March 23, 2004
OK, time to step back for a minute. After a husband-inspired dinner of lil smokies and rum & coke and a rousing episode of Smallville, I'm ready to tackle the Arab-Israeli conflict growing on my blog.
I always thought the comments section of places like LGF or LT Smash was really fun: discussions growing on their own independent from the original post and blogger. I'm excited that my own readers are jumping into the game. But there are a few things I'd like to say.
I appreciate the fact that Joshua has been civil. He and I may disagree, but he politely asked me to re-grok, and I don't take that as a sign of trolldom. I also appreciate the fact that most of my readers seem to side with Israel, and I only encourage them to continue to be civil in their discussion.
That said, there are some other resources I'd like to point to, all taken from Charles Johnson's sidebar.
Myths & Facts Online: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian - Israeli Conflict
I am the first to admit that I do not grok the entire conflict. I have read most of the information in the aforementioned articles, but I cannot say that I have completely understood everything. I am no expert. I tried to follow Joshua's advice and read the suggested works by Chomsky and Said, but they're both books, and I must honestly say that I don't feel comfortable purchasing their books. I would read an article online, but I don't particularly want to contribute money to their way of thinking.
I will say that I support the idea of the US being Israel's ally. They need all the allies they can get, and so do we. Seeing as we're both considered the biggest threats to world peace, we'd better stick together. Since we give plenty of money to craptastic countries like Egypt, I say why not give aid to a country that's a democracy and an ally?
I think Carla hit the nail on the head with the crux of this conflict though: "Palestinian leaders refused peaceable, 2-state solutions in 1917, 1937, 1948, and 2000. They do not want a right of self-determination, they want the elimination of the Jews." That's the main reason I can't support Palestine. They've been offered a compromise and have refused, opting for death over sharing. I can't support that under any circumstances.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 414 words, total size 3 kb.
I am very happy this discussion turned out the way it did as well. I am extermely interested in the topic yet it typically raises people's blood pressure when its brought up. All comments were civil and resourced/researched. If this type of dialogue was the way more people interacted we could probably bet the world would not be such a heap at this point.
On the opinion of the two state solution, I have no idea why Palestine would reject it so many times. It bordelines on the idea "its the principle of the matter". Where as I do not agree with the occupation I find it unfortunate that both sides find bloodshed to be the answer.
As far as not wishing to support their writing, I understand, if I ever come across my copies again[constant lending and moving] maybe we can arrange for them to be sent to you.
Be well and keep reading, Joshua
Posted by: Joshua at March 23, 2004 06:34 PM (qLwT1)
Joshua, I'm glad to see you grasp there are issues which cannot be resolved by screaming.
You are obviously intelligent. I would recommend some good history on the issue, and the region in general. Stay away from recent books, and find a good history book at the library published prior to 1967.
Sarah always has well-considered opinions. I welcome you to come tear my site apart. I don't research as well as she does!
Posted by: Mike at March 23, 2004 09:11 PM (00IUf)
Joshua, the repeated rejection of the two-state solution really is the key to it. The Palestinians don't want a separate state of their own; they want Israel, but without the Israelis.
And you are falling again
into the trap of false moral equivalence when you say I find it unfortunate that both sides find bloodshed to be the answer.
Israel wants peace and has been prepared to make substantial concessions to encourage the peace process. The Palestinians have made no such concessions. Ever.
And I stand by what I said earlier about Chomsky and Said. You really, really
need to double-check everything they present as fact. Even when Chomsky is talking about linguistics, his supposed field of expertise.
If you like, I can dig up some articles deconstructing both of them.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 23, 2004 10:20 PM (+S1Ft)
Well, thanks to all for being civil, yet again. I has said that the first time prior to seeing 2[or was it more?] posts about my head being in the clouds[due to my book choice] which I will admit is a bit disheartening. You need not slap my face to turn it towards what you find to be a more suitable or factually viable truth.
Mike, as far as "tearing down your site" I probably will not make it my fashion to do such. Fact of the matter is I stumbled upon Sarah's writing and had no idea she was pro-zionist. I am happy to see that all of you are creating arguments that bear a source. I have a book called Israel and the Arabs by Maxime Rodinson published in 1968 that I am yet to read.
Pixy, as far as deconstructing Chomsky and Said I really find no need to do so. I take into consideration what you have said and make my best effort to second source such writings more thoroughly in the future.
As far as my "political leanings" I imagine most if not all of you will feel the need to call me Lefty and we would basically butt heads on most issues.
The left will always slander the right, and the right to the left. Its like a pissing contest, excuse the vulgarity.
I am merely for the people, the right for all men, women, and children to food, clothes, and shelter. Working towards peace.
Posted by: Joshua at March 23, 2004 11:16 PM (qLwT1)
"I am merely for the people, the right for all men, women, and children to food, clothes, and shelter."
But those aren't rights.
have enough to eat - and indeed there is more than enough food in the world for everyone. Even taking into consideration the waste and overeating rife in the wealthier nations, there is still more than enough food. And the wealthy nations are quite prepared to give their surplus food to any country in need. The only reason people starve these days is because of the governments of those nations where the people are starving. The only
The same for clothes. And much the same for shelter.
These are rights:
- no-one is allowed to kill you out of hand, not even the President;
- you are free to go where you will, providing you obey the laws of the land;
the Pursuit of Happiness
- note that you don't have a right to happiness itself, only a right to pursue it.
What's the difference between these rights and yours? These rights are real, fundamental rights because they don't involve taking anything from anyone else - where yours do. Your "rights" are in fact not rights at all, but principles of Marxism. That good old "to each according to his needs".
I agree that we should work to provide all people with these common basic needs, but it is not a right
"Working towards peace."
Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 24, 2004 12:54 AM (kOqZ6)
Yes, you're fortunate that Joshua is not a nasty troll. Sorry to have come on quite so strong with the language, but I had a very visceral response to the mention of Noam Chomsky and threw up verbally. What can I say?
My sister once handed me one of his books from one of her masters of international relations classes. She recommended it. I tried to read it. Blecchh. Piss poor attempt to hide total left leaning position under hand selected "facts."
Joshua, I know Noam Chomsky is a little tin god to every liberal on the planet, bunt you completely click off anyone who is not a robotic liberal when you mention him as your centerpoint of research. It's like a conservative saying "Go read Sean Hannity." Huh? How does it help to make a decision when you only read people who feed you pablum to support a viewpoint they espouse? I agree with one of the earlier posts - you need to read a good, balanced HISTORY book. And if you really want to make an argument to someone who reads a LOT - both sides - lose the words NOAM CHOMSKY from your vocabulary.
Best wishes. (But unconvinced.)
Posted by: Oa Mae at March 24, 2004 01:57 AM (ehkN+)
I am not a Marxist, nor have I read his work, nor do I really ever plan on reading his work. I am not convinced a single ideology or government is right for the entire planet. Millions suffer due to a lack of food, clothes, and shelter. Without any of these your pursuits of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness cannot rightly happen. An addendum to the life/liberty/happiness should be "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without effecting those rights of another."
"Best wishes.(But unconvinced)"
I am not too sure what you are getting at with that. Placing it after best wishes sounds like an attempt at taking a sucker punch which is ridiculous considering I have not made a single shot at anyone in the course of our discussion. Do not let your emotions guide your words. There is no need to lash out, no matter how miniscule, because a person does not hold your viewpoint. Funny, I am the "Lefty", isn't it my "schtick" to take body shots?
I am not here to convince you of what I will educate myself with. I will say that I do have it in my mind to pick up other works. Problem is, the Left skews the facts towards their cause, and the right does the same, objectivity is a lost art. I do not want to prove that any ideology is any more effect then another, I just know where I am considered standing by other peoples designations. I merely wish to educate myself so I take your suggestions to heart, understand?
Remaining openmindedly yours, Joshua
Posted by: Joshua at March 24, 2004 11:04 AM (qLwT1)
Joshua, the point is that food, clothing and shelter aren't RIGHTS. They're necessities. Just because something is necessary doesn't mean you have a right to it.
If you read the UN Declaration on Human Rights it starts off with the basics (life, liberty, and so on) and then descends into a welter of Socialist redistribution policies, all of them classed as fundamental human rights.
Your addendum, though, is spot on.
Now, as to skewed facts: Objectivity is not a lost art, but it is hard to find. The reason this has become such a problem in recent years lies entirely
with the left, with moral relativism and post-modernism. Facts are verifiable. Verify them. The right is far, far
better on this than the left. Not perfect, but still miles ahead.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 24, 2004 02:09 PM (+S1Ft)
By the way, I consider myself a centrist. A year or two ago, I would have been considered left-of-center by most Americans. I have been pushed hard
towards the right, not by the arguments of the right, but by the arguments of the left. The sheer volume of nonsense - factual error, logical fallacy and out-and-out lies - coming from the far left in recent years has been astonishing. Worse, the moderate left has largely accepted this.
More notable examples of people suffering my plight include Michael Totten, Roger Simon and Christopher Hitchens. They're also better at explaining this than me, so give them a try.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 24, 2004 02:16 PM (+S1Ft)
If something is necessary to remaining alive then I would have to say that you have a right to it. Maybe this is why I am considered Leftist or Socialist or some other useless designation.
