weapons construction), pointing out that as far as you could tell just by looking at it, it could be just about any kind of structure in any desert in the world. The web host had taken the page down & reported him to the gov't.! Just for saying "don't take their word for it"! After the meeting, I heard the man who told the story talking to someone from the Electronic Freedom Forum. So there was at least some progress, I hope. (And yes, I realize this wasn't an action taken by the gov't.--they may have looked at the report & said "so what," as far as I know.)
Anyway. Point is, we need to protect the right to have free & open discussions & expressions of all positions on war, terrorism, security & other issues w/out triggering gov't. surveillance. I've been told rather angrily by some veterans when I took part in earlier anti-war demonstrations that "we fought & risked our lives for your right to demonstrate!" Never understood the idea that we should appreciate our rights so much that we'd never exercise them. In any case, I never thought North Vietnam, Iran, or Iraq posed a threat to my constitutional rights. What really gets me is that Bush keeps referring to his oath of office, which obligates him to "preserve, protect, & defend the Constitution of the United States," to justify attacking Iraq while he acts to dismantle the freedoms & the balance of powers set forth in that Constitution! Hey, maybe we could charge him w/perjury...OK, that probably applies to at least every president since Johnson....
As for my position on this impending war, it'll have to wait till I've had some sleep, & till I have more time. Looks like the thread just might be around that long.
[> [> [>
bill of rights defense committees -- anom, 00:03:29 03/19/03 Wed
"We also have to channel all the means we have into TRYING to keep this a democracy. Into trying to find ways that our voices, our objections, can be heard by people in power. That we find ways to wield power when it involves our country doing things in our name. I'm interested in ideas for how any of you are participating in democracy or having any influence."
I've gotten involved in the New York City Bill of Rights Defense Campaign, part of the nationwide movement of Bill of Rights Defense Committees. (Buffy fans will appreciate the heading on the latter page.) These groups focus on 1 of the domestic effects of the war on terrorism: restrictions on civil liberties & constitutional rights in the name of national security. Members include those for, against, & undecided on war on Iraq. We're concerned about provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act, some of Bush's executive orders, & the leaked draft of the DSEA ("Patriot Act II") that threaten some of the very freedoms our troops are supposedly going into Iraq to protect. (At the NYCBORDC meeting I went to, 1 man told how someone he knew had put up a web page basically saying "question everything," w/a picture of a shed in a desert (which had apparently been labeled by the U.S. gov't. as evidence of weapons construction), pointing out that as far as you could tell just by looking at it, it could be just about any kind of structure in any desert in the world. The web host had taken the page down & reported him to the gov't.! Just for saying "don't take their word for it"! After the meeting, I heard the man who told the story talking to someone from the Electronic Freedom Forum. So there was at least some progress, I hope. (And yes, I realize this wasn't an action taken by the gov't.--they may have looked at the report & said "so what," as far as I know.)
Anyway. Point is, we need to protect the right to have free & open discussions & expressions of all positions on war, terrorism, security & other issues w/out triggering gov't. surveillance. I've been told rather angrily by some veterans when I took part in earlier anti-war demonstrations that "we fought & risked our lives for your right to demonstrate!" Never understood the idea that we should appreciate our rights so much that we'd never exercise them. In any case, I never thought North Vietnam, Iran, or Iraq posed a threat to my constitutional rights. What really gets me is that Bush keeps referring to his oath of office, which obligates him to "preserve, protect, & defend the Constitution of the United States," to justify attacking Iraq while he acts to dismantle the freedoms & the balance of powers set forth in that Constitution! Hey, maybe we could charge him w/perjury...OK, that probably applies to at least every president since Johnson....
As for my position on this impending war, it'll have to wait till I've had some sleep, & till I have more time. Looks like the thread just might be around that long.
[> [> [>
bill of rights defense committees -- anom, 00:05:50 03/19/03 Wed
"We also have to channel all the means we have into TRYING to keep this a democracy. Into trying to find ways that our voices, our objections, can be heard by people in power. That we find ways to wield power when it involves our country doing things in our name. I'm interested in ideas for how any of you are participating in democracy or having any influence."
I've gotten involved in the New York City Bill of Rights Defense Campaign, part of the nationwide movement of Bill of Rights Defense Committees. (Buffy fans will appreciate the heading on the latter page.) These groups focus on 1 of the domestic effects of the war on terrorism: restrictions on civil liberties & constitutional rights in the name of national security. Members include those for, against, & undecided on war on Iraq. We're concerned about provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act, some of Bush's executive orders, & the leaked draft of the DSEA ("Patriot Act II") that threaten some of the very freedoms our troops are supposedly going into Iraq to protect. (At the NYCBORDC meeting I went to, 1 man told how someone he knew had put up a web page basically saying "question everything," w/a picture of a shed in a desert (which had apparently been labeled by the U.S. gov't. as evidence of weapons construction), pointing out that as far as you could tell just by looking at it, it could be just about any kind of structure in any desert in the world. The web host had taken the page down & reported him to the gov't.! Just for saying "don't take their word for it"! After the meeting, I heard the man who told the story talking to someone from the Electronic Freedom Forum. So there was at least some progress, I hope. (And yes, I realize this wasn't an action taken by the gov't.--they may have looked at the report & said "so what," as far as I know.)
Anyway. Point is, we need to protect the right to have free & open discussions & expressions of all positions on war, terrorism, security & other issues w/out triggering gov't. surveillance. I've been told rather angrily by some veterans when I took part in earlier anti-war demonstrations that "we fought & risked our lives for your right to demonstrate!" Never understood the idea that we should appreciate our rights so much that we'd never exercise them. In any case, I never thought North Vietnam, Iran, or Iraq posed a threat to my constitutional rights. What really gets me is that Bush keeps referring to his oath of office, which obligates him to "preserve, protect, & defend the Constitution of the United States," to justify attacking Iraq while he acts to dismantle the freedoms & the balance of powers set forth in that Constitution! Hey, maybe we could charge him w/perjury...OK, that probably applies to at least every president since Johnson....
As for my position on this impending war, it'll have to wait till I've had some sleep, & till I have more time. Looks like the thread just might be around that long.
[>
I support the Bush admin. -- Jay, 16:44:41 03/18/03 Tue
[>
The War on...? -- Celebaelin, 17:25:49 03/18/03 Tue
With apologies to those who do not need this potentially flawed synopsis and, because of the rather sarcastic title, even to those who find reading it useful in polarising their opinion in one direction or another. Without expressing my own opinion in a yes or no manner it should be fairly obvious from what follows that I have rationalised to this point, let's hope that I'm not the only one trying to be rational. I will now read everybody elses comments.
In Which Pooh and Piglet Find Out That Tiggers Are Not Always Wrong (Even if They Are Not Totally Right).
The post WWII phenomenon of low intensity conflict (LIC) has continued to gain favour with dissatisfied factions world-wide and is usually described in the media as 'a guerrilla war' or 'terrorist activity'. In the interests of impartiality at this point it should be noted that one persons' terrorist is another persons' freedom fighter and that one persons' LIC is another persons' 9/11. It is however entirely a matter of perspective. I use some brutal and unfeeling terms in what follows, which even so are euphemisms for the human cost of prosecuting a war, this is however the reality with which our armed forces are faced.
I can think of no instance in history of a war being conducted as a result of a moral imperative. Human beings are not, broadly speaking, so selfless as to risk their lives for a point of ethics. Wars are usually about territory and the subsequent economic implications of that. In this case we are assured that oil revenues will be held in trust for the people of Iraq by the UN, this of course means that Iraqi oil will continue to flow but I think on the whole I believe that this war is not economically motivated. The last Gulf War paid for itself incidentally as the Iraqis were obliged to provide reparations from their subsequent oil revenues. Other contributory arguments in support of war come in the form of public opinion, ideology and/or national security. The national security rider applies here but this coming war is something of a new development, it is a war that has been brought about as a response to LIC.
