| |
|
Saturday, May 24, 2003
|
|
Originally Posted March 27, 2003
So, Cellucci wasn't just being an ass all on his own:
U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci was delivering a rebuke straight from President George W. Bush's White House this week when he complained of Canada's refusal to participate in the war in Iraq, U.S. officials confirmed yesterday.
Despite Liberal government assurances that the Bush administration had accepted the Canadian decision gracefully, U.S. officials say Mr. Bush and his advisers are furious, not only with the decision to stay out of the battle but also with what they say is the anti-American rhetoric that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has tolerated.
Sources said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice consulted Mr. Cellucci about the message he was to deliver at a breakfast speech on Tuesday in Toronto.
"This came right from the top," one U.S. official said.
When Mr. Chrétien announced the Canadian position, Liberal ministers had assured the Bush team that, while Canada would not participate in the war, it also would not criticize the U.S. and British effort in Iraq.
However, American officials noted that Mr. Chrétien quickly characterized the war as "unjustified" and then failed to condemn Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal, who called Mr. Bush a "failed statesman." ...
U.S. diplomats have delivered similar messages in other countries that have failed to back the war in Iraq. In Mexico, which had a key seat on the Security Council, U.S. Ambassador Tony Garza, a Texas friend of Mr. Bush, irritated many Mexicans earlier this month when he said that the U.S. administration would not be "placated" by any half-hearted support from its neighbors.
...Mr. Cellucci warned obliquely that there could be some disruption in Canada-U.S. trade relations, saying "security will trump trade." ...
...Mr. Bush is scheduled to travel to Ottawa* for an official visit in early May.
Mr. Cellucci suggested, however, that Mr. Bush is a wartime president and may have to cancel the visit.
White House Consulted Cellucci on Rebuke
Globe & Mail
March 27, 2003
* Guess Canada has exempted Georgie's DUI.
6:22:49 PM 
|
|
Originally Posted March 27, 2003
Richard Perle has resigned!
I know most Americans have no idea who Richard Perle is -- but those of you who do will understand immediately why this is huge news.
Now, I don't believe for a moment that Perle won't still be hanging around the White House (look how hollow Karen Hughes' purely symbolic resignation was) -- but I am no less stunned by this announcement.
I have to think about the ramifications of this for a while. What it means, what it's supposed to mean, and what it really means.
And, yes, I'll be getting into the who, what, and how of Perle, PNAC, and all that stuff (I only wish I could have done it before this) -- it's just a very time-consuming, thought-intensive process of laying it out in an easily-digestible form.
(Not to insult anyone's intelligence, mind you -- I'm just well aware that not everyone on Planet Earth has been absorbing all this stuff as long as I have, and I don't want to overload anybody's circuits.)
Wow!
Wow, Wow, Wow!
Comments
From P---- on 03/27/03
A big deal indeed! Though I wonder what's behind it . . . more will be revealed.
From doublethink on 03/27/03
PR liability?
Kissinger-style conflict of interests (Global Crossing)?
No longer govt employee = no Senate investigation?
The possibilities are endless!
I love a mystery...!
From doublethink on 03/27/03
The mystery deepens:
In a brief phone conversation this afternoon before the Pentagon's announcement, Mr. Perle sounded angry. Asked whether he had resigned, he replied: "Let me just tell you something. If I had, you'd be the last person in the world I'd want to talk to." He then slammed down the phone.
New York Times
From doublethink on 03/27/03
AHA!
In a brief statement, Rumsfeld thanked Perle for his service and said he was grateful that the former Reagan administration official had agreed to remain a board member. Rumsfeld made no reference to a reason for Perle giving up the chairmanship.
Salon
So the "resignation" is a crock.
Now, why the smokescreen?
From P---- on 03/27/03
I thought that was clear from your first link - that he had been asked to remain on the board, and was only resigning as chairman. Though it's still curious why the move.
From doublethink on 03/27/03
Call it a case of Premature... Excitement.
It just didn't sink in. I was hoping and praying for a crack that would open the floodgates, and it just wasn't there.
P----, there's something I need to explain to you. Yes, I'm waiting and praying for the end of the Bush administration -- but not as some sort of political victory. I'm not competitive that way -- I don't need to "win" -- and I could certainly (and have, many times) lived under a Republican administration with little real concern. I'd do it again if the White House was being run by people I believed I could afford to trust.
The thing I need you to understand is that these people (especially "Prince of Darkness" Perle) scare me. To death. Literally.
I honestly, truly believe, to the depth of my little left-wing soul, that if Bush serves another four years (or even another two), my life will not be worth living.
They -- Bush and everyone around him -- hate people like me. I mean hate. You're smart, P----, you're well-read -- you know what I'm talking about. And I think, deep down, you know that they will squash my kind like a bug, as soon as it's possible and convenient.
Time is running out. So I'm grasping, desperately, at any sign of hope this nightmare will end soon.
I was wrong. This news means nothing. Absolutely nothing.
From P---- on 03/28/03
I guess I really don't agree with your suggestion that "Bush and everyone around him . . . hate people like me." And I *really* don't agree with your suggestion that "they will squash my kind like a bug, as soon as it's possible and convenient."
If by bug-squashing you mean becoming political prisoners or political death-casualties, I say, "Not a chance." Assuming they had this in mind, I would say - and I expect the overwhelming majority of Americans would say - "Let them try."
I am not attached to Bush the man. I am attached to what I believe he stands for. What he stands for, I believe, includes true liberty, including an unfettered right to speak, to protest, and even to be a no-hope lib. Or comsymp. Or socialist. Anything.
And I truly believe, from the bottom of my soul, that if I am completely wrong, and Bush attempts to so obliterate the checks and balances of our Constitution so as to to meaningfully squash free speech -e.g, by banning guys like you from posting what you believe, there's going to be an uprising in this country the likes of which has never before been seen in the history of the world. And you and I will be comrades in that fight.
The only way he could pull off this doomsday scenario of which you speak is by force of arms- by using the military. So here's another one of my fundamental beliefs: while Bush is the commander in chief, our military is very like Turkey's. They are fiercely independent, and are not going to be made pawns of a civilian leader. They will obey without hesitation any lawful orders, but they are bright enough to read the Constitution, and will not obey unlawful orders. (There's both a danger and a blessing in this fierce independence, but the danger here comes from the Generals, not from Bush.)
But, as Clinton used to say, "I feel your pain." (The difference here is that I actually mean it. :)) I remember when Clinton was elected in 92. I didn't have any real use for Bush I, but viewed Clinton as a guy who would utterly decimate the Republic, especially with his left-leaning congress. For goodness sake, socialized medicine was right around the corner! The Canadians wouldn't have anywhere to go to get decent medical care!
Seriously, I can remember despairing. But we survived.
Finally: if I'm completely wrong, and they do try to squash you, you can hide in my basement. I'll let you use my computer to post from. Just be sure to log out as P---- and login as doublethink. Otherwise my friends will all think I've lost my mind :-)
From doublethink on 03/28/03
I wish I believed you were right, about the American people fighting back, but it's just not what I'm seeing or hearing, P----. On the other side of the fence, people who are just as oustpoken as I am are practically drooling over the idea of locking up dissenters, and seeing our blood literally flow in the streets. (You must know of freerepublic.com, don't you?) My God, they rejoice in such "victories" as the Israeli tank run-over of the American human shield in Palestine.
While I personally think being a human shield is posintless (especially when the attackers don't care who gets in the way), it's the reaction of people who swear they're "freedom-loving Americans" that chills my blood. (What about that truck driver who nearly mowed down 40 peace protesters on a bridge a couple of days ago? He said he was just trying to clear them away, as a patriotic act "for our boys.")
People like that crow about their own right to free speech, but they conveniently label my right to disagree with them as "treason."
And they're only encouraged by Bush and his cohorts. "Watch what you say, watch what you do" ... "You shouldn't criticize a wartime president" ... Paraphrases, yes, but you recognize the sources of those sentiments -- the White House.
And then there's the Patriot Act -- and Patriot Act II, which serves only to paint people like me -- as well as the real "bad guys" -- into a smaller corner in which to move around. You must have read at least some of Act I; the term "enemy combatant" can be applied for the most specious of reasons. And Act II actually threatens to strip U.S. citizenship from and expatriating anyone (even native-born) accused of funding or otherwise supporting any group even suspected of furthering or advocating domestic terrorism. (By that definition alone, the entire membership of Operation Rescue should be sitting in a cage at Gitmo -- but those are not the sort of "terrorists" I expect they're going to be rounding up.)
Finally, I don't forget for a moment the dozens of (verifiable) stories of FBI agents showing up on the doorsteps of the most casual dissenters (a 60-year-old man who tossed off an anti-Bush remark at the gym, a teenager whose anti-Bush poster inside her home caused somebody to rat her out as "suspicious" to the feds) -- or the woman blacklisted from flying because she worked for the Green Party... or the 22-year-old kid bounced from three different flights out of Phoenix -- and then finally banned for life by United -- because security thought the cover art of the book he was carrying to read on the plane looked "radical."
As for Bush using the military domestically, I don't doubt it will happen -- it's called martial law. And all we need is to ratchet the color-coded alert system up a single notch for it to happen.
I don't put a lot of faith in individual soldiers balking against unlawful orders. Regardless what you or I think, I'm sure there are more than a few in Iraq right now questioning the legality of the invasion, and yet they're sworn to duty. I'm sure many of them feel there is no choice, when that choice will result in spending the rest of your life in Leavenworth, while your family goes hungry because you stood by your morals.
If this ever goes as far as a war-crimes trial (and I don't believe it will, but if it does), I hope the only defendants at the next Nuremberg are the officers on up. While the average G.I. Joe and I share little more than the same carbon base, I honestly worry for the soldiers in this scenario.
And thanks for the offer of your basement, P---- -- you're a true Miep Gies, which is high praise from me.
But I think if it gets to that point, I won't be able to cross the stateline.
From dsdhall on 03/28/03
Sorry to break into your admittedly very interesting discussion there, but the BBC was reporting today that:
"Mr Perle had also not only argued for the need to go to war with Iraq, he had strongly suggested that the Iraqis would put up minimal resistance.
BBC correspondent Jon Leyne says that his days of power in Washington now appear to be over."
BBC (and other sources) also hinting Rumsfeld's days are numbered now.
Or is that total non news?
From doublethink on 03/28/03
Never be sorry for distracting me from my state of government-induced terror. LOL
Oh, it's new to me all right -- and all the more reason for me to go hang around the blessedly calm and rational BBC site tonight.
(Rummy? Be still, my hopeful heart!)
6:12:42 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 27, 2003
I was going to write about something else entirely tonight, but it will have to wait. I'm just in no mood. Of all the things to crack my composure tonight, it's Canada.
It's rant time. I'm afraid this will come out rather disjointed in spots, but it's the way my thoughts are running. I apologize for that. But right now, I have no use for form -- only substance.
The Canucks have had it with us. In spite of everything, the "bashing" back and forth between Yanks and Canadians has -- until now -- been nothing more than the sort of good-natured horseplay between cousins who don't always get along, but who, when pressed, will admit to a grudging respect and liking for each other. Sure, there are plenty of Canucks who detest Yanks, and vice versa, for reasons that have nothing to do with Iraq -- but is that any different between any two countries in the world? If I'm wrong, then my friendships with numerous Canadians over the years have been out of the ordinary. (Which I don't believe for a minute.)
I'm not just upset by Paul Cellucci -- although his Ugly American-ism is certainly a part of it (and if Canada's Liberals stick to their guns, Cellucci is thisclose to getting bounced out of Canada on his presumptuous ass).
I am upset because there's a type of openly anti-American hostility coming out of Canada right now that I've never seen before. Worse, I can't blame Canadians for feeling the way they do. We've given them more than enough reason.
We've pushed them too far. Not just Bush and his whole megalomaniacal operation -- I mean Americans themselves, specifically, the stupid, shortsighted bastards too damned childish to simply respect Canada's decision not to support Bush's war. Even Chrétien told his people they "have to respect the decision of the Americans" -- whether or not Chrétien means what he says, why can't Americans be half as grown-up as this?
Yes, I know all about Canadians booing the "Star Spangled Banner" last week. So now, the U.S. is booing back. And it looks like this is how it's going to go from now on, back and forth, until it comes to blows -- or until U.S. and Canadian teams stop playing each other altogether.
Does this make us big, brave Americans feel better? Are we "big men"?
Or would we be bigger to rise above such childishness?
And I thought sports had something to do with "sportsmanship." If we are unable to put aside political differences in the name of fair play, I guess the next Olympics will be a sham.
Incidentally, has everyone forgotten that the U.S. was the one started this shameful spectacle of disrespect -- a year ago?
No, I don't excuse Françoise Ducros for saying "Bush is a moron," or Carolyn Parrish for her "Damn Americans, I hate the bastards." I may defend every individual's right to say anything they want, but I also believe Ducros and Parrish each made a huge political mistake. It doesn't matter whether these are their personal opinions or whether they represent the majority opinion of Canada; as politicians, they erred.
(And, believe me, for me to defend Bush against being called a "moron" by anyone is proof that I believe in what I'm saying.)
Nevertheless, do you honestly think such remarks even approach the gall of Paul Cellucci telling Canada what they should be allowed to say? Do you think -- like booing "O, Canada!" -- it makes us grown-ups to "hit back"?
So, what in the world set me off tonight? Simple: The same, stupid, simpleminded anti-Canadian bigotry starting to roll across America in the style of stupid, simpleminded anti-French bigotry that's done nothing but make us all look like a bunch of spoiled crybabies.