And I quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25:
Everyone has the RIGHT to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including FOOD, CLOTHING, HOUSING and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in cirumstances beyond his control.
So, by the very document you quote about L/L/PoHappiness you can find that F/C/Shelter are also included. It is safe to assume that all of the articles bear the same weight, and that Article 25 is of equal importance as Article 3.
Article 2 goes on to say "Everyone is entitled to ALL the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without distinction..."
yours in open dialogue, Joshua
Posted by: Joshua at March 24, 2004 02:34 PM (qLwT1)
Forgive the CAPS but I am unaware on how to bold or italicize in this "forum".
Posted by: Joshua at March 24, 2004 02:36 PM (qLwT1)
And my point is this: No, you don't.
have a right to something just because it is necessary.
Because you never have a right to take something away from someone else.
The right to liberty is easy; there is never a shortage of liberty, unless someone deliberately takes it away. The right to life is really a right not to be killed out of hand; people die of natural causes, by accident, and so on, but it is only humans who can abuse this right. The right to the pursuit of happiness is inviolable.
You simply and absolutely have no right to any particular standard of living, to any amount of food, clothing, shelter or medical care. All people should
have access to these things, I agree. That's a Socialist notion, but I never said I disagreed entirely with Socialism. To claim that these are fundamental rights is Marxism, and it is also a fundamental abuse of other human rights
. Property rights, for example.
And the notion that unemployment benefits, sickness and disability pensions, widow's benefits (what about widowers?) and old-age pensions are a fundamental right is utterly absurd. A social structure along these lines can be beneficial in helping people remain (or return to) being productive members of society. But they all
work by forcibly taking money from some people to give to other people. And anything that requires such action is absoultely and unequivocally not a right
Once again: I'm not saying these things are necessarily bad (though I will point out that excessive devotion to these ideas is bankrupting Europe). Just that they are social structures and not
human rights. Calling them that demans the entire notion of human rights, by claiming that human rights are something only a socialist government can grant. Human rights are something we are born
with, which remain with us unless they are taken away.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 24, 2004 09:21 PM (+S1Ft)
Well, I was merely pointing out that you quoted the UNDoHRights and tried to tell me it is not a right. If L/L/PoH are rights as deemed appropriate by the UNDoHR then, by the very standard you have created by instituting the document as proof you have refuted your own statement. Be more careful in the future. Now, if the UNDoHR is Socialistically minded then so is L/L/PoH.
Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Posted by: Joshua at March 24, 2004 11:00 PM (qLwT1)
Well, I was merely pointing out that you quoted the UNDoHRights and tried to tell me it is not a right.
No I didn't.
If L/L/PoH are rights as deemed appropriate by the UNDoHR then, by the very standard you have created by instituting the document as proof you have refuted your own statement.
No. What I was saying was that the UN Declaration starts well but then rapidly degenerates into a socialist manifesto. Maybe I could have made it clearer if I'd said "all of which it classes - falsely - as fundamental human rights".
But I would have thought that "descends into a welter of Socialist redistribution policies" was a pretty clear indictment of the UN Declaration.
Be more careful in the future.
Try to follow the argument in the future.
Now, if the UNDoHR is Socialistically minded then so is L/L/PoH.
Completely false. Utterly wrong.
Most of the UN Declaration consists of not affirming natural rights but of the redistribution of wealth. The basic rights affirmed in the US Constitution are libertarian principles; the UN Declaration is - for the most part - a socialist document.
Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Feel free to judge me any time. Just get your facts straight.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 25, 2004 02:11 AM (kOqZ6)
| Add Comment
March 21, 2004
Like I've said before, I'm no good at fisking. I don't really like to do it; it goes back to my post about being rude
. But I also said that the published are fair game, so when I found this old article from Sept 2003 called The Terrible Truth About Iraq
and started inwardly grumbling, I decided a fisk was in order. I won't copy the whole article here -- it's really long -- but I'll pull out some things that made me grumble. And swear. Sorry. The more I read, the more angry I felt.
According to polls last week, some 60 to 70% of Americans still think we were justified in invading Iraq. Apparently, the majority of Americans still agree with Paul Bremer, who recently referred to the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a "great and noble thing."
Can you feel the contempt for the majority of Americans? This is indicative of how the "educated" on the Left feel about us. We're dumb and need their guidance to understand how peace is the answer. If 70% of us see something as "great and noble", it's because we've been duped, hoodwinked, or lied to. Really we just need smart people like Freeman instead of morons like Bremer to show us the way.
The terrible truth that America cannot face is that the whole thing was never justified in the first place and is thus certainly not a "great and noble thing." If the invasion of Iraq was not justified, then our continued occupation of Iraq can only make things worse. Of course it is a terrible, terrible thing to subject the Iraqi people to the horror they have been subjected to if the war was never justified to begin with. Of course it is a truly terrible thing (and thus a mockery of the slogan--"support the troops") to send our troops into this nightmare if the war was never justified to begin with. Certainly the majority of Americans can recognize what a terrible thing this war and occupation are if the whole thing was never justified to begin with.
Is it just me, or does this paragraph say nothing at all? Seriously. I'm planning my syllabus for teaching ENGL 101, and I swear I'd mark Freeman down for wordiness. Freeman's trying to prove his point in a circular way, using something that 70% of Americans don't see as truth at all. If people don't accept that the war was unjustified, then none of this other junk in this paragraph matters.
Despite ample evidence that the Administration's whole case for war proved to be based on lies and distortions and never amounted in the first place to anything more than a fig leaf for the neo-con agenda, Americans have not been able to face the terrible truth. America can never hope to even begin to try to set things right until she faces the terrible truth. As a nation we can never begin to really confront the problem of terrorism until we face the truth about America and this war and occupation of Iraq.
Minus five points: using the phrase "face the truth" WAY TOO MANY TIMES. And, by the way, does this guy know anything about, to quote Ace Ventura, a little something we like to call evidence? Please point out to me how we "never adequately examined the case for war." I was under the impression that I had to watch a billion speeches in front of the UN last winter.
What is it that would justify war, if indeed anything ever justifies it?
Ah, there we go. That's what he's really saying. The "terrible truth" is that nothing ever justifies war.
If there really was any evidence at all that Saddam Hussein had indeed masterminded or provided assistance to the hijackers there would have been an obvious case for self defense and there is little doubt the United States would have gotten UN authorization for a military response. Only the most dedicated pacifist would have not found just cause to attack Iraq.
Oh please. I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that one. I seem to remember France saying they'd vote no on the resolution no matter what we said. Freeman is just making things up to advance his point, fabricating a what-if scenario that he can't possibly prove would have happened. I maintain the UN still would've wussed out and there still would've been protestors. And I'll back it up with the same evidence Freeman provides: because I say so.
The other major deception the Administration used to provide a just cause was the idea that Iraq was indeed an imminent threat to the United States.
No no no no no. Haven't we been over this a million times? I'm skipping this paragraph because it's worthless.
But now we know that it is all a moot point anyway, for as Hans Blix, the former UN disarmament chief in Iraq, has recently commented: "I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991 may well be the truth." It turns out that Iraq may well have been in compliance with the UN resolution all along.
If Hans Blix says so, it's truth; if George Bush says so, it's lies. I don't give one good goddam what Blix is "inclined to think."
Freedman goes on to say that the last justification the Administration provided was latecoming and grounds for Bush to be "hauled off right then and there to the nearest insane asylum":
...we need to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, at a cost of billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, not to mention the lives of many good young Americans, all just to--get this--bring democracy to the Middle East...
I personally don't care one flip about WMDs or yellowcake or imminent anything because I saw the big picture long ago. The Arab world is a freaking mess, and some of that mess has now started interfering with our lives i.e. the WTC. The big picture is that we most certainly do need to bring democracy to the Middle East to protect us all down the line. The fact that Freeman ridicules this notion proves to me that he doesn't grok and that we have no common ground whatsoever.
However, I will say that I personally wish the President would've addressed this before the war. I saw the big picture because I read USS Clueless and LGF and I already knew how important this antediluvian idea of jihad is to certain wackos. I wish the President had laid out the big picture for everyone to see. That's my one complaint.
Nevertheless, as so many Americans think the war was justified just to get rid of the evil Saddam Hussein, it might perhaps be worthwhile to pause and consider for a moment, purely as a philosophical question, whether it would make sense to extend the notion of just cause for war to include the idea of removing a brutal dictator in order to install a democracy.
Yep, I'm fer it. What's that, Freedman? You were just being rhetorical? You didn't really mean for me to answer yes. Oh.
In the case of Saddam Hussein, there is no question that he was a brutal dictator. However, most of that brutality, which the American people have been constantly reminded of over the last few years--that he gassed his own people for example--happened while he was supported by our government. Without that support, and with the presence of the UN and the focus of international attention, it was becoming increasingly difficult for Saddam Hussein to act as he pleased.
I'm sorry, I seem to remember jails full of children being opened during the war, a man who lived underground hiding from Saddam for like 30 years, and a poor Iraqi named Adnan Abdul Karim Enad who tried to reach freedom by climbing into Hans Blix's car only to be drug out and never heard from again. "Increasingly difficult" my ass.