As I have already asserted this war has been planned as a direct result of the rise in global LIC. Iraq itself is no longer a viable military power, particularly while the USA retains bases in Saudi Arabia. The Iraqis also occupy a definable geographical area (ie Iraq!) and have an easily identifiable infrastructure which could, if necessary, be destroyed. We have already heard that the Bush administration has identified its' ultimate enemy as being terrorism, LIC itself in fact, rather than Iraq specifically. It is my belief that a legal state of war against terrorism cannot exist as war is a state of conflict between two sovereign powers and terrorism is an abstract concept not a political or geographical entity (much like the FE in fact, to list off oddly into the Buffyverse for a moment). Holding this view does not however prevent me from observing that nations choosing to conduct programs for the production of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are setting themselves up as potential arms brokers for an horrendous 'LIC' targeting the USA and other Westernised countries. Iraq has generated a series of 'onion skin' so called final declarations and, when challenged, subsequent retractions regarding its' WMD stocks and indeed possible production capability if the reports of mobile facilities are to be believed. It is also an Islamic nation of course which can only contribute to the distrust. Thirdly there is an existing UN mandate delineating the consequences of refusal to co-operate with UN inspectors. Whilst it is true that the French indicated at the time that Resolution 1441 was passed that they would require a further Resolution prior to military action that is a French attitude not in keeping with the content of 1441 itself.
I think most people would have preferred an additional, confirmatory Resolution but we now know that this will not be forthcoming and there is a political imperative to act to ensure that Iraq cannot provide any terrorist group with chemical, biological, radiological (dirty bomb) or nuclear capability. The urgency of the move to deprive terrorists of access to technological weaponry of this sort is as a direct result of the events of 9/11. Prior to that point the USA had viewed LIC as something that did not affect Americans on their home soil, largely an irrelevancy to the American voter and potentially a tool in the conduct of foreign policy, certainly not a substantial threat. The demonstration of the terrorists' will to act in such a manner not only shocked the world and stunned America. It indicated that such people would not flinch from using the most effective weapon available to them in their struggle against Western capitalism in general and the USA in particular. It also necessitated that the USA act again in the Gulf to ensure Iraqi compliance as concerns WMD. As both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have informed their populaces the process of attacking the terrorists ability to conduct effective campaigns will not stop with the disarmament of Iraq, nor can it if you believe the action to be justified in the defence of the civilian population. Even, in fact, if ultimately no evidence of WMD is discovered there is a (weak) case to be made for putting that beyond doubt to the inspectors satisfaction by military means, and even a contributory element in the form of a 'war of liberation for the Iraqi people' defence. These are however irrelevancies at this time, it seems that only in the aftermath of the impending hostilities will Iraq's degree of innocence or culpability be known.
[>
What really surprised me... -- dub, 17:37:18 03/18/03 Tue
...was, first, that my Prime Minister came right out and said that Canada would not support the US war effort (c'mon, when has Canada ever gone against what the US wanted?) and, second, the uneasiness, bordering on actual fear that I felt when I thought of my nation doing something that the big nation doesn't like.
I've had moments of criticism of the US, sure, but by and large I've always had great affection for our neighbour. I've never before felt afraid to have the longest undefended border in the world.
Then, too, I found myself wondering how all of my friends here at ATPo would react to me and the other Canadians (I know, I know, I need my head examined!).
Strange perspective thingy. Feeling suddenly like a citizen of a very small and powerless country, instead of like an almost-American...
:o|
[> [>
Re: What really surprised me... -- Corwin of Amber, 19:19:47 03/18/03 Tue
Don't worry, we wont be invading Canada anytime soon - who would we have to tease then? :)
Seriously, I think our two nations long history of zero hostility speaks for itself. Would that other nations took that as a model. God bless Canada.
[> [>
I still love everyone. Bah. -- WickedBuffy ::flowerchild::, 20:27:20 03/18/03 Tue
[> [>
Well I LIKE what your prime minister did. And also I apologize for stealing your hockey teams. -- Rochefort, 21:03:39 03/18/03 Tue
[> [>
Some of us actually like you for that! -- luna, 21:58:14 03/18/03 Tue
But, yeah, that's how they operate--here too.
Super-Evil Overview: AtS from 'Apocalypse, Nowish' to 'Salvage' -- Honorificus (The Fiesty and Fiery One), 21:47:26 03/17/03 Mon
Yes, my fiends, it is true: thanks to the visionary Dochawk (almost bearable for a human), I now have possession of tapes and can therefore grace you with my wisdom. Let's handle this systematically, shall we?
Portents strike the City of Angels, bringing out snakes, rodents, and the Alfred Hitchcock hidden inside every sparrow. It's all pretty fun. Even Angel thinks so. However, Cordelia, who's no longer memory-impaired, is all depressive. Even Daddy's Little Demon can see where the wind blows, so he brings old Dad in to get shot down by the Full-Bosomed One. Meanwhile, Lilah dresses in Fred drag, causing me to go blind. No matter; I always keep spare eyeballs around. The Ever-Bodacious One drags the Hormonal Hellspawn down to Darla's old stomping grounds while Fred and Gunn quarrel, and who should appear but one fairly impressive Beast. It beats up practically everyone. Wesley gets out his guns, causing me to go into a hormonal swoon, and by the time I recover, Cordelia's making Little Vampire Boy very happy and his father very unhappy while fire falls from the sky.
The news isn't much better at Wolfram & Hart the next day. Connor, upon being ejected from bed by Cordelia and Her Fabulous Breasts, visits Lilah and shows that he's got ol' Dad's way with women. If nothing else works, in other words, throttle them. I'm liking him better already. He's just in time for a visit from the Beast. Seems Rockhead is taking out the competition, which leads to the loveliest bloodbath. Lucky for Lilah, Wesley, who earlier had rejected her in the most tiresome way possible (right and wrong, my posterior segment!), shows up with his scruff in tow and stops her from being eviscerated. Wesley then brings Mr. Mopey (just going by Angel these days) back to the building. They rescue Twerp the Second and head up to the White Room, where Beastie is doing away with that sweet little girl, who does them the favor of sending them back to the Hyperion with a cryptic warning. Angel's not nearly so cryptic when he ejects Curves and her Loverboy from the hotel because they hurt his feelings. All together now: Aww, poor widdle Angel!
So Cordelia, upon recovering her Inner Bitch, goes back and tells Angel to get over his big self because Connor's moping, too, and the combined force of their sulking threatens to sink Los Angeles into the Pacific. Also, there's an apocalypse on, and she doesn't think it's appropriate to pout while everything's going to hell. Angel therefore gives perhaps the least rousing speech I've ever heard. Luckily, Gwen Raiden and her Slut-erific wardrobe stop by before things can get too maudlin. Angel proceeds to flirt outrageously with her (Males!) and help her track down some obscure order to stop the sun from going out. Seems the Beast beat them to most of it, though, and it also seems it has help. Oo, mystery! Is it Connor of the Bad Hair and Worse Attitude? No, he's busy getting thrown out a window. The sun goes dark, Cordy gets visions, and Wesley comes up with the Worst Idea Ever.
So what is the Worst Idea Ever, you may ask? Asking Angelus, that's what! Yes, he and Beastie Boy have a history that Angel can't remember, so Wes brings in a mystic to strip away Angel's soul. But they mystic turns out to be the bad guy! With tattoos! Which lead to an Indiana Jones mission! With bad dialogue! And team bonding! And father-and-son bonding! And Cordy-bonding! To the highest power! Oops, there goes the soul . . . but hey, it was all one big mind-(censored by HonorH) anyway just to get Angel happy enough to 86 the soul, and Angelus really thinks it's funny.
Angelus, oh, Angelus! Yes, Leather Boy is back, and in fine form. He happily screws with the minds of all his best buddies, drives home a few Home Truths, and sends Wesley and Gunn into a Beta-Male Smackdown and Fred into Wesley's arms. Even Connor and Cordy take their turns with Ol' Leather Butt. Connor impresses the old man. So does Cordy. She offers to spend some Quality Time with Mr. Grin & Giggle if he'll help, and he, like the hormonal puppy he is, actually agrees. Sap. But Angelus isn't that much help after all, since somebody already got around to slaughtering his best lead, and Cordy then proceeds to welch on the deal. Bitch. However, looking on the bright side, somebody stole Angel's bottled soul.