I'm talking about that jerk in Atlanta who refused to honor a winning eBay bid because the buyer is Canadian (which is not only self-defeating, but in this case probably illegal). I'm talking about the disgusting pig in Grand Forks, North Dakota, vandalizing and pissing on Manitoba license plates. I'm talking about radio station WENG in Florida dropping a five-minute-long, Canadian-produced show it has aired for 25 years because of Canada's anti-war stance. (Great way to stimulate the all-but-dead U.S. tourism industry -- alienate the two million Canadians who vacation in Florida every year!)
And Cellucci thinks Canada should control its citizens? If we're going to adopt a permanent policy of silencing anybody who threatens to tarnish our image, I have a terrific suggestion for all that unused duct tape right here in the U. S. of A.
Hypocrite, you say? Condoning the suppression of dissent? Nope. All I'm suggesting is a level playing field -- but I need to know the rules of play first. If you believe that people like me shouldn't be allowed to speak out against the war, then you shouldn't be allowed to express your own beliefs, whatever they may be. But if you believe in open dissent without fear of retribution, as I do, then you don't go waltzing into another country and start demanding its citizens shut up.
Nor do you demand that your fellow citizens shut up. And I am not doing that myself. I am trying to illustrate how the actions of a brainless few -- who think they're being "patriotic" -- are not only not patriotic, but as un-American as can be.
And they're not improving an already bad situation.
Excuse me, dear readers, while I vent some rage upon the anti-Canadian idiots:
Jesus, people! What the HELL is wrong with you that you automatically brand every country opposed to the Iraq invasion as anti-American? They are not condemning America (which is what "anti-Americanism" is). They disagree with Bush's war. That's it! They may have other, fundamental beefs with us -- but it is not "anti-American" for a nation to say, "We don't like what you're doing, and we want no part of it."
And that is all that Canada is doing. They haven't stopped buying American cars, or eating American cheeseburgers, or going to American movies. But if we -- as individuals -- keep making such asses of ourselves, you can bet a mass boycott of American products and services is in the offing.
Why can't you separate this division of ideals from the relationship itself? Why must you equate one with the other? Didn't your mamma ever teach you not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater"?
It's not America or Americans the majority of western nations are opposing -- it's Bush and PNAC! Wake the hell UP!
But you don't see this. You seem utterly incapable of digesting the rationale behind anyone else's decisions. You are incapable of respecting anyone who disagrees with you. If you like vanilla, then everyone who likes rocky road is wrong, and bad, and should be punished. I envision some of you as the type who, if you think your wife is cheating on you, skip right past marriage counseling and divorce court, and just shoot her.
Obviously, you're also incapable of comprehending the fact that you can push people only so far (or have you never gotten a good butt-kicking after shooting your mouth off in a bar?).
It doesn't matter who we're talking about -- everyone has a breaking point. And no matter how tolerant he or she may be, even your best friend in the world is eventually going to resort to some serious "tough love" if you don't stop acting like a paranoid-schizophrenic Rambo with the emotional intelligence of a four-year-old, high on sugar and testosterone, swinging a hair-triggered Glock over your head.
Say whatever the hell you want -- but STOP these stupid, destructive acts! What do you think you're going to accomplish? You think your license-plate pissing is going to make Canada step back and say, "Gee, maybe we should rethink this. Maybe we should go help the U.S. bomb Iraq" - ?
And, no, I'm not defending Canada because I share their anti-war stance. (I would hope that no one who's read this far would by now think I was that shallow.) By comparison, I abhor the U.K.'s official pro-war stance, and think Tony Blair should have been thrown out of 10 Downing Street long ago. But not for one second do I fault the English people. Not one. I am not about to start burning Alfred Hitchcock DVD's in the street, or stomping up and down on top of a pile of English muffins in protest.
Ditto Australia, John Howard, "Crocodile Dundee" movies, and jars of Vegemite.
You screw around with Canadians the way you have with the French, and scenes like this are going to start appearing on our side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Shocked? What the hell kind of reaction do you expect?
You know, I can't count the number of times a Canadian has reassured me: "We don't fault the American people for any of this. We blame Bush."
Well, now, the American people -- at least a small minority of idiots grabbing the spotlight, as usual -- is giving Canada plenty of reasons to fault Yanks for acting like the neighborhood bullies our leaders have turned out to be.
And consider this, you who suddenly hate Canada: When you take "direct action" against an individual Canadian, how do you know that Canadian doesn't support the Iraq invasion?
What are you, psychic?
I'm not telling anyone what to think or say. I am telling narrowminded idiots that what they are doing is extremely damaging to our relationship with Canada. Canadians have forgiven Americans a multitude of sins, thanks to their ability to discern the difference between the American people and the leaders who act on our behalf -- regardless of whether or not their actions are in our best interests.
But when you start pissing off individuals in a society -- especially one that is fiercely proud of its identity (and rightfully so, no matter how many stupid jokes you make about it) and separateness from the U.S. (no matter how blind you are to the differences), then that's when you're asking for trouble.
You need proof? Try this on for size: German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was elected on an anti-war platform.
In other words, you get enough citizens against you, and they are going to elect leaders who don't like you, either.
How much clearer and simpler can I make it than that?
Have you ever seen a snowball roll downhill?
Stop screwing around, people. Your deliberate attempts as individual Americans, to hit back at individual Canadians because our leaders are at odds are going to backfire and do more damage, more permanently, than any one-term president could ever manage.
You are taking away the Canadians' last excuse to remain our friends. You are proving that Americans themselves are vindictive brats.
How short your memory! How fickle, how ungrateful you are! Without Canada, six more Americans would have been forced to endure 444 days in Iranian captivity. Without Canada, some 40,000 Americans wouldn't have had a place to sleep, clothes to wear, or a hot meal to eat while stranded by diverted flights after September 11th.
Canadians have fought beside us, died beside us, and been killed by us (and God only knows what prompted Chrétien to refrain from bringing charges against us). When our forests are ablaze, they send their firefighters, and their best equipment.
And YOU want to throw all that away because their leaders dare stand up for an ideological position in contrast to yours, and -- for the first time in my recollection -- refuse to quietly and meekly follow whatever the U.S. wants? Because Canada's official stance is that this "war" is wrong, just as strongly as you believe it's right?
You shame me. You shame us all.
I wouldn't blame Canada if they built a 3,000-mile wall just to keep unthinking morons like you -- and Pat "Soviet Canuckistan" Buchanan -- out.
End rant.
I've got to stop now. The thought of losing our friendship with Canada -- with Canadians -- is just too much for me to handle right now.
It's like anticipating a death in the family.
Comments
From P---- on 03/27/03
I agree with most of what you say: idiots in America make us all look bad; just like idiots in Canada make all Canadians look bad (the "moron" and "bastards" comments being the tip of an iceberg of a sort of populist anti-Americanism north of the border. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=3212. NAFTA and the post-9/11 snub have helped fuel the fire. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/17/160944.shtml
But my prediction is different than yours. I truly believe that this will prove to be a tempest in a teapot. We are joined at the hip with Canada, both culturally and economically. All thoughtful people on both sides of the border understand this, and appreciate their neighbor. The thoughtful people outnumber the numbskulls on both sides of the border by a very wide margin.
Ultimately, I think this will be a flash in the pan. In the meantime, thoughtful people will continue to cringe at the thought of booing each others' anthems, and casting aspersions like "moron" and "bastard", license plate abuse and refusals on "political" grounds to honor ebay contracts.
-P----
From japagow on 03/27/03
I'm not a religious person. I believe, naively some would say, that people are the same the world over and, that people are essentially GOOD.
Therefore in the wave of media/political activity since 9/11 I felt uncomfortable that here in the UK we were not getting the thoughts of ordinary GOOD Americans. Rather we received the emulsified pap of regurgitated political cant. Written with some agenda in mind.
I am delighted to read your journal (try CKM too, there's a real fight going on there!) It shows that the silence is over and americans are questioning their role in the world.
In journalspace I get the impression that the US is in turmoil over the rights and wrongs of what is going on in Iraq.
Every nation has bigots. Its when they get into power that ordinary GOOD people like you and I have to find our voice and protest.
From BobLoblaw on 03/27/03
I tend to agree with P---- on the Canadian/ American relations issue. The forces of our reasonably compatible economies will prevail over the stupidity and short-sightedness of so many people on both sides and at all levels.
There are many examples of strained relations between our countries which have had very little lasting impact on our generally positive symbiotic history.
From doublethink on 03/27/03
P----,
I know anti-American sentiment is growing north of the border. But -- now, now -- what in the world are you thinking, trying to poison minds with Newsmax, of all things, or a page to a "Canadian nationalist" site? Bad, P----, bad! LOL I do hope you're right, though, about it being a tempest in a teapot -- and yes, while Canada can't practically cut off ties with us, I'd rather the relationship be one of mutual respect, rather than force (by virtue of being, literally and figuratively, joined at the hip).
japagow,
Thanks very much for the kudos and encouragement. It's the "emulsified pap of regurgitated political cant" (brilliant turn of a phrase!) that was the impetus for doublethink.
I don't for a moment pretend that those of us who are against Bush's war, and/or extremely disturbed by the implementation of the Plan for the New American Century are in the majority in the U.S. -- but we do constitute a significant percentage that must not be ignored (and which would be a much stronger political force if the "average American" had the inclination, the analytical ability, and the attention span to educate him/herself).
But thanks to an Orwellian-style press here, you're not getting the complete picture across the pond any more than most Americans are getting at home. When I finally accepted the bitter truth that all my letters and phone calls and faxes to congressional representatives and newspaper editors weren't doing a bit of good, I asked myself what I could be doing that I hadn't yet done. So I started writing here, in the hopes of reaching uninformed Americans, bolstering the flagging spirits of peaceniks, and -- just as important -- touching base with Brits, Aussies, and other "coalition" individuals being unwillingly dragged into a globe-dividing conflict by their leaders.
I can't begin to tell you how happy it makes me to hear that even a single word from me has given you some insight into those of us who cringe in horror at the thought we are being represented overseas by the petty-minded "freedom fries" brigade.
One of these days (when the bombs aren't falling), I'll take up the issue of the pervasive knee-jerk reaction to blame every one of America's ills on Bill Clinton's penis. I bring it up now only to make a point: When Clinton was being grilled about the Lewinsky scandal, a lot of Yanks were horrified by the knowledge that the most intimate details were being broadcast across the globe.
I had a different take: Regardless of what I thought of the whole mess myself, I was actually very proud that the United States was so open about its skeletons-in-the-closet. And regardless of whether or not this openness was a result of sheer sensationalism, I was confident that we would always allow the world to see, to understand, to make sense of, what really goes on within our borders -- no matter how we looked.
After all, we had nothing to hide. Here we are, we said -- love us or hate us, here we are. Warts and all.
Obviously, it's not that way anymore. We've become a society of secrets. Worse, it's not just you who's been shut out of the loop -- our own citizens can't even delve into documents that were publicly accessibly to us just two years ago. And our mainstream media lies to us constantly, whether through spin or omission.
I can't guarantee that the "silence is over." Those of us who disagree with the Bush administration (on any number of principles, not just war) have been effectively cowed by fear of retribution since 9-11. While the entire nation was reeling in shock, legislation was rammed through Congress that can easily be used to lock up dissidents, among other things in direct opposition to our once-reliable Bill of Rights.
I think what you're seeing is a rapidly-growing rise in the number of Americans who realize that their cherished "American way of life" may soon become nothing more than a fond memory if they don't get off their asses now and make themselves heard.
That noise you hear is a bursting at the seams.
Bob,
Just keep reassuring me of that, will you? :)
5:56:56 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 26, 2003
Generally too far to the right for my liking, but nevertheless a true statesman, a gifted and highly-educated writer and speaker, and one of the most respectable human beings ever to walk the halls of Congress:
R.I.P. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Comments
From LostDreamer on 03/26/03
Wow i didnt even know he existed. when did he die?
From P---- on 03/26/03
I couldn't agree more with you, doublethink. One of the finest, most erudite men to ever serve the Republic, a man of impeccable integrity. Generally too far left in his domestic policies for my liking (big surprise, right?), but a man who got there thoughtfully and honestly. This is a real loss to the US and the world. RIP.
From doublethink on 03/27/03
No surprise at all, P----. LOL
Oh, my, I just thought of a great interview question for you...
From P---- on 03/27/03
Wow; that was a tough interview. I'll ask you the same interview question.
I was worried when I first posted about Pat Moynihan that this might be the only time we would find something we could both completely agree on. But as I went through the quiz, I decided there are probably a few other things we would probably agree on:
1. I think gays/lesbians should be allowed to enter into a legal relationship identical to marriage.
2. I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances.
3. I'm close to an ACLUer on 1st Amendment issues.
Yikes. I hope the National Republican Party doesn't see this. I'll be, like, banned!
-P----
From doublethink on 03/27/03
Done and done. Yes, it is tough. :) There are a few other great political tests out there; I'll have to remember to post the links one day.
Oh, I actually believe there are lots of issues we could agree on. Despite my nearly ultra-liberal outcome on the political quiz, I'd label myself an extreme social liberal, but fiscally pretty moderate... which probably makes me a traditional Libertarian in theory. (But theory and practice are seldom in perfect sync.)
Couldn't agree with you more on same-sex unions. I think the bugaboo for the general population is use of the word "marriage," which has all sorts of religious implications -- thus leading people to the misguided conclusion that if "gay marriage" were legalized, their own churches would be forced to sanction marriages against their beliefs. (Which, of course, is silly -- it's up to the discretion of every church whether or not to perform a marriage.)