Two years after 911, billions of dollars later, thousands of lives lost, and Americans are not really any safer--but we do now have a pipeline across Afghanistan and control of that vast resource beneath the sands of Iraq.
Not worth my time.
Let's not forget the military establishment. One thing this war proves is that the nation with the most powerful military in the world cannot be trusted with that power. What has to be questioned now is the whole military culture that has had such a pervasive influence in shaping American culture. The military knows plenty about the value of courage in war but apparently nothing about moral courage. One simply has to follow orders--the call of conscience, the voice of dissent is just forbidden. This undoubtedly has had a powerful impact on the shallow patriotism that blinded America to the terrible truth about this war. Support the troops? I feel so badly for those brave young men and women who had no idea what they were signing up for, who never imagined their country would send them into an unjust war and force them to kill innocent men, women and children. Those that don't come back in body bags, horribly wounded, or sick from depleted uranium, will still be scarred for life when they find out the terrible truth about the war. This war will turn out to be some recruitment poster. For the military establishment and culture it may turn out to be worse than Vietnam.
To quote James Lileks: Fuck you.
What do you know about moral courage, Freeman? Have you watched your battle buddy explode next to you? Have you gotten letters saying that what you do for a living is wrong, as LT Smash did? Have you talked to one single servicemember since 9/11 and heard the determination in his voice and seen the pride in his eyes? Moral courage is an 19-year-old Marine volunteering for his second tour in Iraq so he can make a difference in this world. Moral courage is going back into the WTC to help other out like Rick Rescorla did. You know nothing about courage, Freeman.
That so many Americans were so easily misled by lies and distortions is surely an indictment of our entire educational system. It has long been recognized that education is the key to democracy, but rarely if ever has it dawned upon Americans just what sort of education is that key. ... It's only an education that stresses the development of philosophical questioning and critical thinking skills that can be the best hope of saving democracy from the dustbin of history.
The key to our future is therefore not my husband's job, but Freeman's job. Ah, I see now. The Adjunct Professor of Philosophy thinks he's the one to lead us all to salvation. And how? By educating a generation of moral relativists who discuss the zen of multilateralism while sequining NO WAR onto their baby t's.
It seems to me there is no solution to the problem of Iraq without first facing the terrible truth that we should never have initiated this war of aggression in the first place.
Read: Now that I've wasted two hours of Sarah's time setting up what we should have done, I offer no solution for the present or future other than we never should've done it in the first place. Oh, and "at the very least, no American company should be allowed to profit from Iraq, especially one with close ties to the Bush Administration." I don't know how to fix Iraq, but I sure don't want American corporations to try. I just want to pontificate; someone else can deal with the pesky details.
See I'm a philosophy teacher. My job is to think about deep stuff while drinking a latte or smoking a pipe or something. I just write about what should have been or what could have been if another latte-drinker had been in the White House. The hard stuff, like pulling bodies out of the wreckage at the WTC or charging into the 6 of Diamond's house, can be done by people who aren't "educated" enough to be insulated by a university's walls. I'll prophesy about "moral courage" and "terrible truths", but I'll never grasp the philosophy of making the split-second decision to waste a terrorist who comes running at me with an RPG.
Thanks for that article from your ivory tower, Professor Freeman. Now I'm going to post this and go back to wondering when my husband will have water and electricity to make his 14 months a little more comfortable while he risks his life to protect your way of living.
Freeman. What an oxymoron of a name.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2136 words, total size 13 kb.
Yep...you need a place like The Dinner Table to just chill out and have fun.
Posted by: Tim at March 21, 2004 10:59 AM (R1GA8)
I read your blog daily and enjoy it so much! Thanks for such a wonderful blog.
I actually got a boost from this entry. My dream is to be a professional writer one day. I tend to be too verbose and ramble though. Compared to this guy's thoughts, my writing has promise lol! If he used "terrible" one more time I was going to fall out of my chair. And he's a professor? Maybe he should take your class for a refresher!! When even a novice like myself can pick out the problems in his writing - he has serious issues
And did anyone notice this: "Those that don't come back in body bags, horribly wounded, or sick from depleted uranium,..."
What is he referring to in regards to the uranium? Certainly there are no WMDs. Hans Blix says so. How would our soldiers be sick from something that is not there? When Israel bombed their nuke plant (provided by France no less), it was before it was ever opened, to ensure the safety of innocent civilians. What am I missing?
Admittedly I did not read the entire thing. The few quotes you shared were enough for me. Perhaps I missed that the crooks and liars in Washington were going to contaminate our OWN troops?? Sheesh.
Posted by: Shannon at March 21, 2004 12:16 PM (p9h+4)
Outstanding fisking of a total moron!
Posted by: Madfish Willie at March 21, 2004 12:50 PM (tnftl)
You Rock! Outstanding! My blood pressure went up just reading the quotes your brought out. To say that jerk is clueless doesn't begin to cover it.
Posted by: Tammi at March 21, 2004 01:15 PM (qg4Lf)
Freeman, how about Fartman? As in Gasbagman. What a joke, and the taxpayers are supporting this moral furball.
Posted by: Infidel at March 21, 2004 02:22 PM (WUNym)
uuuhmm...all i can say is...wow!
Posted by: annika at March 21, 2004 06:58 PM (zAOEU)
Whoa Sarah - I'm just glad you didn't watch Tim Russert or Fox News Sunday this morning or errr whatever time it would be for you. You should hear me mumbling and grumbling to myself as I put myself through torture listening to Teddy Kennedy and John McCain and Joe Lieberman - I think they call it sadomasochistic tendencies. LOL
Posted by: Toni at March 21, 2004 07:36 PM (NXf1N)
Thank you for exposing Freeman. There are a whole clique of his type organized as the "Global hope Club" at UH-Hilo. Here are some quotes from them:
Â“There is probable cause to investigate just what connection the Israeli spying operation had with 9-11Â…. US Government classified the evidence that links the arrested Israeli spies to 9-11.Â” -- Previously posted on Global HopeÂ’s website
"The attacks on New York and Washington were an Israeli-engineered attempt at a coup against the government of the United States*" -- currently posted on website of longtime Global Hope member, BZ Evans.
Â“There is no way any group could have carried out such a complex incursion without assistance from US agencies. ItÂ’s likely a terrorist cell could hijack a plane and crash it, yes, but a second plane, a third and fourth plane, and then crash one into the Pentagon? No way. CanÂ’t happen without a go-ahead from shadowy US sectors.Â” -- Â“Longtime Global Hope memberÂ” B Z EvansÂ’ website
9/11 a big Conspiracy of the FBI, CIA & U.S. Government? Kathy Dorn reports a new book that she says is compelling. The thesis of the book is that "... our intelligence agencies were reined in, air interceptors grounded - and the attacks exploited to launch a devastating war on Afghanistan. -- Global Hope website
Was there really a plane crash at the Pentagon on 9/11?
Pentagon Plane Crash a hoax? Here's an excerpt with photos of a best-selling book in France that has NOT hit the mainline media in this country but is widely discussed all over Europe. -- Currently posted on Global Hope website
Â“It (9-11) ties into the root causes of terrorism about people in poverty that donÂ’t have any hope. (An airplane) is the poor manÂ’s bomb. As I watched the pictures of the airplane crashing into the building, I thought those people (al-Qaeda) must have felt so powerless to do that.... If Osama had as much money as the United States military...it would probably be a whole different world.Â” -- Global Hope community supporter Cory Hardin
Â“The American population is ignorant. They (al-Qaeda) have a passion to develop their culture.Â” -- Global Hope supporter, Dr. Manulani Meyer
Posted by: Andrew Walden at March 22, 2004 07:51 AM (mrIlD)
And here's a piece I did for the UH Hilo student paper attacking the ARROGANT left:
By Andrew Walden
Bitterness and brittle conceit are on display when opponents of Iraqi liberation question the intelligence of the American people. Insults such as Â“the American public is ignorantÂ” or Â“America is a nation of sheepÂ” are so commonplace in anti-liberation rhetoric they pass almost without notice. Democrat Presidential candidate, Howard Dean, urged Wisconsin voters not to be Â“a rubber stampÂ”--implying that voters who oppose him are but tools. A common anti-liberation bumper sticker, Â“Think--itÂ’s patrioticÂ”, implies we are not thinking. In the previous issue of Ke Kalahea there are examples both subtle and gross. One writer makes an unfavorable comparison between the intelligence of a US Navy sailor and that of whales. Another, who ascribes intelligence to trees, promises to dedicate herself to, Â“enhance the minds of the uninspired.Â” A third wonders, Â“Where a nation worth of minds have been dumped.Â” Finally, my debate opponent opines, Â“Â…since the American people seem to be more concerned about whether Janet and Justin planned Â‘breastgate,Â’ I think it isÂ…doubtful that they will hold the government accountableÂ….Â”
America is the product of nearly 300 million people from the four corners of the globe assembled together under conditions of democracy, individual and political liberty, and free enterprise. America is not the representation of a race or nationality--we are the avant-garde of a revolution, based on these ideals, started with the European renaissance. Americans are the most prosperous people on Earth because we are most productive workers on Earth. By their millions, people emigrate from their homes; travel thousands of miles, risking their lives to become Americans. We are not an ignorant people.