Naturally, when Lilah shows up, everyone suspects her. Wesley, being the noble type he is, defends her. Gunn dumps Fred, Angel describes Wesley in terms that would make a slasher blush, and Fred's almost ready to just give in to the Skinny-Yet-Hot One . . . until Angelus gleefully reveals the Lilah-banging Wesley's been up (way up) to. The Texas Twig is left unattached after this sinks in. Cordelia then gets another vision and announces that she now knows how to re-soul Angel. Black magic gets dragged out. Oh, yeah, that'll work. But it does, or at least seems to, until Angel gets out of his cage. Psych! Angelus is now free. Unfortunately for him, there's just no free lunch to be had, so he goes back to the hotel looking for action. He chases Lilah around a bit, but she gets the better of him. Whew, safe! Not. Seems Cordy's gone evil in her spare time. Goodbye, O Fashionably-Endowed One. *Sniff!*
(We now pause for a moment of silence in honor of Lilah's wardrobe.)
Okay, done now. So, Lilah's dead, Cordy's evil, and Connor's on the warpath. Who you gonna call, Wesley? Simple: Faith. Who's working out in a prison yard while a mullet-headed imbecile tries to off her. Faith polishes her off, striking a blow against haircut terror everywhere. Later, she gets a visit from Wesley and appreciates the hotness. He dishes, she ditches, and it's back to L.A. for my favorite Slayer. Connor's, too; he takes a shine to her after she smacks him down a few times. Kid has good taste, I'll give him that. Unfortunately, Angelus has gotten wind of Faith's arrival via a few vampiric wimps and a call to Twerp the First, who reveals that her sister's still at the ol' homestead. Angelus lures Faith into a confrontation with the Beast, who does nothing for her complexion, and then Angelus decides to play Alpha Male and kills Beastie-poo with his own homemade dagger. Which is a real problem for the Mover and Shaker behind this whole thing, known these days as Cordelia. She simperingly reveals to Connor that she's got a Bun in the Oven and proceeds to make him Very Happy yet again. But, as she was earlier seen snogging the Beast, the paternity of her hellspawn seems somewhat in doubt . . .
Part the Second coming soon. Patience, my loves.
[>
Super-Evil Overview Part the Second: 'Apocalypse, Nowish' to 'Salvage' -- Honorificus (So Sexy It Hurts), 22:37:38 03/17/03 Mon
So, my darling darklings, where does all this lead us?
Fashion Statements
Angel: Basic black with touches of leather. Not bad by any means, but it gets boring. He needs to take some daring fashion steps. Perhaps Angelus will see fit to get into more leather or add a nice touch of red to the wardrobe.
Cordelia: Hiding that bump in her middle has led to some true fashion atrocities. That light-colored coat, for instance. Yecch! However, I'm happy to note that her hair is improving. I rather like the cut. Short, sleek, and sassy, and praise be to the Undergods, it's dark again! That alone is enough to raise her fashion score a full q on the Non Sequitur Scale.
Gunn: Still fails to make an impression.
Fred: Is actually doing better these days. The peasant look suits her, and whoever's doing her makeup these days is making the most of her coloring and her huge brown eyes. Now, if only they'd stop straightening her hair. She looks far better with a cascade of vagrant curls over her shoulders.
Wesley: Is, like Giles, hot in whatever he chooses to wear. The scruff works for him. So do the guns. So does the killer gleam in his eye. And that deliciously messy hair . . . must take a moment. Ah. Yes.
Lilah: *Sigh* Is there anything better than a well-dressed Evil Bitch? Her fashion low, of course, was the Fred drag. Honey, never degrade yourself for a man; make him degrade himself. That aside, however, her hair in "Apocalypse, Nowish" was just yummy. Hell dimensions, she can even pull off the unwashed, desperate look. Oh, and that wonderful, form-fitting shirt she was wearing when she got offed? Perfect. How I'll miss her! Would anyone like to join me in a ritual sacrifice of sorrow, followed by a barbecue?
Connor: Baby doll, you're very pretty, but do us all a favor and keep borrowing your dad's shirts, will you? And the hair simply must go. I'm not saying he needs to go as short as Angel or Wesley--a little longer and messy, certainly--but the '70s look does absolutely nothing for that lovely face of his. Just makes him look more like Dawn's twin brother than ever.
Lorne: In a class of his own. He's right: evil demons simply couldn't pull his look off. He's a fashion daredevil, and I love him for it. Crush on Angelus for a while, will you, cupcake?
Highlights
The sparrows going kamikaze against the Hyperion's windows. Whee! Reminds me of my place during demon bat mating season.
Gavin the Super-Sycophant. I really ought to get me one of those. I mean, I've got minions, but Gavin was smarter than the overwhelming bulk of them, and much better-dressed. He did such a lovely job of toadying for every boss he came into contact with, too. The only problem would be making him more resistant to torture. To cave before Angel had even gotten to the chainsaw stage is just shameful.
The Beast rising. I'm such a sucker for a good entrance.
Wesley with guns! Wesley with guns!
Angel peeping in on ConCord, looking like he just remembered what chainsaws are for.
Cordelia and the ritual ejection of Connor from the conjugal bed. And they say romance is dead!
Connor throttling Lilah. It's so odd that he doesn't Get Some more often.
The Wolfram & Hart massacre. Just goes to show: there's always a bigger dog somewhere.
Cordelia and Gwen bitching at each other. Fun!
The demise of Manny and his hideous wardrobe.
The sun going dark. I'm such a sucker for the old classics, y'know?
Wesley announcing his Very Bad Idea. I love a man who uses his brains the wrong way!
The Indiana Jones adventure coming to a screeching halt as Angelus wakes up. Ooh, give me chills! Almost made sitting through the aforementioned claptrap worthwhile.
Angelus playing with the collective heads of Angel Investigations. No, let's break that down:
--Angelus vs. Wesley, the slasher's dream. I had to take a serious Moment after watching that unfold.
--Angelus vs. FrednGunn, aka Othello and Desdemona. Ooh, melikes! A little truth, some exaggeration here and there, and Fred makes just one little mistake that sends her careening into Wesley's arms.
--Angelus vs. Connor. I'm evil, and therefore I can say: it was hot. Big Daddy may have met his match in his spawn, I'm telling you that. How much would I have loved to have seen Connor get too close? Yummy!
Angelus making dire threats to Fred and then later on spilling Wesley's activities with Lilah. Shiver me timberless!
Angelus vs. Gunn, take two. More yum, and from an unexpected source.
Cordelia and Lilah bitching at each other. More fun!
Angelus getting free and *almost* having his way with Fred.
The murder of Lilah: completely shocking, and what an entrance for Evil!Cordy.
Faith. I could eat her with a spoon, and then have Wesley for dessert.
Mutton-head getting pounded into the pavement. May the same fate strike all who dare to inflict the bi-level upon innocent (or even my) eyes.
Cordelia and Faith bitching at each other. Fun cubed!
Faith smacking Connor down, and him liking it. They're so cute!
Evil!Cordy leading Connor around by his hormones. I could respect her for that.
Part the Third coming soon, my dainty ducks.
[> [>
Re: Super-Evil Overview Part the Third: 'Apocalypse, Nowish' to 'Salvage' -- Honorificus (She Who Is Never Tiresome), 23:09:56 03/17/03 Mon
I don't feel like doing Lowlights. They just bring me down, and there's so much lovely stuff this season that I feel I'm entitled to savor it. So we'll go on with our review:
The Love Situation
Angel is rather hopeless in the romance and love department. Cordy rejects him, he rejects Connor, Gwen chickens out of the apocalypse . . . really. There's just no Getting Any for him if it's not a spell.
However, Angelus is another story. He certainly spreads around his affections. Cordy, Wesley, Fred, Connor (evil, remember? I'm allowed to think these things.), Lilah, Faith--he'll take 'em all.
Speaking of Fred, is she a lucky girl or what? Wesley and Gunn are beating each other up for her, Angelus is making passes--she should be much happier than she is. What's wrong with her, anyway?