Yep, I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, for reasons that span the gamut from moral to practical (e.g., it doesn't "un-do" the crime, the cost of the appeals process dwarfs the cost of life imprisonment, etc.). No doubt I'll write a long diatribe on it someday.
Amen to First-Amendment issues. I grit my teeth every time I see the ACLU go to bat for the KKK or Pat Robertson (that case is still pending, I think), but I really will "defend to the death" anyone's right to free speech... even if it kills me. LOL
Other possible areas for agreement that might surprise you:
Gun control. I grew up in a "gun family," and my father was a lifetime NRA member (before they became so political; Dad was actually a moderate-liberal). I love to target-shoot (but I don't hunt, because I can't kill). I can understand the reasoning behind the idea of registering all gun purchases, but what's the point when only law-abiding citizens will register (since career criminals aren't about to?). And, damn it, I'm personally annoyed and inconvenienced by it. LOL
Abortion: I'm dead-set against it on a purely moral basis. That doesn't change the fact that I'm a staunch defender of Roe v. Wade. It means I recognize that I don't have the right to make such moral judgments for others, so I remain pro-choice. (Can't debate the "abortion is murder" argument either way, since my opinion is based on my feelings -- and feelings are no basis for scientific conclusions. Let's just say I feel it would only be murder if I did it.)
Size of government / government intervention. Strangely, limiting the size of the federal government as well as its ability to intervene in the private lives of citizens are two very traditionally conservative (and Jeffersonian) values. But neither seems to resonate with neo-conservatives. In any case, if they are still considered conservative values, then you can call me a traditional conservative in this area.
Nixon: Angry, paranoid, bigoted scoundrel whose biggest mistake was getting caught... BUT a godsend to U.S. foreign relations. If I didn't know what I know about Nixon personally (and, of course, if Watergate hadn't been discovered), I'd actually rate him as one of the most effective presidents of the 20th century. (I stop just short of saying I admire him -- but I do admire many of his accomplishments.)
I also like and admire (generally, with obvious reservations) Eisenhower, Goldwater, and McCain (more if he could figure out which side of the aisle he's really on), and many other old-school conservatives that don't come to mind at the moment.
While I couldn't care less about anything Bill Clinton has ever done with a cigar, and while I sorely miss his leadership, overall I think Bill is a waffler and a hyprocrite, because he presents himself as both much more liberal and much more conservative than he really is, depending on his audience.
I don't like Hillary Clinton for the same reason: She walks like a lib, talks like a lib -- but votes like a con. Can't respect that. Ditto Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Dianne Feinstein, and many others -- complete and utter hypocrites. No spines.
Worst offender: Joe Lieberman. Has a spine, but completely misrepresents himself.
Oh, and I am NO fan of Ralph Nader's -- even though I don't believe for a moment that Nader "cost" Gore Election 2000.
And Al Sharpton gives me the creeps.
Plenty more examples, I'm sure, but I'll stop here.
And, hey, don't put too much stock in the RNC -- look what a pack of hypocrites the DNC has turned out to be! :D
From doublethink on 03/27/03
LostDreamer: Senator Moynihan died yesterday. Read up on him (and read some of his writing) when you get the chance.
Politics can seem like such a drag at times, but when you follow it closely for a long time (I got into it when I was just 12), one day you realize you're quite a "fan" of certain public figures, just like you might be a fan of a movie or pop star.
The downside is that very few politicians (with the possible exception of Bobby Kennedy) turn out sexy. LOL
(On the other hand, I think brains are sexier than looks, any day.)
From P---- on 03/27/03
An actual thinking Dem; I was worried with Scoop Jackson and now Pat Moynihan gone that you guys were maybe extinct :-)
I've read some pundits who say that the move of the DNC to the left due to the 2002 results will make things even worse than they are right now for the party. I doubt it. I think more pols get in trouble for not believing in anything and doing the shuffle a la Clinton/Bush Sr. If it hadn't been for his personal charisma, I think Clinton would have gotten skunked in 1996 (though I never underestimate the ability of the GOP to shoot itself in the foot. Both parties seem to be equally adept at this lately, though historically the GOP was the clear winner in the shot-foot department.)
I agree about the cigar issue - frankly think it's no one's business, including the government's, what goes on in a person's bedroom (or Oval Office, as the case may be :-); though Clinton lying about it was pretty rancid.
Al Sharpton - bless his heart - is a pretty funny and self-effacing guy, though a complete lunatic. I'd love to see him get the Dem Prez nomination in 2004. Unless his Generals totally foul up this war, Dubya is a lock for 2004 against anybody the Dems can field. Might as well make the race interesting; Sharpton would do that. :-)
I loved Nader's comment the other day about the fact that given the "official" 600ish vote margin in Florida, the Socialist Worker's Party (or one of the fringe left parties; can't remember which) with a thousand or so votes was just as much a spoiler as he was.
On abortion, I do think it should be illegal, but I get there a very different way than mainstream prolifers, using a liberal (in the classical sense) analysis. That's a discussion for another day.
And gun control is a total non-issue to me; I've never owned a gun, don't care to, and haven't spent enough time thinking about gun control issues to have made my mind up. (My hunting background includes only ants, which I fried with a magnifying glass at age 10, and for which I am truly repentant.)
Glad to know you.
-P----
5:44:46 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 26, 2003
"Break"? Am I taking a break from journaling? Not on your terror-filled life.
Later today, I'm going to be getting into some material that's going to take a bit of reading and serious thinking (on your part and mine) to digest -- which is exactly why I need to recharge my batteries for a moment.
So -- before I think any more deep, dark thoughts, or reply to a single comment -- I offer this release... which is a lot healthier than bashing one's head against a wall until the fog clears:
We need a serious laugh, folks. No, no, not the hopeless "We're all going to die!" hysterical wail-of-despair kind of laugh -- I mean the gut-busting-until-you think-you're-about-to-do-a-mischief-in-your-pants kind of laugh.
(Yes, it really, truly is okay to laugh, no matter how horrible and depressing the world gets. In fact, it's an absolute requirement if you expect to retain even a shred of sanity. So, I hereby give you permission to bust a gut.)
Notice at right (scroll down to "Lefty Laughs") is a new menu full of links to sites guaranteed to crack up lefties, liberals, radical faeries, onetime-Yippies, and other demonized minorities. Enjoy. Just remember that all have a severe slant to the left, and most will offend the hell out of anybody whose political leanings are to the right of "moderately centrist." Or "centrist moderate." Or DINOs (Democrats In Name Only). So, if you are Joe Lieberman, do not click these links.
Prerequisite knowledge of the age-old battle between left and right is not required, but makes everything a lot funnier.
A sense of humor (that thing Republicans keep saying the rest of us don't have) is required.
Now, before you get to those links, I've got one for you that nearly made me lose control of several bodily functions at once from laughing too hard. (Lesson: Before viewing, empty your bladder, do not consume liquids or anything else that could spray across the keyboard and onto the screen, and remove the sleeping cat from your lap. Trust me on this. Especially the part about the cat. It's easier to wipe Dr. Pepper off a monitor than it is to get blood out of your 501's.)
First, if you haven't seen it already, you have to go look at the Ready.gov site (link below). Yes, it's a real site, from the real United States government. (The URL has been on all those anti-terrorism public service announcements you've been ignoring on TV.)
Ready.gov is the Department of Homeland Security's official online instruction manual for keeping you, Mr. or Ms. American, safe (or at least alive) in the event of a terrorist attack, nuclear explosion, or other sort of catastrophe we are all quickly learning to expect in the very near future, thanks to the persistent efforts of Tom "I Need to Justify My Job" Ridge to instill the fear-o'-God in all of us (and you thought that was John Ashcroft's job!), as well as the endless glow of today's color-coded alert on CNN (proud sponsor of the Ministry of Truth since 1998).
It appears that Tommy's people aren't exactly earning their paychecks; those of us old enough to remember the early days of the Cold War absorbed most of this "duck and cover"-flavored info while diving under our desks during a good, old-fashioned, mock Russian nuking -- and the site illustrations appear to have been cut out of a 1970s-era airline instruction card. (Notice there isn't a single non-Caucasian represented in the pics.)
About the only new stuff the Civil Defense Depart-- I mean, Homeland Security -- has come up with has to do with asphyxiating yourself inside your home as an answer to the threat of bad airborne things. (Like gnats. I've found the asphyxiation technique works better than Raid® on even the worst gnat problem. And the good news is, you'll probably live long enough to see the little suckers take their last breath before you take yours!)
But you've had it up to here with all that, right? Plastic sheeting and duct tape is, like, so five minutes ago.
So it's your choice if you want to browse the whole site, but nothing is as fun as the section you'll be sent to by this link -- the pictures!
Browse through the sections shown by the icons (Biological, Chemical, Explosions, Nuclear Blast, and Radiation Threat), and make sure to look at the visual guide for each section.
Now, go check it all out, and, when you're good and terrified, come back. I'll still be here.
Done? Good. You're ready for the fun stuff:
Don't be afraid. . .be ready!
And...
Remember, you must reach exactly 88 mph and hit the dangling power line in order for the flux capacitor to operate properly.
There's another good -- and sharp-edged -- Ready.gov parody right here. It was a tough choice, but I had to give this one second place. Quite worth it, however!
This one also deserves a mention, because it mimicks the layout of the Ready.gov site (and may have been the first Ready.gov parody on the Web) -- but it's too short, and only a few of the links actually work. Worth a look if you haven't got enough of this stuff yet.
Finally, thanks to jadedgrrl, who, by posting the link to another good collection of Ready.gov "art," unknowingly inspired me to go surfing and find more.
Comments
From jadedgrrl on 03/26/03
ohhh. whoa. i inspired someone. that makes me feel good :)
5:22:33 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 25, 2003
The U.S. ambassador to Canada let fly at the Canadian government Tuesday, complaining about its lack of support for the Iraq war and its failure to discipline Liberals who criticize the U.S.
Paul Cellucci said "a lot of people in Washington are upset" with Canada for not backing the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
And he said Ottawa "could do a better job" at controlling Liberals...
U.S, ambassador complains about Canadian policy, politicians
CBC
March 25, 2003
Bear in mind, Cellucci is referring to Canada's Liberal Party, not to "liberals" (meaning "progressives").
So why should you care?
Because the notion of "disciplining" and "controlling" the speech of any individual or political party by a federal government is dangerously close to fascism.
Because it sends a signal directly from the Bush administration that silencing dissent is acceptable to this administration.
Because if they think Canada should "control" the expression of its political parties, it must be perfectly acceptable to the United States to control the expression of its own political parties.
Because our number-one representative to Canada had the temerity to suggest such a thing publicly.
Because our relationship with Canada is becoming more strained by the day.
Because this is the second time a U.S. ambassador has had the audacity to scold a foreign country for its own domestic policies, which are none of his -- or our -- business. (Tom Schieffer, U.S. ambassador to Australia, won no new fans down under when he stuck his nose where it doesn't belong, in February.)
No wonder "arrogance" is becoming a synonym for "Americanism."
Comments
From jadedgrrl on 03/25/03
ohhhhh. whoa. i didn't get a chance to read the journal here. wowsers.
From P---- on 03/25/03
Here's how Iraq "controls the expression" of its citizens: "Outside Basra, British intelligence officers said there had been an uprising against forces loyal to Saddam Hussein - and that members of the Ba'ath party in the city had begun firing into crowds with mortars." Now that's enforcing discipline! http://www.iht.com/articles/91092.html
Anyone have any doubt that more Iraqis will be deliberately killed by their countrymen during this war than by the evil American imperialist invaders?
From LGBTBinat on 03/25/03
Being Australian, I was rather shocked when the US ambassador to Australia, stuck his nose into OUR foreign policy.
He was so lucky Howard is a Coward and didn't boot the bastard out of the country. I think if the ALP was in charge, the US ambassador would have been booted out of the country, on the spot.
This is just not on, and this is WHY the American people are getting a bad wrap overseas.
And please don't come back at me saying I am anti American, because it simply isn't true. The great love of my life, happens to be American.
From doublethink on 03/25/03
Irrelevant, P---- . To use your own words, you are comparing apples to oranges.
Or, to put it more pointedly, you attempting to excuse a breach of conduct by the United States by distraction.
I'll debate with you all you want, if you address the topic directly. Otherwise, I'll start deleting comments.
From P---- on 03/25/03
Here's doublethink blasting the US for wishing the Canadian government could better control Chretien's lickspittleism: "Because the notion of "disciplining" and "controlling" the speech of any individual or political party by a federal government is dangerously close to fascism."
vs.
doublethink blasting P---- for pointing out what he views as doublespeak: "I'll debate with you all you want, if you address the topic directly. Otherwise, I'll start deleting comments.
And all in a single thread! Well done, my friend.
Salaam aleikum. YHL.
-P----
From LGBTBinat on 03/25/03
P---- , you are truly what the world outside of your borders class as an "obnoxious yank!"
It is the far right that gives all Americans a bad wrap, and you are just proving that here, by slamming doublethink for what "HER" beliefs are.
If you can't handle the fact that your government is trying to control every damned country in the world, then might I suggest you hang with your far right buddies, and stay the hell away from leftists whose beliefs are different from yours.
From doublethink on 03/25/03
There's nothing fascist about deleting comments that are off-topic. Ask any discussion-list moderator.
Now, if you want to talk on-topic, I'm all ears.
See, P---- , this is exactly why I am constantly on the defense with you. Just when you enter a long, thoughtful comment that makes me want to reply to you just as thoughtfully and considerately, you turn right around and give me cause to question your motives all over again.