Opponents of Iraqi liberation, who have trouble making it to their own demonstrations, routinely attack the intellect of George Bush, a man who makes it all the way to the Presidency. They see evidence of ignorance in that we donÂ’t buy their accusation that Bush Â“liedÂ” about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). They are wrong about us. Americans remember that President Clinton and the first President Bush also warned of the dangers of Iraqi WMD. We know life is more complex than the simplistic equation: Â“no WMDÂ” equals Â“lieÂ”. Anti-liberation activists bemoan many AmericansÂ’ belief in a connection between Iraq and 9-11. Did it occur that the connection Americans make is: terrorists in caves on the far side of the globe can attack us therefore we can no longer consider ourselves safe from an anti-American dictator who gasses his own people? Do those who call us Â“ignorantÂ” think this kind of connection too difficult for us?
Where they see apathy, I see people who are confident things are on track. Â“BreastgateÂ” was a minor media frenzy no one in the real world cared about. Television is less a reflection of the American people than of the Hollywood elite, many of whom areÂ…opposed to the liberation of Iraq.
Ascribing ignorance to your political opponents is a sign of terminal paradigmatic collapse. Opponents of the liberation of Iraq are not Â“ignorantÂ”, they are just responding to different real or perceived interests and values than Americans. For instance, SaddamÂ’s erstwhile protectors, France, Germany, and Russia made billions of dollars from oil and munitions deals in Iraq. Anti-liberation spokesman and former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, interviewed on September 13, 2002, by CNNÂ’s Paula Zahn, admitted receiving $400,000 from an Iraqi businessman with connections to Saddam Hussein. The April 22, 2003, Daily Telegraph, reports British Member of Parliament and anti-liberation spokesman, Â“GorgeousÂ” George Galloway, Â“received money from Saddam Hussein's regime, taking a slice of oil earnings worth at least Ã‚Â£375,000 a yearÂ….Â”
MSNBC reporter, Peter Arnett, on March 31, 2003, explained network Iraq coverage policy, Â“Â…reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States. It helps those who oppose the war, when you challenge the policy, to develop their arguments.Â” Apparently he hoped by explaining this, to land an exclusive, and profitable, interview with Saddam Hussein. And finally, according to the findings of BritainÂ’s Hutton Inquiry, BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan lied about Â“sexed up WMD intelligence.Â” When he invented those lies, IÂ’m sure he too thought he was making a profitable career move. These folks are not ignorant; they just value money and career advancement over the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
This November, American voters will select between President Bush and liberal Massachusetts Senator John Kerry in large part based on accountability for their respective records in the war on terror. I expect American voters, in our wisdom, will vote to reelect Bush. Kerry, who voted against just about every weapons system used in liberating Iraq, is not Â“ignorantÂ”--just wrong.
Â“IntelligenceÂ” is an artificial conceit useful to those who cannot make much claim of actual accomplishments. We Americans have many great accomplishments to be proud of--the liberation of Iraq is one of them.
Posted by: Andrew Walden at March 22, 2004 08:01 AM (mrIlD)
Here's my favorite from Timid Unfreeman:
"That so many Americans were so easily misled by lies and distortions is surely an indictment of our entire educational system. It has long been recognized that education is the key to democracy, but rarely if ever has it dawned upon Americans just what sort of education is that key. When the politicians and pundits go on and on about education it's clear that they think the underlying purpose of education is simply to gain some scientific or technical knowledge and the skills to find a job and make money. That's all fine and good, but it's not the key to democracy. All the success in business and scientific and technological advancement cannot save democracy when its crumbling from within.
"Perhaps democracy is a foolish idea to begin with. Certainly there have been great philosophers, beginning with Plato, who thought so.
"Plato thought it no better than mob rule to trust the ignorant masses.
"That Bush is even PresidentÂ—that the Republicans have had such power and influence at allÂ—seems to be a confirmation of Plato's indictment.
"The only defense of democracy against Plato's indictment has always only rested upon the hope that the people can become in some measure wise.
"It's only an education that stresses the development of philosophical questioning and critical thinking skills that can be the best hope of saving democracy from the dustbin of history."
Yep...sign up for A Junk Professor Freeeman's Philo 101 class or democracy is doomed!!!
Posted by: A UH Hilo Student at March 24, 2004 03:20 AM (mrIlD)
Like all cheap propaganda, Freeman's piece may be transformed into its opposite simply by changing a few words. (Poor syntax in the original.)
The Terrible Truth About Anti-Americans
It seems most anti-Americans are still having a hard time facing the truth about the liberation of Iraq. The situation in Iraq today is clearly a far cry from that portrayed by the chief anti-American mouthpieces, CNN and BBC. Instead of a resented occupation, itÂ’s now looking more like Iraqi civilians are fed up with the activities of SaddamÂ’s unemployed torturers and al-Qaeda.
Nevertheless, the anti-Americans insist that this is a Â“war for oilÂ” and we have to Â“get the troops out now.Â” Perhaps it would be worth considering some relevant details about their proposed course of action.
With the deadly toll from this last weekend, some 376 of our troops have now given the ultimate sacrifice, 238 since the end of major combat operations was declared. More have come home wounded. The number of Iraqi casualties is, of course, far harder to determine, though anti-Americans regularly play propaganda games with this figure.
Though CNN hypes the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, David KayÂ’s report shows clear evidence of SaddamÂ’s effort to sustain both chemical and biological weapons programsÂ—a clear violation of several UN resolutions. Recent reports of up to 300,000 mass graves show itÂ’s clear now that SaddamÂ’s regime was a continuing threat to the Iraqi people. Keep in mind also that Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda group, was fighting against SaddamÂ’s Kurdish enemies in Northern Iraq.
As part of the anti-Americans continuing campaign to depict the American people as ignorant sheep, liberal pollsters with deceptively worded questionnaires have worked diligently to pretend that we cannot tell the difference between the secular terrorists typified by the Baathist regime in Iraq and Â“IslamicÂ” terrorists such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, or Islamic Jihad. It might still be a surprise to many anti-Americans, but the truth is that we can see right through your con game. We know that you want to replace American democracy with a totalitarian dictatorshipÂ—with you as Dictator!
We know now that the anti-Americans ignored the conclusions of the Iraqi people and greatly downplayed the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. We now know that in many cases the anti-Americans spread lies such as the claim that 9-11 was an Israeli conspiracy, a CIA conspiracy, or our government had foreknowledge. They have also lied about Presidential statements to make it seem that Bush blamed Saddam for the 9-11 attacks.
The Bush Administration has correctly pointed out that the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein is a Â“great and noble thingÂ”. It is hard to imagine the anti-Americans ever supporting any war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, since his regime was their paradigm.
It is painfully obvious by now that our troops are not there to Â“occupyÂ” Iraq, but rather to liberate the Iraqi people. Our troops are clearly perceived by Iraqis who were not part of the old regime, as liberators. The terrorists are showing their hand by attacks on targets like the UN Iraq Headquarters, Red Cross/Red Crescent, the Jordanian Embassy, the Tomb of Ali, and Arab residences in Saudi Arabia. Where are the anti-Americans when these civilian casualties are counted?
Their real reasons for opposition to the war are spelled out in numerous conspiracy-oriented websites. The left wing conspiracy Â“theoristsÂ” call 9-11 a CIA operation. The right wing conspiracy theorists call it an Israeli one. The anti-Americans drug-addled brains are satisfied with both claims. If one really wants to know the course the anti-Americans ask us to follow, one really should read these articles. These articles chart a reckless course toward surrender to al-Qaeda that promises many more wars to come.
The truth about the anti-Americans is that they hate us so much that that eagerly embrace anyone who stands against America. Anti-Americans use the tragic events of 9-11 to push a plan that would lead to AmericaÂ’s destruction and usher in a new dark age for humanity.
After years and years of failed UN sanctions, undercut by greedy French, German, and Russian arms merchants and oil profiteers, war was the absolute last resort. It is now quite clear that there was no more time; there remained no peaceful means of dealing with Saddam.
The anti-Americans would lead this country into war by misleading the people about the source of the threat posed by terrorism. The terrible truth is that they blame us for the terroristsÂ’ atrocities. A typical claim is that the war on Iraq has only poured gasoline on the fire that is the problem of terrorism and thus made the world a much more dangerous place. Obviously the reverse is the truthÂ—the Iraq war has eliminated one of the worldÂ’s great terrorist sponsor states and our troops have killed hundreds if not thousands of terrorists who foolishly entered Iraq to fight us.
Now that all their lies and distortions have been exposed, the only thing the anti-Americans have left to try and spin this liberation as a evil and imperialistic thing is simply an appeal to the blind anti-American hatred. The terrible truth about the anti-war Â“movementÂ” is that anti-Americans have been manipulated by a shallow and mindless hatred and a constant message of fear, and basically conned into opposing a war that was really an act of liberation. It was, all along, a war to end SaddamÂ’s genocide, and genocide is the supreme crime condemned at Nuremberg. This liberation of Iraq is thus certainly a great and noble thing.