Probably the same thing that's affecting Connor. The boy is so down lately. I'd perk him up personally, if he'd let me, but it looks like Evil!Cordy might be doing that herself. Aww, sweetheart, don't you know what a proud tradition you're a part of? Why, Buffy, Xander, and Willow all lost their virginity on the eve of an apocalypse, and look how well their love lives have gone!
(Oh, I kill me!)
Speaking of killing, Wesley is now without a bed partner. I grieve with you, my love. Come, let's comfort each other. Of course, even before Lilah's exit, he was making headway with Fred and doing his usual UST with Angel/us and Gunn, so our boy may yet find True Love. Perhaps he and Faith could find some time for a little R&R?
Gunn is the big palooka of the whole mess. If you want to own the girl, Chuckles, just drop by your local Interdimensional Claims Office and get a deed drawn up. Of course, the one in Wolfram & Hart is now closed indefinitely, but there should be another in the San Fernando Valley. Get on the stick and stop moping. Truly, he, Connor, and Angel could form a circle and summon a Sulk Demon from the Urple Depths.
Now we get to the really interesting one: Cordeli/a/us. On one hand, she has the Most Hormonal One. On the other, she's been seen in a compromising position with the Beast. So who's the daddy? Is she really knocked up with Angel's grandchild, or is she just using Connor to protect her and the Beast's little boulder? Inquiring minds want to know.
And, of course, there's Lorne. They just don't know what they're all missing, sweetcheeks.
Evil-O-Meter
Angel is already there, sans his soul. Just keep that puppy away, and we'll be fine.
Cordevilia also seems to be there. The only question is: since when? Since she returned from the Higher Plane? Since she got her memories back? Since the Beast rose? And what is pulling her strings, anyway? Hmm . . .
Wesley, unfortunately, seems to have thrown his White Hat back into the ring. I'm very disappointed. Maybe Angelus will decide he's worth vamping, or maybe Wesley's still-intact ruthless streak will send him back into the bosom of Darkness. A girl can hope, after all.
Fred hasn't tried killing anyone else, unfortunately, leading me to believe her walk on the Dark Side was just a temporary thing. Well, maybe if Wesley and Gunn continue their stupidity, she'll reconsider.
Speaking of Gunn, he may be closer than we all thought. Rejected by Fred, resentful of Wesley, and faced with Angelus and Evil!Cordy, he could take up with the Dark Side, and do it well.
Connor is also all but there. With the chip on his shoulder (approximately the size of Mt. Denali) and a few pushes in the right direction from Mommy Dearest and Big Daddy, who knows what a force for Evil he could become? I'd certainly help him along. What a lovely boy he is. 'Twould be a shame to let him go to waste.
And Lorne. Lorne, Lorne, Lorne, my pumpkin, give up on the good guys and follow your crush into darkness. You'll like it much better. Lighter on the angst, certainly.
Overall Estimation
This season could truly set a new standard for showing the destruction pure Evil can inflict. It's bold, it's brash, and I'm purely loving it. Thus, I rate this season so far a full 9.yt/cat's tails on the Non Sequitur Scale.
[> [> [>
All hail! -- ponygoyle, 08:39:49 03/18/03 Tue
Let's hear it for ritual sacrifice! For the bloody deaths of only a few puny office workers I not only am able to get back on the board after the recent Voynok attack, but also get a delightful Honorificus review! Now I just have to see who I have to kill around here to get the boxes from my weekend crypt-move unpacked, cardboard does nothing for my skin tone.
[> [> [>
So she finally shows her peculiarly hued head -- devilish, off to a meeting of evil minds at the water cooler, 09:48:08 03/18/03 Tue
I was beginning to wonder where the resident lower being was hiding herself lately. No time right now to comment on your amusing thoughts but I will certainly be sure to dictate a lovely scathing missive to a minion.
[>
Thanks for getting the board back to business, your delicious devilishness -- The First Corporeal Evil, 04:46:15 03/18/03 Tue
Comments later when I wake up.
coffee!
[>
The Substandard Villainy of Angel S4 and other concerns -- The Unclean (back from second honeymoon), 10:22:13 03/18/03 Tue
Greetings. I have just returned from a most decadent and depraved holiday in Gehenna, where my mate and I renewed our vows in a ceremony of such black sensuality that most human posters to this board would run from the unholy grounds screaming and tearing their eyes out in revulsion.
What a shame my mate's nagging harpy of a mother was unable to see this, having met with a tragic, unforeseen accident only weeks before....
Ahem. On to business.
Although it has been a quality season on ANGEL overall, with the emotional problems of the vampire and his colleagues all but destroying their lives, I can't help but feel that we've been let down by the "major" villains thus far. The Beast, a formidable presence with a seemingly unlimited capacity for slaughter, was slaughtering the wrong people. He wiped out a nightclub filled with decadent L.A. trend-oids (our kind of people), and then went on to destroy Wolfram and Hart--leaving blood-thirsty demons all over the earthly plane without legal representation! (Who's going to get us those city permits for Black Mass ceremonies?)
But that's nothing compared to my disappointment with Angelus. After two blissful episodes of brutal psychological manipulation (I must confess, I had a tear in three of my eyes after "Soul-less"), the "legendary" Angelus seems to have forgotten WHO THE ENEMY IS AROUND HERE. He skewers the Beast, runs a pool cue through a perfectly delectable vampiress, kills an innocent charm merchant, and--worst of all--allows squalling, whimpering humans to slip through his fingers.
For the most part, he's acting like some snot-nosed hatchling contemptuous of authority, and he's screwing things up the way he screwed up when he passed on that cushy job as second-in-command for The Master 100 or so years ago.
Maybe we overestimated him back in the old days.
I hold out hopes for "Cordelius," but Charisma Carpenter hasn't exactly put the fear of hellfire into my black heart, if you know what I mean. The kissing scene with the Beast should have been funnier, hotter, or both. (It was neither.) Cordelia doesn't seem to be possessed by a grand, all-powerful evil as much as suffering from atypical hormonal fluctuations in late-stage pregnancy.
Ah well. There is more than enough time for the situation to disintegrate further.
Welcome back to the fold, Honorificus!
[> [>
The Spikification of Angel -- Caroline's animus (this is for you 'Bit), 10:45:30 03/18/03 Tue
For the most part, he's acting like some snot-nosed hatchling contemptuous of authority, and he's screwing things up.
You mean like Spike, right?
Caroline's animus, just waiting for Angelus to really start feeling the soulless love.
[> [>
Come now. Have you never engaged in the ritual slaughter of rivals? -- Honorificus (Who Brooks No Authority), 11:27:52 03/18/03 Tue
If not, try it sometime--great tension reliever. The drill is, darling, when you move into a new area with the intent to rule, the first thing you do is take out the current Big Dog. Think Spike with the Annoying One, or dear old Mayor Richard Wilkins with Balthazar. Wolfram & Hart weren't about to take second place to the BeastMaster. Thus, they were eliminated. Simple logic, darling. Inconvenient, I'll grant you (where *will* I get the permit for my forthcoming theme park?), but it's the way the dog dies, to use the old adage.
As for Angelus, yes, methinks he's been cooped up with that soul a bit long. Not that I disagree with him staking that irritating vampiress. There are minions, there are flunkies, and there are hangers-on, and she was most definitely a hanger-on. Rule number two is giving a display of your obvious superiority and ruthlessness to an audience of potential minions, and staking her was the perfect way to begin. "This is what will happen," he was saying, "if you annoy me." Killing the Beast wasn't a particularly good idea, however. More like a testosterone rush.
As for Cordelius, she does rather favor a wooden puppet lately. Perhaps that's the point. However, one must admire her technique for keeping Connor in line, especially if that's the Beast's offspring she's snookered him into protecting. It's a wait-and-see scenario as far as she's concerned.
Congratulations on your conjugal rites! May they bring great devastation to all who are near you.
[> [>
Re: The Substandard Villainy of Angel S4 and other concerns -- Shiraz, 12:17:58 03/18/03 Tue
"Greetings. I have just returned from a most decadent and depraved holiday in Gehenna, where my mate and I renewed our vows in a ceremony of such black sensuality that most human posters to this board would run from the unholy grounds screaming and tearing their eyes out in revulsion."