How do you expect me to believe in your sincerity -- and make me want to engage in a genuine two-way discussion with you -- when all I can surmise is that you are waiting for the next opportunity to attack or entrap me?
Do I do this in your journal? No.
Why choose me as the target of your anger with the peace movement? You want somebody who reaches a hell of a lot more minds than I will ever be able to influence? Go talk to Molly Ivins. Or Ted Rall. Or James Carville.
Yes, I'm more than open to reasoned debate. What I am not open to is any attempt to twist my words, or accuse me of hypocrisy, or throw up a smokescreen as a distraction from the topic of hand.
You don't like what I have to say? It irritates you so much that you're compelled to lash out? Simple solution: Don't read it, P---- . It's as simple as that.
From P---- on 03/25/03
That's just wrong, doublethink. I do like what you have to say. I strongly disagree with what you say, but I like how you say it. You're a lot better than most in saying what you believe in. That's why I think a lot of people on your side of this issue like to come here and read your stuff: you say it better than most of them can say it themselves. You get to say for them things that they feel deeply, but don't have your abilities to express. That's a good thing.
The way I see it, we should take this war business very seriously. But we should never take ourselves seriously. Life's too short.
Maybe we just have different ideas about what a blog is supposed to be. If it's just a soapbox, that's one thing. I view it more as a community, with vigorous debate. (I know I can find debate on these issues on the newsgroups or mailing lists, but the quality of debate gets so poor so fast - flamewars - that it's usually a waste of time. On blogs, you can find worthy opponents.)
I'll leave you alone if you like, but I think we'd both be worse off for it. Let me know.
Salaam.
-P----
PS: Loosen up, my friend.
PPS: I would never pick Molly Ivins to debate with. She isn't intellectually honest. I think you are.
From LostDreamer on 03/25/03
wow, you guys are too intellectual for me to understand anything you were arguing over. i think what i understood was that canada is wanting to punish people for free speech. is that right? i never understood politics. i cant even figure out what is happening with the war because i have no idea what anyone is saying on the news.
its like what are they saying and what does it mean?
i am glad you can understand it.
From LGBTBinat on 03/25/03
Basically in short. America is trying to control every other countries government. They stepped in here in Australia recently, and said some nasty remarks about the Canadian government today as well.
From doublethink on 03/25/03
LostDreamer, it's kind of like this:
Let's say there's a Burger King right next-door to a McDonald's. And let's say that, on the other side of the world, there's another burger place called Hungry Jack's.
Burger King and Hungry Jack's are two different branches of a bigger company, but each one runs its own business as it sees fit. They depend on each other to bring money into the parent company, but the way they make money is up to each of them, individually.
One day, the head of Burger King calls up the head of Hungry Jack's and says, "Hey, buddy, I hear that one of your employees is dissing Burger King. I want you to make him stop that. It makes Burger King look bad."
And the head of Hungry Jack's says, "You're telling me how to deal with my employees? What makes you think you have the right to do that? Don't you realize that Burger King and Hungry Jack's are working for the same goal -- to bring more money into the company that owns us both? Well, I'm not going to let you tell me how to run my branch of the operation. I don't have to answer to you. You can kiss my toasted hamburger buns!"
A month later, the head of Burger King calls up the head of McDonald's, and says, "Hey, buddy, I hear that one of your employees is dissing Burger King. I want you to make him stop that. It makes Burger King look bad."
So the head of McDonald's turns around and says, "I don't give a damn what our employees say about Burger King. You're no friend of ours. We've tried to be nice to you, but your employees keep saying nasty things about Big Macs all the time. You mind your own business, and we'll mind ours."
The head of Burger King doesn't like this. The head of Burger King thinks he's got the right to tell both Hungry Jack's (which is owned by the same company) and McDonald's (which is a direct competitor) how to run their businesses, and how their employees should act.
Okay, LostDreamer, you tell me:
Does Burger King have the right to do this?
And should McDonald's and Hungry Jack's be pissed off at Burger King for telling them what to do?
From jadedgrrl on 03/25/03
omg. lmaooooooooooooooo!
From P---- on 03/26/03
Great example, doublethink! LostDreamer, does that help you to understand what's going on?
The only part of the story that doublethink's example leaves out is the part about why Burger King is so doggoned upset!
You see, there's this Taco Bell down the street that is in this big shareholder's dispute- a leveraged buyout is being attempted!
And any Taco Bell employees who support the leveraged buyout are obliterated by Taco Bell's management, using chemical weapons and horizontal artillery fire! And Burger King thinks that's a pretty bad management style! Plus, Burger King would really like to see that leveraged buyout succeed!
But doublethink's point is this: who does Burger King think it is, telling these other burger chains what they should be doing about Taco Bell?! It's up to the other chains to figure this out for themselves!
Did I get it right, doublethink?
Salaam aleikum.
-P----
From BobLoblaw on 03/26/03
I thought I might add a Canadian perspective to this thread.
Prior to the breakdown of diplomacy (although the Americans and the French to some extent never exercised true diplomacy) Canada/US relations were spiralling downward. The US has been seen as increasingly protectionist in its economic and social policies which, generally speaking, has had a negative impact on Canada.
Our Prime Minister (don't worry, we'll have a new one soon) has a knack for mixing occasional eloquence with cyclical gibberish. In his own way though, He has managed to capture the stance of the majority of Canadians. His Liberal Party is a very loyal bunch for a variety of reasons (all of which boil down to keeping their cushy jobs).
We are in a constant debate here as to whether or not we are being anti-American. I for one don't care about how my country is viewed by your current administration. I believe that our economic co-dependence (we buy 25% of your exports, you buy 90% of ours) will over ride the brief period in your history when your country has committed the classic "fools rush in..." error. If our diplomatic position saves us from even a little bit of the wrath your country will have brought upon itself, then I am thankful for it.
From dsdhall on 03/26/03
What a refreshing change. I like this, people able to actually have an intelligent debate! Hooray!
From LostDreamer on 03/26/03
doublethink...wow that cleared it up very nicely...burger king should not do that at all, they have no right. by the way who is burger king representitive of? america? and who is mc donalds? canada? and who is hungry jacks? australia? i wonder if i got it right cause if i did then woohoo i am smart.
P---- !!! you poo head i love taco bell!! i will pretend you used something else as an example of iraq... hmmm...nevermind. it just an example...hahahahaa
thanks doublethink for talking aobut something i can understand, food!! if only politics were as simple as food. and as tastey.
5:19:48 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 25, 2003
The thought police catch up with Courtland Milloy.
5:02:28 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 25, 2003
They hate us -- they really hate us.
On the heels on yesterday's concerns about Russian technicians stationed in Iraq to jam GPS systems and the like (and the question of whether or not we are going to meet Russian soldiers ready to defend the Iraqis), I give you this unsettling series of developments:
- Iraqi ex-patriates are returning from Jordan to defend their country.
- "Thousands of Arab Mujahedeen" from Afghanistan, 2,500 Lebanese, and 700 Algerians are now in Iraq for the explicit purpose of fighting American troops, and performing "martyrdom operations against the Americans." (The link is down as I write this, but evidence of the article can still be found in Google's cache.)
- Russia feels threatened by the prospect of the U.S. declaring war on them. (This comes from Pravda -- hardly the last bastion of truth, but Pravda does tell you what the Russian people are hearing from their own government, and it's an excellent barometer for gauging the national mood.)
- China and Pakistan have "agreed to keep close contact on the Iraq crisis with a view to prevent the suffering of the Iraqi people. ... Both sides opposed military action and underlined the need for its immediate end. The war is not the solution of the problem, the two premiers added."
Now you know understand why Junior should have listened to Poppy.
Makes Germany's growing boycott of American products seem like small potatoes (or "freedom fries"), doesn't it?
5:01:35 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 25, 2003
Click.
Comments
From LGBTBinat on 03/25/03
Wow! I really don't know what to say.
I don't support the war, and am having a hard time trying to support the troops as well, but I certainly don't advocate the killing of innocent people.
I feel so sorry for the person who wrote that, as well as the wife and children of the dead soldier.
Thank you for posting this in your blog.
From jadedgrrl on 03/25/03
all i got was this:
Object not found!
The requested URL was not found on this server. If you entered the URL manually please check your spelling and try again.
If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster
Error 404
www.democraticunderground.com
Tue Mar 25 13:38:31 2003
Apache
From doublethink on 03/25/03
Hey, jadedgrrl,
It's working for me -- could be DU was acting up under a heavy server load. Give it another try -- and if it still doesn't work for you, I'll excerpt some of the letter for you here. (The reason I haven't excerpted it is that it loses impact unless read in full.)
From jadedgrrl on 03/25/03
i tried both from work and here at home. still not able to access it. checked my browser settings and everything there seems ok. i'm not sure why i can't access it? if you could post it, i would be grateful. thanks.
From doublethink on 03/25/03
Sure thing, jade, here you go. It's edited for length and obvious profanity, but it still packs a hell of a punch.
In short, the writer -- who lost a family member in the Gulf -- received a "joke" e-mail (which is included at the very end) about punching out peace activists, and this is the writer's response to the person who sent it to him:
After losing a member of my family already in this attack on Iraq, the gloves are coming off! I'm still shaking and sobbing. F---!!F---!!F--- THEM!! How f---ing dare they!!!!
To xxxxx,
Man am I disappointed that you of all people would spread this hateful crap around. Just what the world needs, more violence. Yea I'm a god damn Peace Activist who would not only defend myself but would also use the law to it's fullest extent to prosecute anyone that assaulted me. Which BTW, assault is still ILLEGAL. It's probably not a good idea to advocate illegal behavior through the internet as I know it is also illegal to do so.
But since you decided to send this garbage around you should at least get your facts straight. Remember osama bin laden? Other wise known as osama been forgotten? The master mind behind 9-11? When Bush said HE was the one that did it. Then all of the sudden 9 months later obl morphed into saddam h. and Iraq somehow...
BTW Have you seen this: (insert photo of rummy and saddam shaking hands here)
... Remember rumsfeld? He's the one that said "draftees in Vietnam were of no real value." NO VALUE? Somebodys drafted son gets killed in Vietnam and rumsfeld had the f---ing gall to say they were of no real value?
... And again since you brought this up, I DO support the troops! I want them HOME safe and sound. With their families, watching their kids grow up. Going to graduations and walking daughters down the aisle on their wedding days. So before you give people like me a bad rap because we support PEACE, ask yourself-What kind of person supports war? I mean what kind of person supports, advocates and cheers for human beings on both sides to be slaughtered? Haven't we learned yet?
... Maybe in ten years you can explain to my nieces and nephews why you were so eager to send their Daddy to attack another country and oops, sorry your Daddy was killed and oh to bad the Bush administration slashed the military benefits to you and your Mommy. Yea Kids, your Daddy gave his life for his country, a brave man, a great honor and sacrafice he made for his country. WHERE THE F--- IS YOUR SUPPORT FOR OUR TROOPS NOW? In wanting them to go attack another country, completely unprovoked, to be captured, tortured, shot, blown up? While at the same time NOT screaming about the Veterans Benefits and Military Benefits being slashed and cut by this administration? How dare you advocate violence unto me?
I have already LOST a family member in this unprovoked attack on Iraq. My sadness for his wife and children I can not express in words. Those kids have LOST their F---ING DADDY! My niece will not get to know her uncle either. She and her cousins will hear stories about him and stories only cause he is F---ING DEAD! DEAD IS FOREVER! My RAGE and ANGER however are another story and it's not geared towards the Iraqi people. It's towards this administration who created this farce in the first place and to those who swallow their bull---- hook, line and sinker, and think that just because people like me advocate PEACE we do not support our troops and then to have anyone advocate and spread the hate and violence onto people like me. That is just disgusting. If you are so wanting violence, go sign up. Go volunteer yourselves to go kill other human beings while at the same time putting yourselves at risk. I'll support you.
... Those of us advocating PEACE are not the ones NOT supporting our fighting men and women. Bush tells you one thing but does the complete opposite.
... Here, You want some violence? Enjoy!
(pictures of halfheaded girl, no feet girl, etc)
Enjoy your f---ing war!
-------Original Message-------
From:xxxxx Date: Monday, March 24, 2003 11:02:55 PM
To: A whole bunch of people)
Subject: (no subject)
With all of this war that is taking place, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror.
These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:
1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.
2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.
- eom -
From jadedgrrl on 03/25/03
thanks for posting that for me... it's very disturbing that people are sending that crap around. but then again it's disturbing to think that many americans believe that iraqis directly terrorized them.
i was reading an article this evening you may find interesting it's titled the "The Psychology of Terrorism" by Clark R. McCauley, Professor of Psychology, Bryn Mawr College.
you can find it here:
http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/mccauley.htm
From doublethink on 03/25/03
Thanks for the link, jade -- right up my alley. It will be my morning reading. :)
From jadedgrrl on 03/25/03
you're welcome :)
5:00:02 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 24, 2003
It certainly gets tiring waiting for the U.S. media to catch up with the rest of the world.
This hit the U.S. newswires today:
U.S. Believes Russians in Baghdad Are Aiding Iraq
The United States believes Russian private sector technicians are in Baghdad helping train Iraqis to use electronic jamming systems that could endanger U.S. forces fighting Iraq, U.S. officials said on Monday.
Reuters
March 24, 2003
This is news? This is a surprise? Those of us who keep our ears to the rails have known something like this was coming for nearly three weeks:
Thousands of Russians volunteer to defend Iraq
Around ten thousand Russian citizens have applied for entry visas into Iraq to defend this country against the planned aggression by the warmongering USA and UK, according to the Iraqi Embassy in Moscow.