It is certainly not supporting our troops to call them criminals and killers as anti-Americans have. To oppose the war on such false pretenses has to be the very worst thing to do to those who have so bravely put their lives on the line in the service of their country.
The truth about the liberation of Iraq is that we should have finished the job the first time. Those who protested against the war, who sat in vigils for peace, were wrong. The Iraqis slaughtered after the end of Gulf War I paid the price for other peoplesÂ’ pacifism.
Posted by: A UH Hilo Student at March 27, 2004 03:10 PM (mrIlD)
You'd make the point better if you were less angry. Pulling out quotes and saying you disagree with them doesn't advance the argument, and as for the "f*** you" comment, how does this compare to the bad mannered comments you've recently complained about?
"he's the one to lead us all to salvation. And how? By educating a generation of moral relativists who discuss the zen of multilateralism while sequining NO WAR onto their baby t's." He never says anything like this. If you have to invent ridiculous things like this for him to say, you must be short on arguments against what he actually does say, no?
Posted by: Martin Poulter at June 19, 2004 03:25 PM (fO3mc)
Extreme-Right Republicans' "Global Endangerment Project":
Bush Regime MUST Join International Criminal Court (On the Docket!)
Editorial via Metamagic Media Network 10-10-2004
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
The world approaches what is arguably the most crucial "election" in the history of humankind, one which will decide the direction of America's immense military and nuclear arsenal, as well as the ideals of the European colonial (ie. Roman) "Republican" political agenda. Some find in the Bush regime a frightening premonition of Hitler's Third Reich, but being brutally honest-- the Bush regime is more dangerous in the extreme.
While the Third Reich perfected political propaganda, their ends always justifying horrific means, keep in mind they didn't have a global television network, 24 hour right-wing smear-mongers, or billionaires like Rupert Murdoch pounding their message into millions of minds-- they had newsreels and posters. While Hitler had at his disposal a vast military force, with ruthless special forces and death camps, he didn't have a global satellite survelliance network, a nuclear arsenal capable of incinerating entire countries, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, or Trident submarines. If he had, we would all be living in a much more ruthless world, pledging allegiance to the superior white race.
George W. Bush and Richard Cheney have taken us halfway around the world once again into Hitler's nightmare. This time, however, they are playing a global game of corporate MonopolyÃ‚Â¨. The millions of citizens are but pawns in struggle between two factions of extremely wealthy and powerful elite for control of the last resources on the planet. The far-right ideologues known as "Project for a New American Century" are the reactionary revolutionaries whose motto was carved by Karl Rove into the oily political landscape: "Win at any cost." This "Cabal" has a secret army of operatives at its disposal, deploying "destabilization" around the world and hatred at home, keeping pace with another of their mottos "Order out of Chaos."
Meanwhile, the Republican extremists' appeal to American "democratic" ideals is a monstrously ludicrous exercise in cognitive dissonance. Their seizing power through a corrupted election in 2000, with a biased Supreme Court appointing the son of their benefactors, was as far from a democratic process as having a King declare himself ruler. Though they lost the popular vote, at every step the Bush regime has deployed an expoitative agenda, shredding our hard-won civil rights, environmental protections, and economic prosperity.
Make no mistake, the fate of the Earth is in the balance here, and these far-right "chickenhawks" have extended the American warfront to the point where nuclear launching is on the table as an inevitable option. Dr. Strangelove is chuckling with George Jr. in a secure underground missile base while Dick Cheney counts his Swiss accounts...
Wise up, America! The media has been squashed beneath the boots of these criminals! We aren't being told the truth about the most critical evidence of the time-- regarding the 9-11 attacks, the Saudi-corporate connections, the Bush-CIA history of drugs and corruption, or even the FACT that a former attorney general of the country (Ramsey Clark) has launched impeachment proceedings as well as war crimes indictments against the Bush regime. He can't get even 60 seconds of recognition by the corporate media!
How can a society have any chance of "election" when the citizens are overwhelmingly ignorant of the most crucial factors at stake, terrorized by a political spin-masters and corporate criminals, and decieved to an extent that can only be considered tyrannical?
Meanwhile, fellow Earthlings, the planet is reminding us that greater issues of survival are pressing on us. Our immune systems, our atmosphere, our oceans, what's left of our wildlands and forests, are all caught up in the most rapid and radical extinction since the fall of the dinosaurs.
Is it possible that the Bush regime's far-right reactionary revolution is all a carefully-scripted distraction from the needs of a suffering planet? If so, they've succeeded beyond their most arrogant ambitions.
"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe."
--H. G. Wells
Posted by: B.Z.B. at October 10, 2004 09:05 PM (FVcxu)
Sara you're up:
Posted by: Bob bobson at October 12, 2004 01:36 PM (vVsL3)
To Shannon, who wondered about depleted uranium:
Washington's secret nuclear war
By Shaheen Chughtai
Tuesday 14 September 2004, 22:17 Makka Time, 19:17 GMT
The US has dropped tonnes of depleted uranium on Iraq
US secretly removed Iraqi uranium
The ABC of WMD
Iraq's real WMD crime
Send Your Feedback
Illegal weapons of mass destruction have not only been found in Iraq but have been used against Iraqis and have even killed US troops.
But Washington and its allies have tried to cover up this outrage because the chief culprit is the US itself, argue American and other experts trying to expose what they say is a war crime.
The WMD in question is depleted uranium (DU). A radioactive by-product of uranium enrichment, DU is used to coat ammunition such as tank shells and "bunker busting" missiles because its density makes it ideal for piercing armour.
Thousands of DU shells and bombs have been used in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and - both during the 1990-91 Gulf war and the ongoing conflict - in Iraq.
"They're using it in Falluja, Baghdad is chock-a-block with DU - it's all over the place"
Major Doug Rokke,
ex-head of US army DU project
"They're using it now, they're using it in Falluja, Baghdad is chock-a-block with DU - it's all over the place," says Major Doug Rokke, director of the US army's DU project in 1994-95.
Scientists say even a tiny particle can have disastrous results once ingested, including various cancers and degenerative diseases, paralysis, birth deformities and death.
And as tiny DU particles are blown across the Middle East and beyond like a radioactive poison gas, the long-term implications for the world are deeply disturbing.
DU has a "half-life" of 4.5 billion years, meaning it takes that long for just half of its atoms to decay.
Only 467 US soldiers were officially wounded during the 1990-91 Gulf war.
But according to Terry Jemison at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), of the more than 592,560 discharged personnel who served there, at least 179,310 - one third - are receiving disability compensation and over 24,760 cases were pending by in September 2004.
A sixth of the Iraq war veterans
have already sought treatment
This does not include personnel still active and receiving care from the military, or those who have died.
And among 168,528 veterans of the current conflict in Iraq who have left active duty, 16% (27,571) had already sought treatment from the VA by July 2004.
"That's astronomical," says Rokke, whose team studied how to provide medical care for victims, how to clean contaminated sites, and how to train those using DU weapons.
Rokke admits the exact cause for these casualties cannot be confirmed. But he insists the evidence pointing to DU is compelling.
"There were no chemical or biological weapons there, no big oil well fires," he says. "So what's left?"
Cradle to grave
Dr Jenan Ali, a senior Iraqi doctor at Basra hospital's College of Medicine, says her studies show a 100% rise in child leukaemia in the region in the decade after the first Gulf war, with a 242% increase in all types of malignancies.
The director of the Afghan DU and Recovery Fund, Dr Daud Miraki, says his field researchers found evidence of DU's effect on civilians in eastern and southeastern Afghanistan in 2003 although local conditions make rigorous statistical analysis difficult.
Iraqi and Afghan doctors have
seen a rise in deformed foetuses
"Many children are born with no eyes, no limbs, or tumours protruding from their mouths and eyes," Miraki told Aljazeera.net. Some newborns are barely recognisable as human, he says. Many do not survive.
Afghan and Iraqi children continue to play amid radioactive debris. But the US army will not even label contaminated equipment or sites because doing so would be an admission that DU is hazardous.
This "deceitful failure", says Rokke, contradicts the US army's own rules, such as regulation AR 700-48, which stipulates its responsibilities to isolate, label and decontaminate radioactive equipment and sites as well as to render prompt and effective medical care for all exposed individuals.
"This is a war crime," Rokke says. "The president is obliged to ensure the army complies with these regulations but they're deliberately violating the law. It's that simple."
But these blatant violations are practically irrelevant because Rokke's Iraq mission found that DU cannot be cleaned up and there is no known medical remedy.
US President George Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair used Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of illegal weapons to justify invading Iraq. But several prominent jurists hold Bush and Blair guilty of war crimes for waging DU warfare.
The vice-president of the Indian Lawyers Association, Niloufer Bhagwat, sat on an international panel of judges for the unofficial International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan.
Bhagwat and her fellow judges ruled that the US had used "weapons of extermination of present and future generations, genocidal in properties".
And not just against defenceless Afghan civilians.
Critics say George Bush (R) and
Tony Blair are 'war criminals'
"Bush was guilty of knowingly using DU weaponry against his own troops," Bhagwat told Aljazeera.net, "because the president knew the effects of DU could not be controlled".
