The Stars 'n Stripes reference come from actual experience, while a college student at SF State during "interesting times", circa 1991, that encompassed both the Rodney King riots and the Persian Gulf war.
It was at the official end of the latter affair that the campus right wing dared to stage a "victory rally" in the main plaza (the student union was dominated by leftists and had elected a very capable Palestinian-American as president, so one could imagine where the lines of polarization ran).
The rally was held on a raised stage, sporting a good cross section of American rightists (~ 20 people), joyously, even frantically, waving a little cloud of U.S. and Israeli flags. They were confronted by another rather scattered crowd of American-style leftists who remained standing in silent, forlorn perplexity and, within their midst, a more tightly bunched group of Arab or Arab-American students angry enough to shout the occasional uncoordinated insult.
It was disgusting! Needless to say, something had to be done. As I found myself standing close by the Arab students, I decided to start up the chant, "Victory to Iraq!" (military victory, of course, but I wished to keep the slogan short, sharp and to the point, even if a bit of political correctness was sacrificed). The Arab (or Middle Eastern) ad hoc "contingent" immediately, without hesitation, took up the chant to great and loud effect.
Rightist flags and faces got droopy real quick - the innocents were shit-faced, speechless that anyone on 'muricun soil could call for the victory of the enemy! Now, that's how you shut up a rightwinger. Leftist apologists are another matter ;-)
The American-style leftists were conspicuous in their silence, alas. Still dazzled by those Stars 'n Stripes, I suppose.
As for the other points, see below.
At 10:30 AM 8/31/01 -0400, you wrote:
>No Chuck, that's what they've got those little Stars 'n Stripes flags in
>their back pockets for - as they did during the Persian Gulf War. And
>somebody's gotta be pushing from the far right here. And that's exactly
>where Bush wants these fools, there to be the fallguy, to take the blame
>away from the real culprit. Brad Mayer
>
>- ---------------
>
>Sorry Brad. I keep forgetting I can never be cynical
>enough---absolutely never. It was moment of weakness.
>
>With a few students pushing the Israelis line, and the
>Palestinian students/supporters pushing basically the UN position,
>Bush gets to sound tolerant, by doing nothing.
>
>On the other hand, there was a report the other night that the State
>Dept was considering issuing a finding on the mis-use of US
>weapons by the Israelis.
Easily explained. To grasp the imperial style deployed here, I'd recommend (again) Bix's splendid, award winning biography of Hirohito, "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" (2000). The connection? Purely stylistic, but quite illuminating. The sequence was as follows: 1) From the lower ranks of the Imperial troops (usually in China) come rumblings of fresh aggressions; 2) Hirohito would wag his finger disapprovingly, warning of the dangers this new aggression posed to Japans' international relations, its position in Asia, etc. 3) The aggression would go ahead anyhow; a hand wringing Hirohito would (gently) express his worry and displeasure throughout its progress; 4) Upon victory (a crucial qualification), Hirohito would admonish the troops to "not do it again", while he handed out medals;
And so forth. But no one was ever punished, and the armaments continued to flow in ever greater quantities. But when the cycle of victory turned to defeat, Hirohito came to the fore and "took responsibility" for needlessly prolonging the war.
While on the subject, there's a conference here in SF Japantown this week, "50 Years of Denial: Japan and Its Wartime Responsibilities An International Conference", in "honor" of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the US-Japan peace treaty:
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~ethnicst/japandenial/main.html
Unfortunately, registration is a bit pricey: $150!
>And I noticed the national media now uses the
>word assassination with respect to killing Palestinian Authority
>figures.
Not according to Palestine Media Watch: http://64.226.129.19/pmw/index.asp
My sense is that they are a bit confused right now (just like the European "allies"). Remember, these are largely foreign policy mouthpieces accustomed to clear marching orders
Covering the racism conference seems to have come as a great relief in this regard. When Washington actually does something, they are quite capable of baying in unison.
-Brad Mayer
>I know, gee big deal. How about calling them war crimes?
>
>Chuck Grimes