Iraqi Ambassador to Moscow, Abbas Khalaf, declared last week that the Embassy had received around 3,500 requests, a number which has multiplied in the last few days, according to sources in the same Embassy.
The requests come from young males, some with combat experience, who describe themselves as "volunteers" who are willing to defend Iraq against the illegal armed aggression of the USA and the United Kingdom...
Pravda
March 6, 2003
The only surprise is that we've stumbled across Russian "private sector technicians" instead of Russian soldiers.
So far.
Let's see what we find when we get to Baghdad.
On the other hand, are these "private sector technicians"? Or are these Russians military? (Who better to jam electronic military gadgetry than military spooks?)
What I find so eerie is the similarity of this situation to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. In a nutshell, we helped the Afghans fight off the Russians (by arming the Taliban, mind you). Many of us were surprised that Russia would retreat -- but they did.
I wonder -- I hope not, but I wonder -- if this is (in addition to Russia's publicly-stated reasons) payback for Russia's humilating retreat from Afghanistan? And (again, I hope I'm wrong) I wonder if history is about to repeat itself, only with the U.S. and Russia trading places in the outcome. (A relative handful of Russians is no match for us, but who says their numbers won't grow?)
I don't have blinders on -- Russia is no fan of Muslim nations. Russia has its own oil interests in Iraq to protect. They're not doing this for any humanitarian reasons.
The point is simply that they're doing it at all.
Incidentally, the Reuters' story also includes one of the biggest "Well, DUH!" remarks I've heard all week:
President Bush telephoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to protest alleged Russian sales of night-vision goggles, antitank missiles and global positioning system (GPS) jamming systems to Iraq, the White House said. U.S. officials said such sales would violate U.N. sanctions.
"It's the kind of equipment that will put our young men and women in harm's way," Secretary of State Colin Powell told Fox News Channel, without identifying the materiel. "It gives an advantage to the enemy, an advantage we don't want them to have."
And what do you expect the Iraqis to do, in the face of coalition forces with state-of-the-art "night-vision goggles, antitank missiles and global positioning system jamming systems" at their disposal? Give them up and promise to fight with rocks and bats?
To my little warmongering friends reading this: You know, we can go back and forth all we want about the legality of this invasion, whether being pro- or anti-war has anything to do with "supporting the troops," or any other thing you like.
But in the end, you need to face up to one cold fact: Right or wrong, the world is pissed off at us, in a big way -- and there are not enough U.S., British, and Australian troops on the entire planet, or enough bombs, guns, or grenades in our entire combined arsenal, to take on every opposing army if they decide to gang up on us and put a stop to our military action right now.
Sure, we can nuke a few cities before somebody else gets off a single missile, but by that time, it's really going to be too late to turn back.
I'm not talking about our "integrity" now. I'm talking about our survival -- as a nation, and as a species.
Melodramatic? I don't think so. And if you stop to consider that the prospect of global annihilation is exactly what kept us all so nervous throughout forty very long years of the Cold War, you'll realize just how close we are to turning that fear into reality.
In the 1980s, someone (I've forgotten who) compared the nuclear threat to two men sitting in a bathtub full of gasoline -- with each storing up a supply of matches.
It only takes one match.
And Donald Rumsfeld admits, albeit cagily, that frying Iraq with nukes is not out of the question.
If you disagree with every other reason I offer for ending this conflict and never pursuing another unprovoked attack, then consider this one: We are talking about your ass here. Your life, and the lives of your loved ones.
Don't tune me out on this. I want you to survive, so that we may both live to argue another day about other issues, which by comparison are laughably inconsequential.
Instead of filling your head with video-game images of tanks trundling across the desert tonight, go out and rent some movies:
Testament
The Day After
On the Beach
(either the original or the remake)
And then give what I've said here some very serious thought.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
-- Albert Einstein
Comments
From LGBTBinat on 03/25/03
As usual, another briliantly written article from my favorite blogger.
Keep up the excellent work. Hopefully it will help in waking some sheeple, and saving the lives of thousands of allied troops, and Iraqi people and kids.
From doublethink on 03/25/03
Ooo, "favorite blogger"! I'm honored. :)
As I've said before, I only wish I had the power to save the world. But if anything I put here nudges just one pro-war American (or Brit, or Aussie) to even consider, even momentarily, the ramifications of what they're supporting, I'll be satisfied.
4:50:13 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 24, 2003
...and talking points when they accuse us of un-Americanism. (Do take the time to click the links and read both pieces in full.)
Dear New York Media...
Why are you using language declaring anti-war protestors do not 'support' the Americans forces who are fighting in Iraq? Isn't this an extremely - and deliberately - manipulative attempt to convince the public that anti-war protesters are by definition anti-American? ...
Perhaps it is too embarrassing for NY1 to run a headline that reads "Rallies To Support War Follows Massive Anti-War March," since we Americans like to think of ourselves as peaceful people -- but it would be more accurate than the headline you did use...
Who Really Supports Our Troops
BuzzFlash
Many in the pro-Bush, pro-war crowd feel they are distinguishing themselves apart from the anti-war crowd by assembling under the banner of 'supporting our troops.'
However, it has been my experience that most everyone -- regardless of whether or not they support the war -- supports our men and women in uniform. In fact, I've yet to hear one anti-war activist claim otherwise...
This being so, why does the so-called 'Support Our Troops' movement feel the need to rally under a bogus cause that doesn't adequately set them apart from their opposition? It's simple: because their true passion -- supporting war -- doesn't attract as many people, nor does it cast them in the same moral light as the peace activists...
Worse yet, the 'Support Our Troops' crowd is almost pathologically bent on silencing dissent.
They will actually tell you, with a straight face, that the peace activists are anti-American traitors. Even though the anti-war crowd has repeatedly expressed its support of the troops despite its opposition to war, the pro-war fanatics have repeatedly demonstrated their inability to support speech they don't agree with...
Who Really Supports Our Troops: Part II
BuzzFlash
4:45:04 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 24, 2003
Warmongers, if the spew you keep regurgitating wasn't such a pack of lies, it would almost be amusing. How long are you going to keep parroting Rush "You Too Can Dodge the Draft Because of a Pimple on Your Ass" Limbaugh and his ilk and continue to accuse the rest of us of being anti-military, anti-American, and providing "aid and comfort to the enemy"?
I guess it's nearly impossible for some people to digest the concept that one can be opposed to military action while supporting the troops (in wishing them safe, and wishing them home).
...Or the revelation that we despise Saddam just as much as you do -- but we rail against the wholesale slaughter of both enlisted personnel and innocent bystanders in a misguided holocaust designed to oust the bastard.
...Or the idea that one's love of country can be so deep and unconditional that opposing the illegal actions of an unelected president is in itself proof of one's patriotism -- without said patriotism dissolving into jingoism and Communist-style witch hunts.
...Or the idea that the majority of us agree that war is sometimes necessary -- when we are attacked, or when we are called in to defend a friend who is attacked -- without selling our souls (as did the vast majority of spineless congressional Democrats) and giving a single man the power to wage war on a whim -- for financial gain, for power, or for a personal vendetta.
...Or the idea that we too are deeply concerned about domestic security -- moreso, mind you, since your unelected president has stoked the wrath of not only a host of Islamic nations, but Kim Il Jung, and has so alienated the affections of our allies-in-name-only that there may be no one to help us once the missiles start flying toward our Pacific Coast. But we refuse to live in a permanent state of undeclared martial law -- which is merely an excuse for the federal government to pry into our personal lives, and achieves nothing toward our protection.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither.
That said, I direct your attention to two short pieces that reiterate the reasons we oppose this attack. I grow weary of trying to make you understand that we, too, love our country. That we are patriots. That if we did not love the United States of America so deeply, so fiercely, so passionately, we would not fight against the forces that threaten the complete destruction of our mutual well-being, of our international relationships, and of American democracy itself.
Perhaps these two short pieces will explain it all to you better than I:
Ingenious posted the words of the eloquent Sen. Robert Byrd. Well worth a read. (And, to all you rightwingers who think you can hold up Sen. Byrd as an example in hypocrisy for his former stand on civil rights, I remind you that Byrd has renounced his previous views... unlike, oh, Trent Lott and Jesse Helms, just for starters.)
Democratic Underground has temporarily replaced its usual busy front page with an equally eloquent treatise. Take a look while it's up.
4:43:13 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 24, 2003
Good afternoon, George. Well, maybe not it's not a very good afternoon at all. Those nasty Iraqis have had the gall to disobey your orders to disobey their orders, and as a result are gunning down our young men and women, and setting fire to the oil wells. (I'm currently taking bets on which situation causes you more personal grief.)
And that darned Saddam doesn't seem to be exactly... well, dead, does he?
Around 3:42am EST, ABC News reported on Saddam's televised speech to the Iraqi people. Of Saddam's praise for the performance of Iraqi soldiers in the attack on Umm Qasr, ABC News' John Cochran said, "[This looks like] bad news for the president and the coalition forces... This would indicate that [Saddam] has spoken ... within the last 24 hours or so... Could he have guessed this [the outcome of the attack] two weeks ago? ... American officials will be disappointed in this speech."
Of course, Cochran was referring to initial U.S. reports that Saddam had probably been killed in Wednesday night's first barrage of bombs -- and then, subsequent reports that he was "seriously injured" in Thursday night's attacks.
Which sounds awfully familiar. (Osama who?)
That Saddam appeared neither "dead" nor "seriously injured" during his speech was lost on neither Cochran nor yours truly.
In fact, he looked pretty damn hardy and hale. And you said yesterday morning that "Saddam is losing his grip."
I don't think Saddam is the one losing his grip, Dubs.
4:39:43 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 24, 2003
Face it, Georgie Boy, things are not boding well for coalition forces. Your "strategery" is killing our youngest and bravest. Everything we peaceniks feared is happening, right now, and you're either in total denial, or you think the American people really are stupid enough to buy your Stepford-like repetition that "we are making progress":
One [U.S. Marine] officer said: "The fighting has got worse with each day. So much for the walkover we were told to expect."
What started as a skirmish with a few armed Iraqis near a port in the south turned into the Battle of Umm Qasr, a full-blown pyrotechnic display of mainly American military muscle. In spite of 150 US Marines, four main battle tanks, an FA18 warplane and an RAF Harrier jump-jet, the Iraqis stood firm...
On the outskirts of the port, which British troops need to open swiftly to get the humanitarian operation under way, US Marines swung a line of Bradley fighting vehicles towards a rusting warehouse where they believed that a group of officers was holed up...
By late last night the US Marines were thinking of calling in yet more weaponry, this time Cobra attack helicopters, but they had too little time to organise the mission. Instead, three ½in-calibre sniper rifles were used and they were banging away by nightfall, but still not neutralising the target. "Fire! Fire!" a soldier screamed. "They are using binos to spot against us. Fire! Fire!"
If the display of firepower had not been so devastating, the whole operation might have been comical.
"If the Americans are like this when they have one building to deal with, what are they going to be like when they get to Baghdad?" a British officer asked.
How a walkover turned into a three-day battle
The Times Online
March 24, 2003
Doesn't sound like we're going to wrap things up quite as quickly and cleanly as you expected, does it, Georgie?
Tell me, Tex, what's going to happen when sympathy for the Iraqis and global Muslim outrage runs so high that Muslims outside Iraq decide to take us on?
Oh, I forgot! Some of them are already planning to do just that:
About 400 members of the hard-line Islamic Defenders’ Front gathered outside the [U.S. embassy in Indonesia], held up signs, listened to speeches, and signed up volunteers to go help defend Iraq.
MSNBC
March 23, 2003
Georgie, Georgie, Georgie. No matter how many times you insist this is not a "war on Islam" -- whether you really believe that or not -- the hard truth is that millions, perhaps billions, of Muslims around the world see it very much as a war on Islam. Holy war, Georgie. Jihad. Intifada.
And whatever happened to all those visions your spin doctors planted in our heads, about scenes of the Iraqi people greeting coalition forces with open arms, and dancing in the streets at their "liberation"?
All I've seen is a single video clip of a single Iraqi mugging for the camera as he bangs a shoe on the face of a giant Saddam poster being torn from a wall by a U.S. Marine.
Jeezuspleezus, Georgie -- if storm troopers invaded your town with AK-47's and camera crews, it would be in your best interest to diss Big Brother, too.
In any case, I'm hardly the only one to notice that the Iraqi people (whom we seem to be "liberating" from nothing other than their own lives and limbs) aren't exactly running to meet the troops with bouquets and chocolates:
Safwan, Iraq -- They were unforgettable images: Residents of this southern Iraqi town openly welcoming coalition forces. They danced in the streets as a picture of Saddam Hussein was torn down.
That was yesterday.
Traveling unescorted into Safwan today, I got a far different picture. Rather than affection and appreciation, I saw a lot of hostility toward the coalition forces, the United States and President Bush.
John Donvan
Slow Aid and Other Concerns Fuel Iraqi Discontent Toward United States
ABC News
March 22, 2003
Is it so inconceivable to you that the Iraqis are going to fight back? And that their sympathizers are going to help them?
After all, if, say, Palestine suddenly had the firepower to launch a successful invasion (and I mean invasion, not suicide-bombing) of Israel -- and did -- wouldn't we be the first ones into the fray to protect the Israelis?
You protect your friends.