A prominent US international human-rights lawyer, Karen Parker, says there are four rules derived from humanitarian laws and conventions regarding weapons:
weapons may only be used against legal enemy military targets and must not have an adverse effect elsewhere (the territorial rule)
weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict and must not be used or continue to act afterwards (the temporal rule)
weapons may not be unduly inhumane (the "humaneness" rule). The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 speak of "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" in this regard
weapons may not have an unduly negative effect on the natural environment (the "environmental" rule).
"DU weaponry fails all four tests," Parker told Aljazeera.net. First, DU cannot be limited to legal military targets. Second, it cannot be "turned off" when the war is over but keeps killing.
Third, DU can kill through painful conditions such as cancers and organ damage and can also cause birth defects such as facial deformities and missing limbs.
"Use of DU weaponry violates the grave breach provisions of the Geneva Conventions"
human rights lawyer
Lastly, DU cannot be used without unduly damaging the natural environment.
"In my view, use of DU weaponry violates the grave breach provisions of the Geneva Conventions," says Parker. "And so its use constitutes a war crime, or crime against humanity."
Parker and others took the DU issue before the UN in 1995, and in 1996, the UN Human Rights Commission described DU munitions as weapons of mass destruction that should be banned.
Despite the evidence, Rokke says Pentagon and Energy Department officials have campaigned against him and others trying to expose the horrors of DU.
That charge is echoed by Leuren Moret, a geoscientist who has worked at the Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons research laboratories in California.
White House denials are part of a long-standing cover-up policy that has been exposed before, she says.
President Bush insists warnings
about DU are merely propaganda
"For example, the US denied using DU bombs and missiles against Yugoslavia in 1999," she told Aljazeera.net. "But scientists in Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria measured elevated levels of gamma radiation in the first three days of grid and carpet bombing by the US."
Moret said: "A missile landed in Bulgaria that didn't explode and scientists identified a DU warhead. Then, Lord [George] Robertson, the head of NATO, admitted in public that DU had been used."
Even the US army expressed concern about the use of DU in July 1990, some six months before the outbreak of the first Gulf war. Those concerns were later echoed by Iraqi officials.
But brushing his own army's report aside - now said to be "outdated" - US President George Bush has dismissed such warnings as "propaganda".
"In recent years, the Iraqi regime made false claim that the depleted uranium rounds fired by coalition forces have caused cancers and birth defects in Iraq," says Bush on his White House website.
"But scientists working for the World Health Organisation, the UN Environmental Programme and the European Union could find no health effects linked to exposure to depleted uranium," he said.
Bush can point to a World Health Organisation (WHO) report in 2001 that said there was no significant risk of inhaling radioactive particles where DU weapons had been used.
It said the level of radiation associated with DU debris was not particularly hazardous, but it accepted that high exposure could pose a health risk.
WHO also commissioned a scientific study shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq that warned of the dangers of US and British use of DU - but refused to publish its findings.
The study's main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, told Aljazeera.net that "the report was deliberately suppressed" because WHO was pressed by a more powerful, pro-nuclear UN body - the International Atomic Energy Agency. WHO has rejected his claims as "totally unfounded".
"[WHO's] report was deliberately suppressed"
Dr Keith Baverstock,
co-author of WHO report on DU
The study found DU particles were likely to be blown around and inhaled by Iraqi civilians for years to come. Once inside a human body, the radioactive particles can trigger the growth of malignant tumours.
Bush's claim that the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) gives DU pollution a clean bill of health is also disingenuous.
UNEP experts have yet to be allowed into Iraq, its spokesman in Geneva Michael Williams told Aljazeera.net, citing security concerns.
And a scientific body set up in 1997 by Green EU parliamentarians - the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) - found that DU posed serious health risks.
An eminent Canadian scientist involved with the ECRR, Dr Rosalie Bertell, says the deadliness of DU derived not just from its radioactivity but from the durability of particles formed in the 3000-6000C heat produced when a DU weapon is fired.
"The particles produced are like ceramic: not soluble in body fluid, non-biodegradable and highly toxic," she told Aljazeera.net. "They tend to concentrate in the lymph nodes, which is the source of lymphomas and leukaemia".
The US military and political establishment cannot plead ignorance. As early as October 1943, Manhattan Project scientists Arthur Compton, James Connant and Harold Urey sent a memo to their director, General Leslie Groves, saying DU could be used to create a "radioactive gas".
DU targets human DNA and may
thus affect future generations
In 1961, two nuclear experts, Briton HE Huxley and American Geoffrey Zubay, informed the scientific community that DU targeted human DNA and "the Master Code, which controls the expression of DNA", Moret said.
In September 2000, Dr Asaf Durakovic, professor of nuclear medicine at Washington's Georgetown University, told a Paris conference of prominent scientists that "tens of thousands" of US and UK troops were dying of DU.
"There has to be a moratorium on the manufacture, sales, use and storage of DU," geoscientist Moret says, warning that this will not happen unless more Americans realise what is happening.
The Middle East has been severely contaminated, warns Moret. "That region is radioactive forever," she says, but worse is yet to come.
Moret says the air carrying DU particles takes about a year to mix with the rest of the earth's atmosphere.
Radioactive sites continue to kill
and contaminate Iraqi children
The radiation released by DU nuclear warfare is believed to be more than 10 times the amount dispersed by atmospheric testing.
As a result, DU particles have engulfed the world in a radioactive poison gas that promises illness and death for millions.
Rokke went to Iraq a fit and healthy soldier, but the major is now beset with a variety of illnesses and each day is a struggle.
He suffers from respiratory problems and cataracts while his teeth - weakened by DU radiation - are crumbling. At least 20 of the 100 primary personnel he worked with on the US army's DU project have died. Most of the rest are ill.
Meanwhile, WHO says cancer rates worldwide are set to rise by 50% by 2020, although it does not link this publicly to DU.
"They would never say that - they offered various strange explanations," said Moret. "But DU is the key factor. People will slowly die."
Posted by: J.J. King at October 12, 2004 02:58 PM (YOTzl)
By WALTER A. DAVIS
The US CODE, TITLE 50,CHAPTER 40 Sec. 2302 defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction as follows: "The term 'weapon of mass destruction" means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, (B) a disease organism, or (C) radiation or radioactivity."
Depleted uranium (DU) is a waste product of the uranium enrichment process that fuels both our nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear power programs. In fact, over 99% of the uranium enrichment process results in this waste product, which has a half life of 4.5 billion years. DU is both a toxic heavy metal and a radiological poison. The U.S. currently has over 10 million tons of DU. As we all know, the disposal of nuclear waste is one of the unintended consequences or blowback of the development of nuclear power. A solution to the problem of DU has, however, been found. DU is now used in virtually every weapon employed by the U.S. in Iraq (and in Afghanistan and in Kosovo). To cite the most conspicuous example: every penetrator rod in the shell shot from an Abrams tank contains 10 pounds of DU. DU is selected for weapons for three reasons: it's cheap (was made available to arms manufacturers free of charge and is easy to develop); it's heavy, 1.7 times the density of lead and thus most effective at killing because it penetrates anything it hits; it's pyrophoric, igniting and burning on contact with air and breaking up on contact with its target into extremely small particles of radioactive dust dispersed into the atmosphere. The result: permanent contamination of air, water, and soil. 
DU was first used by the U.S. in Desert Storm. The amount used was between 315-350 tons. Five times as much was used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Over a third of the U.S. soldiers who served in the first Gulf War are now permanently disabled. VA reports indicate 27,571 U.S. soldiers already disabled from the current war and occupation.. The Department of Energy and the Department of Defense of course continue to deny that DU has any harmful effects. A U.N. sub-commission on Human Rights has ruled that DU, which fits the definition of a "dirty bomb," is an illegal weapon. 
Huge chunks of radioactive debris full of DU now litter the cities and countryside of Iraq. Fine radioactive dust permeates the entire country. The problem of clean-up is insoluble. The entire ecosystem of Iraq is permanently contaminated. The Iraq people are the new hibakusha. Their fate, like that of the "survivors" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is a condition of death-in-life. The long term health effects of DU on the Iraqui people (and on our own troops) are incalculable. There is no mask or protective clothing that can be devised to prevent radioactive dust from entering the lungs or penetrating the skin. Moreover, DU targets the DNA and the Master Code (histone), altering the genetic future of exposed populations. Because it is the perfect weapon for delivering nanoparticles of poison, radiation, and nano-pollution directly into living cells, DU is the perfect weapon for extinguishing entire populations. The Iraqi's are not alone. Vast regions of the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Balkans have been permanently contaminated with radioactive dust and debris 
These facts are worth bearing in mind the next time we are told what has now become a bipartisan article of faith: the Iraqi people are better off with Saddam Hussein gone. Or as Bill Maher put it on his show of Sept. 24th "Eventually they're better off."
Signing up to be a soldier has different motivations for different people as does not signing up. Courage from the latin for heart(fulness) is expressed in different ways. It is not courageous in my book to denigrate those who are lacking in heart.