My God...
You Mean...
You and your mate....
Enganged in the most terrible of all demonic rites....
THE HUMAN RESOURSES POSITION DESCRIPTION SEMINAR!?!
BACK!! BACK TO THE DEEPEST PITS OF THE ORG CHARTS, you nefarious fiend! :)
-Shiraz
"An ancient proverb summed it up: when a wizard is tired of looking for broken glass in his dinner, it ran, he is tired of life."
Terry Pratchett - The Light Fantastic (ain't it the truth)
[> [> [>
A Human Resources Seminar? Do you want to what REAL evil is, my fellow fiend? -- The Unclean, 12:41:14 03/18/03 Tue
SHIPPING PACKAGES: A QUICK SEMINAR
Whenever you can, please use UPS. Even their "Next Day Air" service is less expensive than any of the other carriers; and of course, their "Second Day Air" is much less expensive. The bad news (predictably) is that their service is not as good. To my knowledge, they've never lost a package, but "Next Day" doesn't always make it on the very next day.
When you have a domestic UPS package ready to go before 3:30 PM, all you have to do is address any package normally and then add a UPS sticker to it: red for overnight, blue for 2nd day. Leave the package in the "Out" mailbox right here; Sydney will handle the paperwork.
If your package isn't ready to go until after 3:30 (or if it's an international package), you'll need to fill out one of these lovely airwaybills. The color scheme's the same for domestic packages: red for overnight, blue for 2nd day. There's a separate airwaybill for international packages (It's mostly black). The airwaybills are big stickers, so you can stick them on the front of whatever package you've prepared.
Although the top copy of the airwaybill says, "Sender's Copy," don't remove it! The "sender" referred to is not you yourself but our accounting department; the FedEx pickup guy will tear it off and leave it for Sydney. I recommend photocopying the airwaybill for your own records.
For international packages that are NOT documents, you will need an "International Invoice"( it's simple, see below). You can leave these packages on the floor outside the mailroom on the 11th floor as late as 6PM. (Make sure you don't put it on the FedEx pile.)
UPS account number: XXXXXXX
If a package truly must get to its destination the very next day, don't bother with UPS, use FedEx. FedEx is good for all domestic destinations, and it's good for major overseas destinations, but it's not good for destinations outside the U.S. Less-developed, less accessible locations (like the Maldives) may create problems for the FedEx crews. I wish I could provide clear criteria for when FedEx is OK and when it isn't, but I recommend calling whoever you're sending the package to and asking them if they receive regular FedEx service.
ALL FedEx packages need airwaybills. There are two types: domestic and international (The FedEx international airwaybill is larger than the domestic and greenish.) For international packages that are NOT documents, you will need an "International Invoice"( it's simple, see below).
Although the top copy of the airwaybill says, "Sender's Copy," don't remove it! The "sender" referred to is not you yourself but our accounting department; the UPS pickup guy will tear it off and leave it for Sydney. I recommend photocopying the airwaybill for your own records.
Before 4:30, you can simply leave them in the "Out" mailbox right here. After that, you can leave them outside the mailroom (but don't put it on the UPS pile).
FedEx account number: xxxxxxx
For overnight, international packages to out-of-the-way destinations, DHL is the best bet. You'll need to fill out an airwaybill (There's only one type, because we only use them for international service. If the package is not documents, you'll need to fill out an International Invoice (It's simple, see below). Leave the package outside the mailroom on the 11th floor. We have a pickup every evening (again, make sure it's the DHL pile or start a new DHL pile; don't drop it on top of the FedEx or UPS pile).
Although the top copy of the airwaybill says, "Sender's Copy," don't remove it! The "sender" referred to is not you yourself but our accounting department; the DHL pickup guy will tear it off and leave it for Sydney. I recommend photocopying the airwaybill for your own records.
We have two separate DHL account numbers. One is for packages going from within the U.S. to outside the U.S., the other for packages coming from outside the U.S. into the U.S.
Note: DHL occasionally has a problem with the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. If a DHL employee ever tells you that there is a problem with our account, it's probably not true.
For some International Shipments, you will need to fill out "Commercial Invoices." Never mind that it isn't a commercial shipment; these customs boys can be very touchy (what with all the nuclear technology and cocaine and all that). If your package is only documents, it's not necessary; but all other shipments require it.
The good news is that they're simple: You can print them out on letterhead, just as long as they meet the following requirements:
1) There are six of them.
2) Each one has an ink signature
3) They contain all the following information:
a) The contents of the package
b) The commercial value of the contents (usually, this is $0)
c) The country you are shipping from (the U.S.)
d) The country of origin (usually, this is the U.S.)
e) The country you're shipping to
f) The ultimate destination of the package (usually the country you're shipping it to)
[>
Preserving my wisdom for the Johnny-come-latelies. -- Honorificus (She Who Should Not Be Missed), 18:41:39 03/18/03 Tue
It's the least I can do for all you poor, pitiful mortals.
Deconstructing Anya (contains spoilers for S7.5 'Selfless') -- Lot's Wife, 08:58:05 03/18/03 Tue
ANYA: I'd been dumped, I was miserable, doing a few vengeance spells - boils on the penis, nothing fancy.
XANDER: Please skip ahead.
ANYA: D'Hoffren got wind of me, he offered to elevate me.
BUFFY: Meaning?
ANYA: He made me a demon.
(From 'Something Blue' Season 4)
D'hoffryn is a pimp and what he made Anya is a metaphorical prostitute.
When we get a glimpse of Anya's origins we see what see she views as her true power source: sex.
In "Selfless" note how Olaf talks down to Anya and criticizes her. For example, she tells Olaf that she's been thinking of an idea to trade the rabbits to the townspeople for goods and services and will express goodwill. Olaf laughs, saying her logic is like that of a Troll That the matrons at the bar talk of her. He tells her that it's not his fault they don't speak well of her because she speaks oddly and says what is on her mind, (i.e. she is very literal). Her saying exactly what is on her mind is another metaphor involving the act of prostitution, in that the client must state exactly what he/she wants, and then the prostitute names the price for the desired act.
Anya suspects that Olaf may be involved with the Bar Maid, Rannveig. It is only when her sexual hold on Olaf is threatened does she get visibly angry. Anya's fear of rejection and loss of her hold over Olaf causes her to cast the definitive Troll spell.
Enter D'offryn. He is in stereotypical pimp recruitment mode. He compliments her. He gains her trusts. Then he changes her name. Anya becomes Anyanka. She is now a demon. But not just any demon, a Vengeance Demon with the Power of the Wish.
The wish/desire is what perpetuates suffering. It is the Second Noble Truth in Buddhism. It symbolizes the human condition of not being satisfied.
As with the prostitute, the physical need of sexual release may be meet, but the total spiritual satisfaction/connection is not. It has been written that the ultimate revenge a woman can reap upon a man is to have sex with him with out love.
We first see Anyanka in 'The Wish'. Anyaka loses her power. It is interesting that this particular episode is all about sexual freedom. What need is there for a prostitute when sexuality is so openly expressed. Anyanka goes to D'hoffryn to ask for help:
Anya: Give me another chance
D'Hoffryn: Do not ask again.
ANYA: But... But I...
D'Hoffryn: Your powers were a gift of the lower beings. You have proved unworthy of them.
ANYA: I was robbed of them.
D'Hoffryn: By your carelessness.
ANYA: For a thousand years I wielded the powers of The Wish. I brought ruin to the heads of unfaithful men. I brought forth destruction and chaos for the pleasure of the lower beings. I was feared and worshipped across the mortal globe. And now I'm stuck at Sunnydale High. Mortal. Child. And I'm flunking math.
D'Hoffryn: This is no concern of ours. You will live out your mortal life and die.
ANYA: Give me another chance. You can fold the fabric of time. Send me back to that place and I'll change it. I won't fail again.
D'Hoffryn: Your time is passed.