But maybe you're just incapable of understanding what it means to be a true friend. Just as a true friend won't let you drink and drive, a true friend will tell you the truth, even when it's painful to hear. And if you're a true friend in return, you won't end the friendship just because you don't like what you hear. You appreciate that your friend is trying to keep your ass out of trouble.
That's what France tried to do, Georgie. France was being a true friend. But you are not a grown-up.
Speaking of friends, have you talked to the Saudis lately? You remember them -- the ones who keep raping and torturing their own people in ways that would impress even Saddam (who had nothing to do with 9-11, remember)... you know, Osama's family... the ones who bankrolled the 9-11 hijackers (which makes sense, since most them were Saudis -- not Iraqis)... the ones you let slip out of the country on 9-11 when all commercial flights were shut down... the country your Homeland Security Department did not initially include on the list of 18 nationalities whose male visitors to the U.S. were required to register with the INS... You remember them?
I hope so, because your old friends the Saudis have something to say to you:
Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al Faisal, has urged the United States to "have a breather" in its invasion of Iraq and give the United Nations another chance to disarm the country peacefully...
Prince Saud condemned the invasion's aim of destroying the Iraqi Government as "outside of the framework of international legality", and warned that rebuilding what has been destroyed will be a dangerous, difficult task.
Saudis tell Bush: take a breather, give UN another try
Sydney Morning Herald
March 24, 2003
Really, Georgie, when the Saudis are telling you to back off, even you have got to realize what a lousy idea this whole "war" thing is.
But I think you already know that, Dubs. It doesn't take a shrink who specializes in body language to see that you were pretty shocked and awed at your press conference Sunday morning. Not by the bombings, of course -- that sort of thing probably does for you what Viagra does for Bob Dole -- but by the realization that the Iraq situation is pretty mucked up from every angle.
"Progress"? "Progress"? Just what do you consider "progress," Junior? The surrender of 8,000 Iraqi troops? I guess it's all in how you value it. To me, the surrender of 80,000 troops wouldn't make up for a single shard of shrapnel in the belly of even one U.S. Marine, or the internal bleeding of a single two-year-old in Basra.
But then, I remember one of the fundamental differences between you and me, Georgie. Your values are solely quantitative, and mine are solely qualitative. And ne'er the twain shall meet.
If it were any other way, I wouldn't be near vomiting every time I hear the phrase "collateral damage."
See, Georgie, this is what I don't understand: How is it that every one of those 2,800 people in the World Trade Center are heroes because they died in a terrorist attack, while helpless schoolboys and girls in Iraq are "collateral damage" just because they're blown to shreds by U.S. bombs?
Does the allegiance of the attacker change the value of the victim?
But then, despite your astonishingly hypocritical brand of Christianity, value judgments are based on a set of highly selective and subjective criteria -- of your own choosing, not of God's.
It's all double standards with you, Junior. But we'll get into that (and your Messiah complex) some other day. Just trying to talk sense to you in a way that even you might understand is quite taxing.
I'm not a religious person (which, by your daddy's estimation, means I don't deserve my own native-born citizenship), but I am a spiritual one.
And in that spirit, and in all sincerity, I say:
May God have mercy on your soul.
Comments
From LGBTBinat on 03/24/03
Very well written.
I must say that everytime I come here to read your latest entry, I get "shock and awed".
You really do your digging to bring light to end of the tunnel, for those thousands who are truly "Blinded by the Right."
Thank you!
From doublethink on 03/24/03
You're very kind, thank you. It's the words of support that keep me going! :)
4:36:40 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 23, 2003
Well, I'm glad they cut back on the glitz. You probably noticed there was no fancy red carpet tonight. That'll send them a message!
Steve Martin
Host, 75th Annual Academy Awards
In light of all the troubles in this world, I wish us all peace.
Chris Cooper
Best Supporting Actor, Adaptation
The necessity for peace in the world is not a dream, it is a reality. If Frida was alive, she would be with us -- against the war.
Gael Garcia Bernal
Introducing the song "Burning Blue" from Frida
I've invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us. They are here in solidarity with me because we like non-fiction. We like non-fiction and we live in fictitious times.
We live in a time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.
Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts, we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you! Shame on you! And any time you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up!
Michael Moore
Best Documentary, Bowling for Columbine
[This Oscar is for] all the people that are raising their voices in favor of peace, respect of human rights, democracy and international legality, all of which are essential qualities to live.
Pedro Almodovar
Best Original Screenplay, Talk to Her
My experience making this film made me very aware of the sadness and the dehumanization of people in times of war, and the repercussions of war. And whatever you believe in, whether it's God or Allah, may he watch over you, and let's pray for a peaceful and swift resolution.
Adrien Brody
Best Actor, The Pianist
4:24:01 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 23, 2003
I've been saying this since 9-11 -- but The Guardian's writers often express my thoughts better than I do:
Osama bin Laden, in his wildest dreams, could hardly have hoped for this. A mere 18 months after he boosted the US to a peak of worldwide sympathy unprecedented since Pearl Harbor, that international goodwill has been squandered to near zero. Bin Laden must be beside himself with glee. And the infidels are now walking right into the Iraq trap.
There was always a risk for Bin Laden that worldwide sympathy for the US might thwart his long-term aim of holy war against the Great Satan. He needn't have worried. With the Bush junta at the helm, a camel could have foreseen the outcome...
Whatever anyone may say about weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam's savage brutality to his own people, the reason Bush can now get away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans, including, apparently, Bush himself, see it as revenge for 9/11. This is worse than bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious prejudice. ... Minds doped up on this kind of cod theology have a hard time distinguishing between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. ...
Saddam Hussein has been a catastrophe for Iraq, but he never posed a threat outside his immediate neighbourhood. George Bush is a catastrophe for the world. And a dream for Bin Laden.
-- Richard Dawkins
Bin Laden's victory
The Guardian
March 22, 2003
Well worth clicking the link for the entire piece!
Comments
From GrammarGirl on 03/23/03
Interesting that the "terrorist" who threw grenades into the tent of a couple of US military bigwigs over in Iraq today was actually an American Muslim pretty pissed about the whole situation. (I seriously saw this in passing, so don't hold me to it, but would be an interesting follow up to your entry.)
Finished suggesting what others should write about,
GG
From doublethink on 03/23/03
Oh, I always appreciate suggestions. And I do intend to write about that ugly little incident, as soon as I have time to research the guy, and his story.
It wasn't lost on me that the first reports identified him as a "black Muslim." Wonder what the press reaction would be if it had been a "white Christian"?
It will make an interesting follow-up indeed. Thanks. :)
From Tiroteo on 03/23/03
In this case, "black muslim" didn't mean "a muslim who is of African descent," but a specific muslim sect. I didn't see the news report of which you speak, but I don't think it would be much different than identifying somebody as an "orthodox jew" or a "roman catholic" or even a "Jehovah's witness."
The Black Muslim movement was founded in 1930 in Detroit. In the 70's it split up into the American Muslim Mission and the Nation of Islam.
From doublethink on 03/23/03
Blame it on the pervasive memory hole again. The original CBS News link (which has since switched to a newer story) said on March 22:
"[CBS News Correspondent Mark] Strassman said three suspects were being held for questioning, two Kuwaitis who served as translators and an American soldier described as a black Muslim."
On the same day the story was printed, the passage was re-edited to:
"Three suspects were being held for questioning: two Kuwaitis who served as translators and an American soldier described as an engineering sergeant."
And I am now kicking myself for not capturing a snapshot of the page while the story was still new.
In addition, all the other news articles I found that mentioned the phrase "...CBS reported that one of three suspects being questioned
about the attack was an American soldier described as a black Muslim..." have since been cleaned up, too. (But you can find them if you hurry, before Google News replaces its cache at http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&;scoring=d&q=%22black+muslim%22+iraq.)
(The story as it was originally reported is also raising a major stink on various right-wing, pro-war, and anti-Muslim message boards.)
Also, Fox News' March 23 broadcast made a point that the soldier is Muslim, and posed the question of whether of not "religious resentment" could have been a motive.
Re the origin of the phrase "black Muslim" -- you're one up on most Yanks, who equate it solely with N.O.I., for whom (to whites, anyway) it has become a trigger phrase.
What bothers me about the media using the phrase as a qualifier is that its usage implied there was some significance to it. There may very well be (the soldier could have snapped after hearing one too many racist and/or anti-Islamic slurs) -- but we don't know that either his race or his religion was a factor. And until it's clear either was relevant to his actions, I'd rather they had just referred to him as they do now (i.e., "engineering sergeant").
Otherwise, the media is playing on Americans' fears of Muslims in general, which I find heartbreaking. (I'm glad the Crusades were so long ago that people have forgotten the perpetrators were committing atrocities in the name of the Church, or I would have had a hell of a rough time growing up Catholic!)
A similar example would be "The Jewish woman doctor performed the surgery." What's "Jewish woman" doing in that sentence? Is it relevant to the story? Or does it attempt to stimulate the reader's personal feelings (whatever they may be) about women and/or Jews, and their competence as doctors?
Anyway, the fact that every news source quickly deleted the phrase "black Muslim" from its original reports shows they knew they erred in labeling him.
4:19:33 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 23, 2003
Donald Rumsfeld says the American attack on Baghdad is "as targeted an air campaign as has ever existed" but he should not try telling that to five-year-old Doha Suheil. She looked at me yesterday morning, drip feed attached to her nose, a deep frown over her small face as she tried vainly to move the left side of her body. The cruise missile that exploded close to her home in the Radwaniyeh suburb of Baghdad blasted shrapnel into her tiny legs they were bound up with gauze and, far more seriously, into her spine. Now she has lost all movement in her left leg...
She was the first of 101 patients brought to the Al-Mustansaniya College Hospital after America's blitz on the city began on Friday night. Seven other members of her family were wounded in the same cruise missile bombardment; the youngest, a one-year-old baby, was being breastfed by her mother at the time...
[Five-year-old] Wahed lies in the next bed, whimpering with pain. She had climbed out of [a taxi] and was almost at her aunt's front door when the explosion cut her down. Her feet are still bleeding although the blood has clotted around her toes and is staunched by the bandages on her ankles and lower legs. Two little boys are in the next room. Sade Selim is 11; his brother Omar is 14. Both have shrapnel wounds to their legs and chest... Imam Ali is 23 and has multiple shrapnel wounds in her abdomen and lower bowel...
And all this, I asked myself yesterday, was all this for 11 September 2001? All this was to "strike back" at our attackers, albeit that Doha Suheil, Wahed Hassan and Imam Ali have nothing absolutely nothing to do with those crimes against humanity, any more than has the awful Saddam? Who decided, I wonder, that these children, these young women, should suffer for 11 September?
Robert Fisk
This is the reality of war. We bomb. They suffer
The Independent
March 22, 2003
4:15:07 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 23, 2003
Hey there, Georgie Boy, swingin' down the West Wing so fancy-free...
Saw your press conference this morning, Dubs, and I must say, your constant repetition of the word "control" is getting awfully old, awfully fast -- even for you. Saddam is losing control of his country. We're in control of Iraq. Iraq is out of control. We're gaining control. Everything's under control.
I can't understand why you're so fond of that word -- unless it has something to do with Andrew O'Conner's arrest after he opined in an Internet chat room that you were "out of control."
In any case, it looks like things are spiraling very much out of control in your ill-considered little "war."
Sorry, Georgie, but I can't type that word -- "war" -- in reference to Iraq without using quotation marks. It's not a "war." It's an unprovoked attack in violation of more international and global humanitarian conventions than I even care to start quoting. It's an invasion, one of such scale as to humble Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and all the Mongols combined. And, judging from the completely inappropriate behavior of the Marine who raised the American flag in place of an Iraqi flag, it is apparently also a conquest.
And we already know it's a crusade. You said so yourself -- even if it was an unfortunate slip of your infamous tongue. (That word -- "crusade" -- makes me the most uncomfortable, as it should any American with even the vaguest grasp of what The Crusades were really all about.)
But it is not, and never will be, a war. Sans quotes.
Now, about being "in control." Sorry, Georgie, but my suspension of disbelief doesn't stretch that far. Just a glance at this morning's headlines tells me that things are quite out of control. We shot down an RAF bomber last night. More "friendly fire" took out ITV reporter Terry Lloyd, his cameraman, and a translator. (But then, the Pentagon apparently reserved the right to knock out not only media satellite equipment, but the journalists themselves as well.) You've got one dead soldier and nine more injured after one of our own grunts snapped and starting tossing grenades into his comrades' tents. And we shot not one but three cruise missiles into Iran. (Georgie, your wife was a teacher -- ask her to run Tommy Franks through those alphabet drills, so he can tell the difference between the letter Q and the letter N.)
For the love of God, Georgie, we're killing more of our own soldiers and allies than the Iraqis are!
Okay, I could be wrong about that -- but you've left us on our own to figure out the running tally. As Tommy Franks said, you guys "don't do body counts." (You don't keep track of unemployment numbers anymore either -- and for the same basic reason.)
I'm not even going to comment here about the capture of U.S. soldiers (and the rumored execution of one), because I want to direct my remarks to your pal Rummy. Nor will I touch upon into the business of slaughtering Iraqi civilians right now, because I need a break before I launch into graphic descriptions of children with their heads split open.
Suffice to say, things are not going either quickly or easily, are they, Georgie? In fact, they're a goddamned mess, aren't they?
War is supposed to be hell -- not chaos.
Georgie, Georgie... I never thought I'd say this, but:
Why didn't you listen to your daddy?
4:10:26 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
Warning: not too graphic, but disturbing. (If you really want to drive home to horrors of this attack to warmongers who don't seem to understand the concept of blowing innocents to bits, there are extremely graphic photos of dead Iraqi civilians -- including children -- on the Al-Jazeera site.)