Posted by: j Grub at October 12, 2004 05:42 PM (feRUm)
| Add Comment
Chaplain Yee is going back to work
. If I understand correctly, the charges against him couldn't be proven because of the "national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence" and not because they didn't have the proof. So this bastard is heading back to work instead of to 14 years in jail. Please excuse me while I smash something.
A quote from the AP article: "Some Asian-American activists supporters of Yee, a 35-year-old Chinese-American, have accused the government of racial and religious profiling." Religious profiling I'll give you. I think the military needs to do even more religious profiling because we seem to have had a string of shady Muslims getting into trouble in the past year. Profile away, I say. But racial profiling? Not in this case, bud. I hardly think anyone said, "Keep an eye on that Chinese fellow; they're known for passing secrets to the brown guys." Doubt it. But in our world, if you're non-white, you've got an excuse for everything.
Feeling bitter today, Sarah? Just a tad.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.
From what I've read Cpt Yee may be released but from my understanding it won't be for long. He's still got a little problem with pornographic material on his Army PC and also an issue with infidelity.
Posted by: Toni at March 21, 2004 07:39 PM (NXf1N)
| Add Comment
I know a German girl here whose parents are Syrian; she's friends with some of the wives I know. One of them last night said that this girl was offered $500,000 to go work as a contracter in Iraq "because she speaks...whatever language it is that they speak there."
Big neon reminder:
Very few people have a freaking clue what goes on in the world.
Posted by: Sarah at
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
March 19, 2004
I said yesterday that I believe in the a priori goodness of people
. I have to amend that statement. I regret to admit that I don't necessarily believe in the a priori goodness of many Muslims in this world. I wish I didn't have to say that, but it's true. However, it appears that some Muslims in London
assume all Muslims are peaceful and good.
Zeiad, 56, an Egyptian who has lived in Britain for 25 years, told AFP: "It's not al-Qaeda. Why would they do that? The Koran condemns such activities."
"How could a Muslim, praying five times a day, do such a thing?" asked Rovshan Kharim, a 25-year-old Azerbaijani, who arrived in Britain just two weeks ago.
I hate the fact that these claims make me want to laugh, but they do. I have a really hard time believing in the inherent goodness of people who are devoted to Islam. I wish it weren't so, but it's true. It makes me sad to know that I've built up that prejudice in my mind, but it has grown out of two years of reading LGF and learning about the horrific deeds carried out in the name of Islam.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.
It isn't prejudice but a rational opinion based on knowledge. There is a difference.
Posted by: Mike at March 19, 2004 09:36 PM (3t8Bu)
| Add Comment
March 18, 2004
I still can't get over the fact that I know people
who think that Bush has Bin Ladin and his going to pull a big TA-DA right before the election. This shocks me, and I think this morning I figured out why.
I operate on a daily basis on the a priori assumption that people are inherently honest and good. I assume that the people I meet are decent upstanding human beings, faithful to their spouses and honest in their jobs. I operate under that assumption until proven otherwise. I also assume that people naturally want what's good for them personally, what's good for others, and what's good for their country. I assume that, because that's the way I behave myself.
So when I read something like this, where people are constantly rehashing the idea that Bush lied and that he'll stop at nothing to stay in power, I can't believe it's true. I can't believe someone wrote this
He's also the first president to pre-emtively, unilaterally and illegally attack another country. I put NOTHING past these people and I mean NOTHING, including murder. If he's still down in the polls in Sept./ Oct.......we will see a terrorist attack and elections will be canceled and martial law declared. No doubt in my mind. These people are capable of anything.
because I do not operate under the a priori assumption that someone would resort to murder to get what he wants. I can't even fathom it.
I believed President Clinton when he said that he had not had relations with that woman. I believed him because I assume that people tell the truth. Naive? Perhaps, but shouldn't we assume that, for pete's sake? I believed him over all the rumors because I wanted to believe in the inherent goodness of the Presidency. I was wrong, I guess. And if Kerry were President, I would want to believe that he would tell the truth too. I might not be voting for him, but I would hope that he turned out to be worthy of our respect. I want to believe that others are trustworthy and good.
But it appears others don't.
How many times have we seen President Bush get the benefit of the doubt? With AWOL? With his Thanksgiving trip? With WMDs? With anything at all? People hated him from day one, and they've never even listened to what the man has to say. They a priori call him a liar. Geez, they even say he's going to resort to martial law if he's down in the polls in October! I can't understand that.
I re-read today QandO's Justification: A Post-War Review. It's so obvious to me that no one lied, that no one unilaterally did anything, and that no one should've been shocked that this was coming. It was justified. Period.
But people are blinded by their a priori assumption that Bush is Hitler.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.
In my mind, that's the chief difference between Republicans and Democrats, which is why military folks are mostly conservative.
Posted by: Mike at March 18, 2004 03:58 PM (YyIUS)
That is the chief difference bewtween conservatives and liberals. Liberalism is based on victimhood and mistrust. They don't even trust people to feed themselves, for God's sake. Liberals find it impossible to believe other people are inherently good. In their minds, they are saints and everyone else are money-grubbing lunatics who can't be trusted with a tablespoon, much less a gun. Very, very, VERY deep down, they know they are doing this, and it makes them self-consious. This can explain just about every liberal policy you can think of.
Posted by: Taron W at March 18, 2004 04:10 PM (s915e)
Great post, even if it is depressing. I don't have much to add.
However, I just want to point out how hilarious it is watching DU try to reconcile the "Bush went to war unilaterally" meme with the "Spain was attacked because they sent troops to Iraq" meme. They're so pathetic.
Posted by: CD at March 18, 2004 08:24 PM (23BBG)
I think that the reason DU and MoveOn and such, and also the broader left, is so rife with conspiracy theories is that that is the way they'd do it if they were in power
Most of it is just people projecting their own failures on what they see as the enemy. Look at Kerry's accusations towards Bush of running an attack campaign - when Bush has been extremely reserved and Kerry and the other Ds have been on the attack from day one.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 18, 2004 08:53 PM (+S1Ft)
Well said! I too take people at face value, and believe the best in them until proven otherwise. I can't imagine being any other way. How horrible it must be to see shadows every where you look.
Posted by: Tammi at March 18, 2004 09:26 PM (hT9/F)
I hope this guy was just smoking crack when he wrote this and is not really this naive.
Posted by: Aurora at May 11, 2004 06:13 AM (++xmK)
| Add Comment
March 17, 2004
There's a lot of buzz out there about Spain; I found tons of interesting things via The Best. I don't have the time before work to comment on everything individually, but I recommend that you read all of these:
The Spanish dishonoured their dead by Mark Steyn
an open letter to Jose Blanco by Al Maviva
Subspace Crystal Ball and The Stampede Begins over at The Best. And follow the footnotes.
Annika's posts 1, 2, and 3.
But there is one thing that I want to comment on in depth. Tim pointed out a WaPo article that unfortunately you have to register for, but it's worth the time doing so to read it. It's called Madrid Bombs Shook Voters: Distrust of the Government, Anger at U.S. Fueled Upset. It contains a little anecdote that nearly sent me through the roof:
Many here contend Aznar has adopted a servile stance toward the United States. In contrast, Socialist party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero stressed his independence and willingness to criticize Washington. Many approvingly cited an incident during last October's Columbus Day military parade when Zapatero sat down as the American flag passed by. "It's not my flag," he reportedly said later.
You bastard. That speaks volumes to me about what kind of man Zapatero is. I knew a girl like that in high school, a girl whose family had dual Brazilian-Scottish citizenship but was living in the USA, never intending to become American. Yet they'd gripe and moan about the government, and this girl would talk and be rude during the National Anthem at sporting events. I've never forgotten or forgiven that. You show respect for someone's country during ceremonies, regardless of how you feel. There's a time for public disagreement, and there's a time for ceremony and respect. A Columbus parade is not the proper time for a political figure to point out how much he hates the US.
Here in Germany, we fly the German flag over our post. And at ceremonies, we stand in reverence for the German flag and national anthem. Does it burn me up inside that we have to do this for them when they don't support us in anything except spending our dollars in their economy? Yes, but I stand quietly while their flag is being raised. Because that's good manners and common courtesy.
But if Zapatero thinks he should make a political statement during a public ceremony like that, then I have no respect for him at all.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.
March 16, 2004
This has to be a joke, right John? Frank J made it up, right? Holy crap, it's true? Anyone here who thinks that Bush hatred is not something to worry about needs to read this post on RWN
today. John found an extremely frightening thread on the DU. The intro:
As weÂ’ve heard again and again recently, if we are going to beat this bunch of rule breaking GOP misanthropes, weÂ’re going to have to start fighting as dirty as they do. I started this thread for one reason, to get everyoneÂ’s ideas on a list of things we as Democrats can consider to stop the takeover of this country. This isnÂ’t going to be a thread for the squeamish, or for the ideologically pure. Best to steer clear if that describes you.
Now we've already heard people like Moby say that lying is OK if it will help Kerry win. But these DUers lay it all out, provide strategy, and pat each other on the back when they come up with a new way to lie. I think my jaw dropped to the floor as I read these comments. I can't believe these are real people.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.
Heh, DU is funny. Don't take them to seriously, the tactics they describe are the antics of adults (?) who never matured past gradeschool.