('Dopplegangland' Season 3)
The significant part of this dialogue is D'hoffryn telling Anyanka that her time has passed. With those words, he has condemned Anyaka to the old, worn out prostitute cliché . She protests. She says that he can fold time, send her back to that place. As her pimp, his words alone can return her, sustain her, empower her, make her young or old and give her back her illusion of sexual appeal and power. He does not speak them.
We next see Anya in 'The Prom'. In her attempt to get Xander to go with her to the Prom, she still relies on her sexuality. Anya says to Xander, "Fine. Look, I know you find me attractive. I've seen you looking at my breasts." As a result, they begin a relationship based on love. A first for Anya.
When the relationship ends, Anya goes back to what she knows. First, sex without love with Spike and eventually, back to the Vengeance Demon game.
But this time it is different. Having known sex with Love has changed Anyanka. As a vengeance demon with the Power of the Wish, Anya tweaks the dissatisfaction of others, but ultimately it makes her more dissatisfied.
In 'Selfless' we see the culmination of Anya's past, present and future. She goes for the big one and kills several frat boys. That scene of Anya in the frat house, spent and covered in blood is a metaphorical gang-bang. This time the prostitute's soul got prostituted. Her power source; her sexuality, abandoned her. She had sex without love and the vengeance was not hers.
So now we see Aud. Trying to find her true self without using sex/sexuality to define her.
[>
Re: Deconstructing Anya (contains spoilers for S7.5 'Selfless') -- lunasea, 09:30:49 03/18/03 Tue
Another tangent to this is Anya's fixation on money. The prostitute insulates herself against feelings developing with her johns by keeping the professional aspect of the job in mind. She does it for the money. Anya insulates herself against the world with her preoccupation of material goods and money.
She gets into the vengeance gig to help scorned women. We see in the flashbacks from "Selfless" how this evolves over time to a point where it is just a job. When she becomes human again, this attitude continues.
I would be interested in what you think the rabbits symbolize
[> [>
Re: Deconstructing Anya (contains spoilers for S7.5 'Selfless') -- Lot's Wife, 16:42:44 03/18/03 Tue
"I would be interested in what you think the rabbits symbolize" (Lunasea)
I have thought about the rabbits since I first learned of Anya's fear of them (and since viewing "Selfless") and I have no idea what those rabbits symbolize.
What are your thoughts about the rabbits?
[> [> [>
The rabbits -- lunasea, 17:28:07 03/18/03 Tue
possibly productivity. I think Anya has a real fear of success. I think she gets some sort of comfort being "odd."
It could also be uncontrolled reproduction. Anya is very much into control.
Whatever it is, I would say it is tied to how they excel at reproduction.
[>
The Socialization ofAnya (contains spoilers thru S7.5 'Selfless') -- WickedBuffy, 21:46:52 03/18/03 Tue
That was an interesting take on Anya!
One aspect of her character that stands out for me is how she takes things so literally. And speaks out bluntly, but truthfully.
It was something Olaf and the rest of the village found very strange.
Olaf in "Selfless" : "Your logic is insane and happenstance, like that of a troll. It is no wonder the bar matrons talk of you. "
and later in the same scene: "You speak your mind and are annoying."
And then later, with Xander, he works at toning down how she speaks, tells her what's OK to say and what's not, in a loving way.
She still keeps at it, though a bit more subdued now.
Why is this such an important part in her character? How does it fit in? Especially compared to the others.
(I personally love people like that.)
[> [>
Re: The Socialization ofAnya (contains spoilers thru S7.5 'Selfless') -- Corwin of Amber, 22:02:42 03/18/03 Tue
I suspect Anya was set apart from society at a very early age, and never had much sustained human contact before she was demonized. She didn't learn the social norms of dark ages Scandinavia, and is just now starting to understand ours. Perhaps her parents were shunned. Maybe her parents were witches? It would certainly explain her early knowledge of witchcraft, and even if they were "white witches" i bet the villagers wouldn't visit unless they needed a healing or a love potion or something.
[>
Re: Deconstructing Anya (contains spoilers for S7.5 'Selfless') -- lakrids, 01:41:19 03/19/03 Wed
Melymbrosia has in her livejournal, an analysis of Selfless, a rather original inteprenation of Anya as high level function autistic
Copy and paste
Link: http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=melymbrosia&itemid=176483
The best thing about "Selfless" is that it takes all the
contradictory implausible unlikable mishmash the show has made out of Anya and makes sense out of it. She's been flat and one-note and has had no characterization except "likes sex and money, knows a lot less about human emotion than a thousand-year-old should, has occasional strange flashes of empathy when it will make people cry in 'The Body' and/or serve the plot, is scared of rabbits"--and here Drew Goddard makes that the lack of character into character.
I find too that my conception of Anya is helped by certain recent articles on autism; Anya's persistent cluelessness makes a lot more sense if I read her as high-functioning or borderline autistic who has a high native intelligence (thus her knowledge of spells and her ability to learn philosophical systems--capitalism, bookkeeping, apparently communism and vengeance demon lore as well--very quickly) but who is literally incapable of the kind of fine-tuned emotional readings that make up most casual social interaction. That also supports her deliberate submersion in new systems of philosophy and thought, her tendency to define herself by her role: she literally doesn't know how to make off-the-cuff judgments when interacting with other people, so she relies entirely on rigid and preformed systems.
(Possibly this accounted for some of Xander's ease with her: the moral systems they use are very different, but they both tend to default to a rigid moral framework.)
So in any case--the confusion about interpreting human emotions, the strange literalism, the terrible clinginess are recast not as the result of demon Anyanka trying to adapt to an unfamiliar human world, but as Aud's traits that Anyanka never lost. This makes a lot more sense than someone growing to maturity (in 880 in Norway, an 18-year-old woman would be married, have kids, and have seen several of her nearest and dearest die in some way or another) and then losing it all over the course of her demonic existence.
In the brief glimpse we get of Anya's early life, it's clear she's separate from the villagers and doesn't know how to get along with them. I wonder if she was isolated because of her oddities, or if some of them are due to having grown up isolated. The backstory in my head, almost instantly? Illegitimate child of local herbwife/witch, grew up on the edges, never quite part of anything; Olaf the first person from the village to show her any kind of acceptance or affection.
And it's true that that's an unsupported elaboration from what we get, but it's clear that Anya, over the centuries, has been and remains terribly and horribly lonely. Her discussions with Olaf are about how to make friends with the village; her attitude towards Olaf is very much like her attitude in early years with Xander, all possession and very little relaxation (though one presumes from her new and voracious appetite that Xander's much better in bed than Olaf); her painfully fast seduction by D'Hoffryn, the way she spills her heart almost instantly when he's willing just to talk to her; her inability to recognize friendship when Buffy, Willow, and Dawn actually do offer it to her.
Bloodlust (no bashing, I promise. Fan-girl is still asleep) (vague spoilers CwDP & Storyteller -- lunasea, 09:15:12 03/18/03 Tue
Vampires differ psychologically and morally from humans primarily in two ways, their bloodlust and the lack of soul. Bloodlust is the driving force of a vampire. Vampires are individuals who put their own spins on how they feed that bloodlust. That spin is determined by their issues when they were human combined with the lack of soul which orients them to evil.
When they rise, they immediately want to feed. In "Reunion" when Darla rises, Angel says "she needs to feed soon, okay? And once she does she's gonna be that much stronger." First thing Angelus does when he rises is eat the Groundskeeper. Once he feeds, it makes "perfect sense." That initial feeding is very important. A vampire is connected to everything. In "Conversations with Dead People," Holden also describes it like this, "Feels great. Strong. Like I'm connected to a powerful all-consuming evil that's gonna suck the world into a fiery oblivion." By feeding they tap into that connection.
Jesse, in "The Harvest" describes it a little differently "I feel good, Xander! I feel strong! I'm connected, man, to everything! I, I can hear the worms in the earth!" In "Lessons" Willow tells us "Everything is connected." Vampires can feel that connection more vividly than humans. In season 7, the First is making Its presence in that connection known. It is that "powerful all-consuming evil that's gonna suck the world into a fiery oblivion."