Description from Reuters -- you can decide whether you really want to see the photo or not:
British soldiers assess damage caused on Iraqi trench positions as the bodies of two Iraqi soldiers remain in their trench with a white flag, following the British assault on the Al-Faw peninsula in southern Iraq March 22, 2003...
Here's the photo
Comments
From LostDreamer on 03/23/03
ok i havent looked at the photo yet but i am eating a po-tart right now..i dont want to puke it up..hold on.
From LostDreamer on 03/23/03
and that was POP-TART!! not po-tart..lol..anywhoo good thing i didnt see anything too gruesome. i did see dead bodies that made my stomach protest and my heart weep. War is never good. unless you are a war lover, then war would be good to make you happy. but war has always been around ever since the beggining of time. the dinasours were at constant war, herbivores against carnivores. granted it was just survival, but still a war of survival. i have been trying to close my mind to this whole war issue until it passes.
From doublethink on 03/23/03
Okay, my friend, if you really want the worst of the worst, here it is (and I mean, these are seriously gruesome and disturbing):
Bad (scroll down the page):
http://www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2003/3/3-23-10.htm
The worst so far:
http://www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2003/3/3-23-5.htm
From LostDreamer on 03/23/03
:( one word.....gross
3:05:28 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
It's bad enough to plow a missile into a residential neighborhood, and another thing altogether to hit the wrong bloody country.
Or was it an accident? After all, Iran is number two on Dubbie's "Axil of Evil." (Originally, I was betting the U.S. would go after Syria as soon as they were finished conquering Iraq -- but when you consider the fact that with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, an attack on Iran would be very convenient, since the U.S. already has Iran boxed in on two sides.)
Pentagon Confirms Missiles May Have Struck Iran
Iranian Lawmaker Says Missile Fell In Western Iran
TEHRAN, Iran -- Two Pentagon officials now confirm that three U.S. cruise missiles may have gone astray in Iran...
There are unconfirmed reports of casualties.
Iran also said coalition aircraft have been violating its airspace near the southern Iraqi port of Basra. Iran has closed its airspace to coalition and Iraqi warplanes.
[An Iranian lawmaker said one missile] landed on the Oil Ministry building in the city of Abadan -- about 30 miles east of Basra, Iraq's second largest city. Basra, in southern Iraq, has been under attack by U.S.-led forces.
Pentagon Confirms Missiles May Have Struck Iran
Associated Press
March 22, 2003
2:59:52 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
My crude translation, from the original Italian:
Iraq: cruise missiles hit residential area
American missiles today hit a residential section of Baghdad, where they reduced seven houses to ruins, and opened a crater one-tenth of a [?] in diameter. The envoy of Efe [?] agency to Baghdad has stated that the residential section of Al Qasidiya, in the southeastern part of the city ... clothing and other domestic articles are scattered on/about the roads.
The Iraqi minister of the information, Mohamed Said al-Sahaf, has explained [to?] journalists that two missiles have come down on the area [around] 19:15... The journalists have been invited to visit the wounded in the hospitals tomorrow.
Iraq, missili cruise colpiscono quartiere residenziale
la Repubblica.it
March 23, 2003
2:58:08 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
CNN correspondent Kevin Sites' war blog has been shut down at the request of CNN.
My guess: All those beautiful photos of Iraqi children and decrepit old ladies made the "enemy" look too sympathetic.
2:50:33 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
Gotta love The Memory Hole...
Particularly appropriate on the heels of the edited/didacted napalm-reference story:
Media Misquote and Excise Bush Comment About "Scripted" Press Conference
Reminiscent of 9-11 hijackers showing up alive:
Recently Captured al Qaeda Leader Was Killed Last Year
Comments
From dsdhall on 03/23/03
This site contains a more detailed analysis of the Khalid Shaikh Mohammed arrest/death.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0303/S00027.htm
You must admit it is very convenient for all the warmongers who can go... "look see we're still making progress with al qaeda, and you thought iraq would distract from that"
-Douglas
From doublethink on 03/23/03
Great article, Doug, thank you! I'm going to cite it as soon as I finish sifting through this morning's news.
Oh, too convenient indeed. At this point, I'm surprised nobody has "found" a personally autographed, videotaped confession from Mohammed in the middle of the WTC construction site.
2:49:36 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
Regarding the use of napalm in Iraq, I have found exactly ONE other supporting link:
There is a lookout there, a hill referred to as Safwan Hill, on the Iraqi side of the border. It was filled with Iraqi intelligence gathering. From that vantage point, they could look out over all of northern Kuwait.
It is now estimated the hill was hit so badly by missiles, artillery and by the Air Force, that they shaved a couple of feet off it. And anything that was up there that was left after all the explosions was then hit with napalm. And that pretty much put an end to any Iraqi operations up on that hill.
CNN
March 22, 2003
This was also broadcast yesterday by CNN reporter Martin Savidge.
What's disturbing is this: A Google search returns numerous links to a single article from Realcities.com (which serves news to dozens of different newspapers in the U.S.), containing the phrase: "In addition, about 20 GPS-guided 2000-pound bombs, cluster bombs and napalm..."
But apparently the only reference to napalm is in Google's snapshot of the link. You can click the links and search the news archives all you want, but you won't find any mention of napalm.
Can you say "dedacted"?
(Incidentally, I'm confident that the mention of napalm is in reference to Iraq, and not Vietnam. There was no such thing as a "GPS-guided" bomb during the Vietnam era.)
2:43:40 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
The following U.S. embassies and consulates have been CLOSED until further notice:
Almaty, Khazakstan • Amman, Jordan • All posts in Australia • Bucharest, Romania • Buenos Aires, Argentina • Cairo • Caracas, Venezuela • Damascus, Syria • Istanbul • Kabul, Afghanistan • Lagos, Nigeria • Paris • Nairobi, Kenya • Oslo, Norway • All posts in Pakistan • Riyadh, Saudi Arabia • Savanna, Yemen • Skopje, Macedonia • All posts in South Africa • Surabaya, Indonesia • Tel Aviv • Jerusalem
...and the following are on "'authorized departure,' which means the State Department will allow and pay for the departure of family members and non-emergency personnel at a particular post on a voluntary basis (CNN):"
Manama, Bahrain • Amman, Jordan • Beirut, Lebanon • Muscat, Oman • Doha, Qatar • Dhahran, Jetta and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia • Abu Dhabi and Dubai, United Arab Emirates • Turkey • Pakistan
Source: CNN
2:32:24 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
American Marines have died securing petroleum facilities, and in a helicopter crash. If Iraqi forces do not surrender soon, American forces will attack Baghdad from the ground. The loss of life among our people will grow exponentially if a Stalingrad-style fight unfolds in Baghdad and Tikrit. On Tom Brokaw's CBS News broadcast, the father of one of the soldiers killed in the helicopter crash held a picture of his son to the camera and shouted, "Take a look, Bush. You killed my only son."
William Rivers Pitt
Now, I Am the Terrorist
Comments
From dumpsterdave on 03/22/03
I saw the same news story with the father holding up his son's picture. This whole war begs the question of "Why are we here?" It will be kind of hard to transform a nation into a peaceful democracy when they live their life by the Quran, which is not only their religion, but a set of laws to live by. Is the Quran oppressive? Of course it is, but it is their choice to live by it. Great journal, by the way.
From doublethink on 03/22/03
Thanks. :)
Is the Quran oppressive? Of course. So is the Bible.
Democracy is a wondrous thing indeed, and I wouldn't trade it for any other system -- but the problem is, it's been drilled into our heads from birth that democracy is the only way, and every other system is either inferior or somehow evil.
What few Americans understand is that the successful establishment of democracy is a complex and time-consuming process -- and in the end, it's not necessarily the right system for every culture.
Too, there is no guarantee that even a well-established democracy will last; you've probably read the words of Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, who, nearly 300 years ago, wrote that "a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years" -- and then ticked off the stages of collapse: bondage, spiritual faith, great courage, liberty, abundance, selfishness, complacency, apathy, dependency, and then back to bondage.
Where are we now? I'd say we had nearly reached the nadir of apathy just before 9-11, and we're currently in a state of dependency.
There's a terrific article I've saved, well worth the read when you have an uninterrupted block of time to really devote to it: "Was Democracy Just a Moment?" by Robert Kaplan, in The Atlantic. I don't agree with every word Kaplan says, but he makes some excellent arguments, and offers a great history lesson in the process.
From the summary: "The global triumph of democracy was to be the glorious climax of the American Century. But democracy may not be the system that will best serve the world -- or even the one that will prevail in places that now consider themselves bastions of freedom."
Very appropriate for today -- and it was written in 1997 (!).
Here's the link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97dec/democ.htm
2:31:39 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
More than 50% of the population of Iraq is under 15 years old. That is the fact to remember when discussing the U.S. invasion of that country: The Bush administration plans to rain 3,000 bombs in 48 hours -- the most overwhelming bombardment in history -- on a nation that is half children. This, according to Bush, is in the name of "good," against "evil." ...
As for chemical and biological weapons: The "poison factory" Powell claimed was operating in northern Iraq was visited by reporters within days of Powell's UN presentation and found to be without plumbing -- an impossible condition for a chemical laboratory. That didn't stop Bush from mentioning the "poison factory" again in his press conference. (No journalist present had the nerve to call him on that.) ...
If Saddam Hussein hasn't enough such weapons for a "significant effect" in defense of his own country, he certainly hasn't enough to spare for a significant attack on America. That attack may come, but not from him. Which brings up the strangest and most sinister fact of this chaotic, dangerous time: Aside from increased airport security (and even that, as many investigations have proved, is badly flawed), since 9/11 the Bush administration has done virtually nothing to protect America from a terrorist attack...
Beyond Limits Otherwise Prescribed
Austin Chronicle
March 21, 2003
2:26:05 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
No, oil is only a small part of it. Our president finishing his father’s business is a bigger part of it, but the Bad Shakespeare bit is still not the reason to protest this war. It’s about us invading. The United States hasn’t done that, without being provoked, since the Mexican-American war, over 150 years ago. (Whoops, I forgot about that little Cambodia thing.) The notion of a preventive war is horribly misguided. Right from the start, we’ll be wrong. We will have lost the high ground. We will be perceived as a thoughtless bully run amok.
Bad Shakespeare
...And other reasons America should back away from an unconscionable war
MSNBC
2:24:07 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
"My resort is against war mongers."
Hotel Bans U.S. Tourists in War Protest
Reuters
March 21, 2003
Thanks, George! Thanks to you, we've ALL been branded a bunch of trigger-happy baby-killers.
Not that you're listening.
2:20:08 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
As the bombs begin to rain down on Iraq, all of us are dealing with grief, anger, and depression. Surely these feelings will be with us for a long time, and we must take care of each other and ourselves in the harsh days and weeks to come.
It will be helpful if we keep fresh in our minds what the worldwide peace movement has accomplished...
Now Washington stands isolated and humiliated in full public view. The would-be emperor has no clothes. The decision to go to war with Iraq is exposed as immoral, illegal and downright monstrous. Whatever moral authority the U.S. government once held has been largely squandered. Whatever sense of immortality and invincibility it once had, has been seriously undermined. Surely not everyone understands this, but hundreds of millions, possibly billions of people do...
What the Peace Movement Has Accomplished
War Times
March 19, 2003
2:13:06 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
The two Iraqi children lay helplessly in the hospital, their stomachs bleeding from shrapnel wounds.
"We heard an explosion and rushed to their house. Damn the Americans for this," said Salam, a neighbor.
Iraqi officials say three people were killed and 200 wounded during the overnight raids, which the U.S. military says were on targets selected to avoid harming non-combatants.
Look into the face of "collateral damage," and tell me this is a just war.
Not in my name. Never in my name.
2:11:28 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
Stumbled across a wonderfully quirky site, full of good reads on an eclectic variety of subjects (all of which appeal to my quirky, eclectic tastes), from WTC conspiracy theories to English grammatical errors to Maria Callas to Ganesh Baba -- with heavy emphasis on enough scary stuff about the CIA, global surveillance, censorship, and human rights to keep you awake tonight.
Serendipity calls itself "a libertarian, anti-fascist, anti-war and anti-prison-planet" -- but I just call it a great link.
2:04:48 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 22, 2003
REQUIRED READING
Beautiful, beautiful! Just beautiful!
MANDATORY clicking, bookmarking, memorizing, and forwarding:
A Warmonger Educates A Peacenik
2:03:44 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 21, 2003
If you think you can't be shocked or awed, try this:
Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire missiles swept in low from the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald.
A legal expert at the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva said the use of napalm or fuel air bombs was not illegal "per se" because the US was not a signatory to the 1980 weapons convention which prohibits and restricts certain weapons. "But the US has to apply the basic principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and take all precautions to protect civilians. In the case of napalm and fuel air bombs, these are special precautions because these are area weapons, not specific weapons," said Dominique Loye, the committee's adviser on weapons and IHL.
'Dead bodies are everywhere' ... Saddam's first martyrs lost
Sydney Morning Herald
March 22, 2003
I don't know about you, but I am not reassured by the "International Humanitarian Law" disclaimer. (And how did we get away with squirming out of yet another international treaty?)
The question is not whether the use of napalm by U.S. troops "legal," but rather, is it moral?
What is napalm? Officially, it's a defoliant -- which we dropped all over Vietnam, to firebomb vegetation, housing, and people.