Vampires are attracted to the Hellmouth. Spike brings Drusilla to Sunnydale because "You nearly died in Prague. Idiot mob. This is the place for us. The Hellmouth will restore you, put color back in your cheeks, metaphorically speaking." The mystical energy of the Hellmouth effects vampires and they are conscious of this. That is why they stay in Sunnydale, even though the Slayer lives there guarding the Hellmouth.
This also effects human beings though. In "What's My Line" we find out that there are 43 churches in Sunnydale because as Willow says "It's the extra evil vibe from the Hellmouth. It makes people pray harder." People are also affected by the Hellmouth. Buffy talks about the "semi-annual percolation of the Hellmouth" in "Storytellers" and in that same episode we do see humans being dramatically affected. They just aren't aware of what is causing their behavior. Vampires aren't any more connected. They are just more aware of this connection. Witches are also aware of this connection and they aren't all evil. Buffy feels "not so connected," but that will probably change.
Vampires are more aware because they feed on blood. When Angelus wakes up, the first thing he says is "I could feel them above me as I slept in the earth. Their heartbeats, their blood, coursing through their veins." Season 5 it is "key." In "The Gift" Spike explains about why blood is so powerful. "Blood is life, lack brain. Why do you think we eat it? It's what keeps you going. Makes you warm. Makes you hard. Makes you other than dead." Vampires feed off of life itself because they are dead. Humans are alive. We don't need to feed off of blood. Blood courses through our veins. Feeding creates a connection for vampires, one that needs to be maintained by continual feeding. When they don't feed, they loose this connection.
Humans are connected to each other through our relationships. Our conscience gives us good feelings when we honor this connection and gives us negative feelings when we break it. Vampires don't have this. In "The Harvest" Jesse tells Xander, his best friend, "You're like a shadow to me now." Spike and Angelus may be perceptive when it comes to understanding humans' dark sides, but they don't feel a part of humanity. They can be perceptive because in some ways they are objective because of this removal.
Being vamped is like certain drugs. Humans evolved (or were created) so that certain things cause certain reactions. We have pleasure centers to encourage certain behaviors. Other behaviors cause pain to repel us from them. We override this natural inclination with drugs, both medicinal and recreational. Some of these drugs damage our natural centers and they no longer function as they evolved/were created to. This is what happens to a vampire.
(An aside: I don't think there is an anti-drug message to the show and I don't think the writers are thinking about this at all. This is just a way to explain what how I see bloodlust and vampires. There is an anti-addiction message, with Angel the recovering alcoholic. Bloodlust is what causes his addiction. Bloodlust isn't pot, more like PCP.)
A vampire is a damaged human being. They no longer have a soul. They no longer have their own blood coursing through their veins. They were drained to be turned. Just drinking won't turn someone. S/he has to be drained. It isn't just their life that has to be terminated, but the very substance that flows through them has to be completely removed. They have to be removed from humanity completely. This creates a tremendous hunger, much as those damaged pleasure centers demand more drugs. When that hunger is met, they feel invincible. They feel powerful. In "Angel" Darla says "It's what makes eternal life worth living."
That hunger is described season 5 with Riley and his suck jobs. "They needed me....On some basic level it *was* about me. My blood, my body. When they bit me ... it was beyond passion. They wanted to devour me, all of me." They don't have that connection unless they are feeding. This is what drives the lust. They don't have blood coursing through their own veins, so they need to suck out someone else's. It makes them feel not dead. They do need it. They do hunger for it. That is why it is called blood *lust*.
Riley knows "It wasn't real. I know, it was just physical," but it is something more metaphysical for vampires. Buffy said Riley was just "a snack! A willing, idiotic snack." Riley compares it to love, "I know exactly what they feel when they bite me, because I feel it every time we're together." Blood is more than just food for vampires. At least Riley understands their hunger and what it does to them. It isn't a hunger for food. It is a hunger for blood, for life. They are dead and blood makes them feel alive. When they feel alive, "It's like the whole world falls away. And all there is is you."
Angel could verify that love feels that way. Making love to Buffy did cause the whole world to fall away. He didn't have a past to feel guilty about. Their lives weren't in peril. The world wasn't in danger. He wasn't a vampire who wanted to be with a human, let alone the Slayer. He could also tell Riley that feeling is stronger than his vamp bloodlust. Feeding off of Kate wasn't a moment of perfect happiness. It didn't overcome all the things that were going on. Angel can control his bloodlust. It doesn't cut him every time he just sees a person. He cannot control his feelings about Buffy. In "Forever" he tries to comfort her with a kiss and their passion gets beyond them. The bond between them is that strong.
That is the bond of true love. That is the real thing. It is what those pleasure centers are for. They give us happy feelings when we are doing certain things. A vampire activates those same centers through feeding. That isn't what they were designed for. It is an artificial high, just like drugs are. It isn't a reward our body gives us for doing the right thing. It is using that mechanism just for the high.
(cont)
[>
Angel & Spike (and still the no bashing continues. Don't believe me, check it out) -- lunasea, 09:19:12 03/18/03 Tue
Angel isn't a human. He is a vampire who has had his soul returned. He is a vampire who has a conscience that orients him to good. He has had his humanity completely stripped from him, as evidenced by "Innocence" and the Judge's pronouncement "This one... cannot be burnt. He is clean...There's no humanity in him. " Then he had just his soul returned. He isn't human. He has to rebuild his humanity by reconnecting with humans. He cannot get his "fix" from bloodlust. Pig's blood is going to physically nourish him, but it won't provide that connection to everything that vampires talk about so much.
The evolution of Angel has been interesting, even before he got his own show. Beginning of Season 1 he wants "To kill them. To kill them all," but all he offers is warnings. In "Angel" he is actually willing to risk his own life to protect Buffy, but his cravings are still pretty intense. By "Prophecy Girl" Angel is trying to get more involved. He reaches out to hug Buffy and wants to come up with alternatives. The active fight for good has made him good.
They continue this while he is on BtVS. Angel's bloodlust is replaced with something else, his desire for Buffy, which is even more powerful. In "Surprise," that desire comes to a head. It isn't just a physical desire. It isn't lust. It is love, true love. In being with Buffy, Angel is able to achieve his moment of perfect happiness. He would give almost anything to return to that. In "Amends" they revisit this. "It's not the demon (and bloodlust) that needs killing, Buffy. It's the man." It's the part that causes him to say "I want to take comfort in you, and I know it'll cost me my soul, and a part of me doesn't care." That isn't a desire generated from the demon.
It is a desire that we all have. With one of Joss' favorite lines, Angel is transformed from a metaphor to a character capable of carrying his own show. As a vampire, Angel could get his "fix" from feeding, but that has consequences. That is no longer a viable option for him when he has his soul. As a man, Angel could connect with Buffy, but that too has consequences. Part of him may not care, but part of him does. Since the active fight for good has made him good, that is all he has to combat his bloodlust as he is spun off.
On BtVS he had his bloodlust under control. Even in "Amends," it wasn't the bloodlust that drove him crazy. It was his desire to be with Buffy. He wasn't going to become a monster and start feeding if he had his soul. This wasn't his concern. It was wanting Buffy so much that he did loose his soul and then he would become a monster that drove him to suicide. He is able to keep everything under control because as Buffy says " Strong is fighting. It's hard and it's painful and it's every day. It's what we have to do and we can do it together." After "Amends," Buffy and Angel are together. He manages to keep both his bloodlust and his desire for Buffy under control, as evidence by the beginning of "Enemies" or that they can take "post-slayage nap thing" together with no problem in "Prom."
They take him over to his own show and "City of" shows how loose a handle his has on his bloodlust. He no longer has that connection with Buffy, so he has nothing. As he not only engages in the active fight for good, but starts to connect with others, that bloodlust becomes more manageable. In "The Shroud of Ramon," Angel actually has to bite Kate to save her, but he manages to stop even under the influence of the shroud before he seriously hurts her. It brings him a lot of conflict, but he stays under control.