Why would we use a defoliant in a desert? Beats me. But there is no question that napalm is one of the most effective -- and cruel -- eradicators of human life (warning: graphic and disturbing):
Napalm itself is a jelly obtained from the salts of aluminium, palmitic or other fatty acids, and naphthenic acids. These acids give a viscous consistency to gasoline so that an incendiary jelly results. We have developed the habit of calling 'napalm', not only the napalm itself, but also the material resulting when it is mixed with gasoline to form the incendiary weapon...
Since napalm is essentially an incendiary product, it sets fire to any combustible matter with which it comes in contact. A human being in the open cannot protect himself against it. Napalm acts not only by burning but has an equally devastating effect which consists of a complicated process whereby shock, absorption of oxygen from the air [deoxygenation], smoke and noxious gases become lethal. The Surgeon-General of the French Army has described the massive poisoning by carbon monoxide after a napalm attack and points out that none of those burned in the central strike area survives because of this phenomenon. Only those who have been on the periphery of the strike zone can survive the massive deoxygenation.
During the Second World War, troops found Japanese shelters which had been struck by napalm bombs in which all the occupants were dead without having been burned at all. These soldiers had died, apparently without pain, and with an expression of fright and surprise frozen on to their faces; they had been instantaneously and massively poisoned by carbon monoxide. The only way to escape the asphyxiating effects of napalm is to flee into the open air - where the direct destruction by burning from flaming splashes is greatest. In a strike zone it is almost impossible to escape the effects of napalm by taking shelter, for one cannot hold one’s breath for the time it takes napalm to burn off. The carbon monoxide poisoning itself paralyses the will and robs the victim of the ability to move...
Survivors of poisoning who have received emergency treatment exhibit permanent neurological after-effects which range from mild to very severe...
The second and most evident effect of napalm is the burn. The explosion of a 200-litre napalm incendiary bomb precipitates massive destruction by flames in a circle about 240 feet in diameter. In that zone the heat is from 1,800-3,600°F and the carbon monoxide release is massive; within this zone, there will be no survivors. Outside this zone unsheltered individuals will suffer burns from flaming splashes of napalm of a gravity in proportion to the amount of cutaneous surface affected. Parts not protected by clothing - face, hands, often the upper and lower members will be burned. The fire affects the clothing also, which can contribute to localized burning, rendering the effect worse...
Besides the extent and depth of burning, age is a determining factor since the effects are more severe on children and the old...
Any adult burned on more than ten per cent of the body, or any child burned on more than eight per cent, is considered critically burned...
In napalm burns, a final element is of great importance; this is the gravity of facial burning. Eye burns can lead to loss of one or both eyes. Nasal and ear passages involved develop extended suppuration and necrosis which abscess with unbearable pain to the patient. The face becomes hideous with psychological trauma of formidable proportions. There are other lingering damages: lesions of the bone, which do not show up on X-rays, and appearance of cysts of certain joints and bones of the hand - for instance, the metacarpus - which persist for many years after the initial burning...
It can be seen that in countries with good medical organization it is possible to reduce the mortality from severe burning. In underdeveloped areas, or during great cataclysms such as war, this is another matter...
It is obvious that under repeated bombardments which destroy structures which might be used for evacuation - when medical personnel are overworked and subject to lethal attacks themselves - these ideal conditions we have described are impossible. There is no resemblance between conditions prevailing when treating accident victims during peacetime and victims of deliberate attacks. The emergency treatment of a mass of burn victims in areas remote from medical centres and without adequate means of evacuation presents insuperable problems. It is therefore inadvisable in such conditions to try to save the worst case, who will, no matter what is done, die within a week...
I do not have definitive statistics, but it seems that only about thirty per cent of those wounded by napalm and not killed outright can be saved. If the victim does survive, the dermatological consequences of napalm burns are especially serious...
Lastly, concerning the medical effects of napalm recovery, there is the spectre of secondary cancers. Old burn scars show a frequency of skin cancer out of proportion to such appearance in normal skin. This cancer consists of a spino-cellular epithelioma with a negative prognosis because of the rapid invasion by the malignant cells of the related ganglion areas.
Napalm, to conclude, whether it is used strategically on the battlefield or in the bombardment of urban areas or village collectives, is a means of extensive undiscriminating destruction. It affects primarily human beings, livestock, crops and light inflammable structures such as houses. Its use in heavily populated areas will produce immense loss of life from burning and asphyxiation. In survivors, corporal injuries of the greatest gravity with functional sequels which prevent the resumption of normal life are the rule.
-- Gilbert Dreyfus
Napalm and its Effects on Human Beings
International War Crimes Tribunal on Vietnam
1967
And then, of course, there is always Kim Phuc.
The question is: What are we doing using napalm? We supposedly destroyed the last of it two years ago:
At a low-key ceremony this morning at the Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station in San Diego County, the final two canisters of Vietnam-era napalm will be recycled and sent on their way to Texas and Louisiana, where they will be blended into fuel used in industrial furnaces.
The Navy says this appears to be the last napalm in the U.S. military. Asked why the military seems to be discarding napalm as a weapon, a Navy spokesman said "there are more modern and efficient means to use in war these days than napalm."
Military Says Goodbye to Napalm
San Francisco Chronicle
April 4, 2001
Comments
From dsdhall on 03/22/03
Do you have a source for the use of napalm? The link you have to smh.com.au makes no reference to it.
-Douglas
From dsdhall on 03/22/03
hmm I must be seeing things, I just checked that article again and it was there. Funny.. I even did a (F)ind on this page to search for it the first time around.
From doublethink on 03/22/03
Hi, Douglas. I just checked the SMH link, and the reference is there -- but the text has changed since yesterday (can you say "memory hole?").
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.html
Count down ten paragraphs, and now you'll find:
Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire missiles swept in low from the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald. But a navy spokesman in Washington, Lieutenant Commander Danny Hernandez, denied that napalm - which was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 - was used.
"We don't even have that in our arsenal," he said.
The navy admitted to using napalm as late as 1993 in training exercises on the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico, but the last cannister of a vast US naval stockpile was reportedly destroyed in a public ceremony in April 2001.
So it's still there -- but SMH has edited the article since yesterday.
From doublethink on 03/22/03
Guess you caught SMH in between edits (and I expect SMH caught flak from the USN for even mentioning it). Well, at least they didn't delete the reference altogether.
What's most interesting is the USN denial -- "...Hernandez, denied that napalm - which was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 - was used."
If he's referring to the 1980 Vienna Convention, we never agreed to it. We signed off on it, but we never ratified it, which means we're not bound by it... which, of course, means the U.S. is still free to use napalm, among other things.
In any case, I suppose one could chalk it up to shoddy reporting -- but my gut tells me otherwise. The SMH may lean to the right, but when it comes to hard news, it's still generally accurate.
I sincerely doubt the SMH pulled the word "napalm" out of hat.
Most interesting. And troubling.
2:02:21 PM
|
|
Originally Posted March 21, 2003
If you haven't kept up with the Bush family history, the next sentence I am about to write will cause you to say, "So what?"
Here it is:
Wow, it looks like Dubya has pissed off the Moonies!
Now, why in the world would I care what one of the world's most notorious modern-day religious cults thinks of Georgie Boy? You think I want to see the Moonies join up with the Logical Left? Thanks, but no thanks -- we neither need nor want that kind of support.
(Fortunately, Rev. Moon and his bunch won't be showing up to any John Kerry rallies anytime soon. They're still hardcore right-wingers of the scariest kind -- i.e., borderline theocracists -- committed to their passionate hatred for liberals.)
Now, I don't actually care what the Moonies think of my haircut, much less anything else. However, the reason I'm so very interested in this story is that I've long been fascinated by the powerful and parasitic relationship between a despicable excuse for a newspaper called The Washington Times, and its strong ties to the Bushes (and to the Republican Party at large).
You see, The Washington Times is the brainchild of Rev. Sun Myung Moon -- yeah, that's right, the head of the Moonies, the guy who performs mass marriage ceremonies between couples who have never met (but have been matched by "Father" Moon in some sort of arcane ritual that would no doubt delight TV producers brainstorming a mid-season replacement for "Elimidate"). The guy whose followers are so hopelessly brainwashed, they need forcible de-programming if their families ever expect them to function normally in society again.
(The Washington Times is just one of scores of "front groups" for the Moonies. Have a look at this list, which is over 20 years old, and see how many political and religious organizations, and -- most shocking -- retail businesses you recognize.)
Rev. Moon has never made any secret of the fact that he founded The Washington Times for one reason, and one reason alone: to swing public opinion -- and thus the U. S. of A. itself -- toward ultra-conservatism.
To wit:
Five years after the Vietnam War, a conservative, moral, rightwing Reagan could become the President of the United States. Who made that? Reverend Moon. During my time in Danbury jail, in 1984, I helped Reagan too. He was my enemy. Bush, too. I chose those great American leaders, centering on the Unification Church as subject, with the American government as object-connected into one...
[C]entering on Father, the rightwing united into one and digested the leftwing. That is the resurrected Jesus' world foundation.
-- Rev. Sun Myung Moon
referring to himself ("Father") in the third person (as usual)
Washington Times anniversary celebration, June 16, 1997
Now, you may already be saying, "Suuuuuuuuuuure. The Big Moonie himself put Reagan and Bush I in office. Yeah, right! Can't you see that Moon is a victim of his own delusions of grandeur?"
To which I answer: Yeah, I used to think he was, too.
The truth of the matter is that Moon and the Bushies have been in bed together for longer than some of my readers have been alive. Moon was a huge contributor to Poppy Bush's presidential campaign (although Poppy has always declined to say how much he got; the Moonies say it was around $10 million), and has shamelessly promoted the farthest of the far right in this country, espousing their views, promoting their campaigns, and passing off as hard "news" the sort of smug pap that could make Gandhi want to sucker-punch the next whiner who regurgitates the same old lies about the nonexistent "liberal media conspiracy."
Don't believe it? Okay, don't. But first, you might ask former Prez Bush what he was doing on November 23, 1996. Nah, never mind -- I'll tell you: Poppy was in Buenos Aires, speaking at a banquet in honor of Rev. Moon's launch of a new Spanish-language propaganda rag:
I want to salute Reverend Moon, the founder of the Washington Times and of the new paper here. A lot of my friends in South America don't know about the Washington Times but it is an independent voice. The editors of the Washington Times tell me that never once has the man with the vision interfered with the running of the paper, a paper that in my view brings sanity to Washington, D.C.
-- George H. W. Bush
Reuters
November 23, 1996
The Argentina féte was hardly the first or last time Poppy cozied up to Rev. Moon, or praised his work. The two go way back -- heck, Rev. Moon was even an invited guest of Vice President Poppy's at Reagan's first inauguration, in 1980.
But you don't have to believe me -- discover it for yourself. You can find plenty on the convoluted workings of the relationship between Moon and the hardcore right wing (especially the Bushes) here. Or here. Or this stunning but easy-to-digest quick read here.
Or, if you have nerves of steel, read David Brock's Blinded By the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative -- a book I can't recommended highly enough, but which still haunts my nightmares.
Want the full whack upside the head? Here's a quick and easy Google link that'll provide hours of shock.
Go ahead, click the links and read. I'll wait.
Finished? Good. Now, I'm going to excerpt a few paragraphs from a newspaper op/ed published yesterday. The point of this is NOT whether you, I, or the man in the moon agrees or disagrees with the writer.
What I am asking you to do is simply gauge the level of anti-Dubya sentiment in the piece. That is all.
Here are the excerpts:
Will Bush be impeached? Will he be called a war criminal? ...
Mr. Bush has permitted a small cadre of neoconservatives to isolate him from world opinion, putting him at odds with the United Nations and America's allies...
The U.S., once a guarantor of peace, is now perceived in the rest of the world as an aggressor. Its victim is a small Muslim nation unable to defend its own air space, much less to project power beyond its borders. If Iraqis attempt to resist invasion, they will be slaughtered.
On the eve of Mr. Bush's ultimatum, it came to light that a key piece of evidence used by the Bush administration to link Iraq to a nuclear weapons program is a forgery...
...[I]t was Adolf Hitler's strategy to fabricate evidence in order to justify his invasion of a helpless country... The German High Command called the German invasion of Poland a "counterattack"...
Polls show that 50 percent of Americans believe it was Iraqis who hijacked the airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Towers and Pentagon. Inattention or media incompetence are the likely explanations for this extraordinary misinformation, but some will now blame deception.
Others are already thinking the forged documents are part of a neoconservative campaign to deceive President Bush and win his support for their Middle Eastern policy.
Mr. Bush and his advisers have forgotten that the power of an American president is temporary and relative...
Pretty damning op/ed, isn't it? Remember, I am NOT inviting debate on whether the writer is right or wrong -- I want you to see that whoever wrote this is no fan of Dubya.
Now, if you've been paying attention, you'll know exactly where this came from. Here's your payoff.
That's a far cry from Campaign 2000, when The Washington Times went to bat for Georgie, both on its front page and by sending in its own troops to blanket South Carolina with pro-Dubya literature and phone calls to voters.
What in the world did Dubbie do to make "Father" Moon so mad? (Sure, the op/ed above was written by nationally-syndicated columnist Paul Craig Roberts, but if a piece is out of sync with Rev. Moon's current political philosophy, you can bet your boots it won't be appearing in The Washington Times.)
So, Rev. Moon is peeved at Dubs. I wonder why?
What a fascinating mystery.
1:55:25 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2003 doublethink.
Last update: 12/10/03; 11:51:55 PM.
|
|
| May 2003 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
| 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
| 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
| 18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
| 25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
| Apr Jun |
|
|