This is even more amazing in the context of the season. Human blood allows vampire to tap into that connection that the living take for granted. Angel has the Angel Investigation Team to connect with, but AtS season 2 is about Darla. Darla has been haunting his "dreams." He wants to connect with Darla in order to make things right. "The Shroud of Ramon" is a seemingly filler episode between "Darla" and "The Trials." At the end of "Darla," Darla wants Angel to sire her. She doesn't want to feel human. From there we go to Angel getting a "fix" from Kate. That leads into "The Trials" where Angel turns the pain of disconnection into incredible strength to help Darla (or at least try to). "The Shroud of Ramon" really shows how far Angel has come and foreshadows what happens in "There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb." Angel transforms his bloodlust into real connection. It is a beautiful moment in "The Trials" that is written as "Angel holds her. He's battered and she's dying but they are together. They're not lovers. They're two friends who care the world about each other. Two friends who will never part until death does it for them. They soak each other in and we pull back, just the two of them together..."
That is real. That is what makes us human. Even vampires want it, even if they don't know it. Some can only get it artificially through bloodlust. Others such as Spike manage to actually touch it. Unsoulled Spike at one point probably was completely devoid of his humanity. Then he regained that humanity somewhat with his connection to Drusilla. Probably same thing with her. Angelus drove her completely nuts. In "Surprise" the Judge says of Spike and Drusilla "You two stink of humanity. You share affection and jealousy." Next week's BtVS episode will probably elaborate on this. It could be interesting.
Spike is in a more untenable position than Angel. Angel at least has his soul. The active fight for good has made him good and shown him how he can connect, but at least he has something that rewards him when is good. Spike lost Drusilla and then he lost his ability to feed his bloodlust. He has NO way to connect. He can't get the genuine connection of companionship and he can't get the artificial one of bloodlust. Angel finds real friends, first through Buffy and then the Angel Investigation Team, not to mention he has an actual kid. Spike doesn't have that. No one trusts him enough to give it to him. As Jane Espenson said the soul and the chip "are very different because of the heart behind them." The Scoobies know this and cannot trust Spike if he doesn't have the heart behind his actions.
Spike couldn't sire anyone, but he could have a robot made. The Buffybot was Spike's playmate, his artificial connection, every bit as much as he was Drusilla's at first. With Drusilla they could develop feelings for each other. That wasn't possible with the Buffybot. Spike knew this, but he didn't have anything else. His obsession with Buffy drove away his undead chance of connecting with Drusilla or Harmony. Spike had connection with Joyce. She was so nice (or perhaps so naive) that she did trust him enough to be his friend. When she died, it hit him hard.
Spike's artificial connection was replaced with a real one in "Intervention." The Buffybot became real with a kiss. "The robot was gross and obscene....That ... thing, it ... it wasn't even real... What you did, for me, and Dawn ... that was real." That is the beginning of Spike getting real connection. With that acknowledgment Spike touched something real. Buffy furthers this in "The Gift" when she invites Spike in.
That is all taken away from him when Buffy dies. The shooting script reads "As does Spike, who must hide from the encroaching sunlight, collapsing in wretched sobs at his failure, at the death of his love." His love could mean Buffy herself being the person he loved, but it could also mean his love as in his heart. When Buffy dies, so does the one person that treats Spike "like a man." Season 5 was pretty hard for him. He lost Joyce and Buffy. He had nothing.
So he helps the Scoobies. He tries to build up connection that way. He tries to honor Buffy's memory and maintain connection by honoring his promise to protect Dawn. He still doesn't have a soul. He doesn't have anything to tell him what is good. He doesn't have the heart behind the soul. He just has a "leashed jammed in his head." Even through he tries, he just can't connect. We open season 6 with the Scoobies on patrol showing just how badly Spike isn't connecting. He may be fighting beside them, but he isn't beside them. He doesn't even realize this. When he finds out they resurrected Buffy without telling him, it hit him hard.
Buffy is incredibly vulnerable and Spike thinks he is connecting with her. Every time he comes remotely close, he says something stupid, showing just how incapable of connecting he really is. He says she has a thing for vampires and that she is an animal. If Spike was connecting with Buffy, he would know how insulting (and untrue) these things are. Spike can't connect because he doesn't have the heart to. It was sucked out of him by Drusilla.
He still wants to though. His inability to do this culminates in "Seeing Red." In the scene where he is talking to Clem we get a reprise of "Amends," Spike-style. Angel is both a man and a demon. The man wants to do something that will cause him to loose his soul and then the demon will be unchecked. Spike feels he is neither man or monster. He can't be a man because he doesn't have a soul and he can't be a monster because of the chip. He can go for the artificial connection of bloodlust by having the chip removed or he can try for the genuine connection that Buffy showed him in "Intervention" by getting his soul.
Spike did try to have the chip removed in "Out of My Mind." This is the same episode that ends with the dream about Spike kissing/loving Buffy. This dream is what Spike's "feelings" for Buffy are built on. After all, he is a "Fool for Love." Once he believes he is in love, he goes for it. Just like the active fight for good made Angel good, believing he loved Buffy actually made Spike love her. We see obsessive creepy love most of season five. By "Intervention," Spike has taken a step towards something real, because something real was shown to him.
Season 6 it gets dark and Buffy isn't able to connect with anyone, let alone Spike. The active fight for good makes Angel good and the active journey towards love makes Spike love. Season 6 derails that. He just wants his fix and in the end is willing to try and rape Buffy to get it. The active journey towards love has changed Spike and going back to bloodlust and the chip just isn't a viable option any more. He may not have a conscience or the heart behind a soul, but he has tasted the real thing. How can he go back to the artifice of bloodlust?
Spike gets his soul and comes back to Sunnydale to get something real. Even if he isn't going to get Buffy's love, he can still have her friendship. He can still help her. At least that is real. The closest he has come to real is what he had in "Intervention" and "The Gift." That is what Spike is aiming for at this point. Buffy isn't ready for even that, so the First can get Its hooks into Spike. It can use Spike desire for real connection to get him back to the artificial one. In "Never Leave Me" we see how badly Spike's bloodlust has become.
On AtS, Angel was able to control his bloodlust, even after feeding off of Kate, because he had a way to channel it. Spike hasn't figured that out yet. As Buffy connects with Spike and believes in him, he is able to control himself better. The First cannot get under his skin. This is not because of any action on Spike's part, though. Spike is not quite ready to engage in the active fight for good. He is still trying to help Buffy. Once Spike does engage in this fight and finds some real friends, then he will be able to replace his bloodlust with something more genuine.
Real connection is encouraged with the conscience. The soul orients us to good by rewarding us when we do good. Real connection is good. A vampire doesn't have this. It is oriented towards evil. It even gets negative feedback when it does something good. It replaces genuine relationship with the artifice of bloodlust. It is how the vampires tap into connection. A relationship is an ongoing thing. The fix a vampire gets from feeding is temporary, so a vampire lusts for blood.
Because Angel has a soul, he generates positive feelings when he does good. This encourages him to do good. He doesn't need to be rewarded by others. Doing good is its own reward. As he does good and reaches out, he does connect. The more he connects, the more he can keep his bloodlust under control.
Spike didn't have this. He didn't get positive feelings just from doing good. He needed positive reinforcement from people that matter to him. Because these people couldn't trust him and because he didn't know how to connect with them, he didn't get that. He couldn't tap into his bloodlust to get his fix and he couldn't get genuine connection. All he had was his obsession to keep him warm. Now he does have a conscience. What he does with it will be interesting to see.
[> [>
Re: Angel & Spike (and still the no bashing continues. Don't believe me, check it out) -- shambleau, 10:52:28 03/18/03 Tue
Great posts! Maybe Spike can connect with Dawn again. I'd love that. Don't know if there's time for him to connect with the others in only six episodes, though.
As for the bashing, while it is sometimes upsetting for the partisans of Spike and Angel, the debates that have come out of it have been passionate and thought-provoking, which is why I read this board. So, with either a dispassionate analysis like yours or a fevered attack on Spike or Angel, I'm usually happy.
[> [>
Re: Angel & Spike (and still the no bashing continues. Don't believe me, check it out) -- Lot's wife, 16:36:54 03/18/03 Tue
I LOVE this post. Your insight into Spike and his id/ego/super ego is blinding.
Current board
| More March 2003