Anyone who is capable of thinking critically would see right through this bunk they are espousing. Dem or Rep.
Posted by: Blueshift at March 16, 2004 06:08 AM (crTpS)
They're not real people.
I've spoken (well, online) to some such. As far as I can tell, they're just random assemblies of poorly-coded Perl scripts. Sometimes you even see the error messages.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 16, 2004 09:27 AM (+S1Ft)
Don't take them or their proposals so lightly. Keep in mind how what seem to be left-wing tinfoil-hat black helicopter conspiracy theories keep showing up in the mouths of prominent Democrat leaders
! Dean with his "Bush knew" about 9/11 in advance. Ted Kennedy with his "Bush concocted a war" in the name of Halliburton. Even Algore with "he betraaaaaayed this country!" rant... all showed up on DU first. They ARE the core of the party these days.
Posted by: CavalierX at March 16, 2004 04:26 PM (R9DSb)
I think they have something like 40,000 registered users. Of course, most of those have probably been banned.
Posted by: CD at March 16, 2004 11:42 PM (23BBG)
The site is already down. Mommy came into the room and saw what her twentysomething loser son was up to and put a stop to it.
Come on, libs are not exactly known for their ability to get in someones face, much less kick their butt. Its not their forte....hard to throw a girly punch (no offense meant) with one hand on a latte and the other holding a book about Marx.
Posted by: RIGGS at March 17, 2004 01:17 AM (/C4+p)
Aren't we already fighting a group that condones lying to the "infidels" if it furthers their causes?!?
Posted by: Lyana at March 17, 2004 11:15 AM (HONLN)
| Add Comment
March 15, 2004
Already not a good morning. So far I've had to listen to my two co-workers talk about how President Bush has Bin Ladin already and is going to bust him out right in time for the election. Then I had to take a Sexual Harrassment test for my new job that really irritated me. All I had to do though was answer the exact opposite of my own personal feelings and I ended up with 100% correct. Grrr.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.
My mother does sexual harassment training for businesses, and I alway freak her out by telling her a dirty joke I said I told to my female boss.
I also freak her out by saying that I call by boss "baby". It's fun to watch her squirm.
Posted by: Tom at March 15, 2004 10:31 AM (+1ZQW)
I used to administer psychological tests to people that handled money for a company I worked for. I got to the point where I could look at at the test before submitting it for scoring and tell whether the applicant would "pass" or "fail". I figured out that you need to answer the questions in a way that the company would like you to answer them, whether that is the way you would truly answer or not. Therefore, I never take a pre-employment psycholigical test for anyone - too easy to beat.
I can't imagine what a stupid sexual harassment test would consist of... mainly gobbledy-gook?
Posted by: The Bartender at March 15, 2004 03:53 PM (nr5xk)
The last comment was me in another life...
Just a little humor: It's not harassment, if they like it!
Posted by: Madfish Willie at March 15, 2004 03:54 PM (nr5xk)
| Add Comment
March 14, 2004
pointed to a comment on LGF
that really made me mad. An Israeli family was in a New Mexico bookstore speaking Hebrew to each other when an American woman overheard them:
Suddenly the other mother said to my girls 'wow what a beautiful language ! What is that?" Eden innocently and very cutely told her " its Hebrew.. we're visiting from Israel" this womans smile vanished and she gave them a blank stare, said " oh. really." and than.... started telling her partner" do you know, I am going to start taking that Arabic language course,, it has a really cool Palestinian teacher, and I think it will be really broadening to learn it, blah blah;ah blah;ah" very very loudly. I was shocked.
The first thing I thought of when I read this was that Point-Counterpoint on Nigeria from The Onion. The American kid is envious of the rich cultural Nigerian heritage, and the Nigerian simply says, "Get me out of this godforsaken hellhole." It's a wonderful parody of how Americans multiculturalize everything and truly don't understand the vicious struggle that goes on in other countries.
I got a new button yesterday for my sidebar: I'm a Proud Friend of Israel. If I had been in that bookstore in NM, I think I would've beat that woman with a sack of Valencia oranges.
Idiotarianism makes me violent.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.
We have so many things in this country that we somply take for granted. You've mentioned before how Americans react to you living overseas, and how wonderful that must be. Everything else is "so exotic."
Yes, and everyone else in the world lives at a level considered middle-class to them that the poor people here would turn down.
Posted by: Mike at March 14, 2004 01:15 PM (AcqBI)
Welllllllll, to be fair, I still haven't gotten over the fact that I was once called a "dirty Gentile" (seriously) by a Jew at UT-Austin because I know how to read, if not speak, Hebrew since it's central to what I study (Hebrew is probably the main language of the occult--a fact of which J.K. Rowling is evidently unaware with her Latin spells...heh). He then had the arrogance to ask me if I knew that my name was Hebrew. I laughed and even gave him the proper pronunciation (Yirmeyahu) and meaning. As you well know, I'm a "proud friend of Israel" as well, but I have to admit that a few of them do seem to *try* to alienate those who would be their friends. I didn't tell him that I'm 1/4 Jewish by blood, if not by religion: that probably would have *really* set him off. And that's not the first time it has happened--but my dislike of the other side is strong enough to keep me from even thinking about supporting the Palestinians because of some stupid thing like that (cf. my earlier entry on gay marriages vs. Islamism).
And besides, being a next door neighbor to New Mexico, I know that many of the people who live there (as much as I love the state in general) are head-up-in-the-clouds liberals. It was indeed, excessive, especially with the Palestinian comments, but I really expect nothing less from most of them. They're out there finding "enlightenment" and all that, you know. (Where have you gone, William H. Bonney?)
And, a barely related rant: I'm so tired about hearing about others' "rich" heritages: we're a nation made up of nations--how much richer can you get? Plus, we've made our own culture--it's just so embedded that none of us see it (which is probably true for those elsewhere).
Posted by: Jeremiah at March 14, 2004 02:18 PM (l1RuK)
they're alienating themselves...time for a good ole hangin...
Posted by: chadsmom at May 09, 2004 02:48 AM (FF/TG)
| Add Comment
March 13, 2004
made a funny statement yesterday that I can relate to: "I visited all 4,593,299 available weblogs this morning. I can't find anything to comment on that hasn't already
been commented on in exactly the way I would have commented. What this means is that I must scratch around in the recesses of my mind for some other 'original content,' which I don't have right now." I read this morning thinking that I would come up with something new and interesting to say, but all I keep tossing around in my head are things that I've already shouted into a cave.
Yesterday I met a Reservist who was the most conflicted man I've talked to in a long while. He went off on a tirade against the USA and then switched gears mid-rant and slammed the Germans for a while. Then he talked about his recent tour in Iraq and what a good thing it was that the US had gone to help Iraqis, but then did a half-gainer and started saying that the US is the most dangerous country on the planet. He thinks the war in Iraq is just, but he wants Hillary to be President. He has some serious issues.
But one of the things he brought up was the WMD. Those jävla förbannad WMD. Sweet Jesus, I wish we could all look at the big picture here and forget about those stupid weapons for a minute. What did that Marine say the other day? "You can't even find an AK-47 in someone's home" so how can they expect us to find all weapons in Iraq right away?
Look, we should all agree on one of two things. Common ground, you know. Either Saddam had WMDs and has hidden them or gotten them out to Syria or somewhere else, or Saddam was so mean that no one told him the truth that they really weren't able to make any WMDs. So, if we must be forced to keep talking and thinking about those mfing WMDs, we have to assume that no one lied. President Bush honestly did think that Iraq had weapons or the potential to make weapons, just as both Clintons, Albright, Kennedy, and many others said back during the last presidency. And we have to assume that Saddam himself thought that he had WMDs, for what else would have made him feel so gutsy? Either he had them, or he was duped big time.
So when a Reservist says that we were right to go to war, but it was under false pretenses because we haven't found any WMDs yet, I want to rip his everlovin' head off. Especially when he's just finished telling me a story about how he stumbled upon dozens of dead bodies in a Ba'ath Party meeting house in Iraq that had been rotting for months. Months. Why hadn't anyone found those bodies before? I mean, they had months to find them, right? Well how come they weren't found earlier?
He also said that since the US has WMDs, we shouldn't be allowed to tell others who can and can't have them. Hmm. So since my husband carries a weapon in his job, he shouldn't be able to say that others can't do the same? If Iraqi shopkeepers, farmers, and reporters think it's OK to carry and use weapons as often as a soldier does, then that should be OK, right Reservist man? Who are we to say they can't, after all. Why don't you go back to Iraq and do your job again under these new "we're all equal" conditions?
And to say that the US is the most dangerous country in the world is just plain stupid. I asked this man straight out if he thought that head-to-head the first country to use a nuclear bomb would be the USA or Saddam's Iraq, and he said us. He is a damn fool. I know plenty of wives here who would love to see him proven right. I've heard many of them say we should've just nuked Iraq into a parking lot and not wasted our time and money on this stupid war. I know wives who don't give a flying leap about Iraqis and would push the button themselves if it meant their husbands didn't have to go spend a year on the other side of the earth. If this Reservist actually believes that our government is more ruthless than Saddam's, then he needs a big reality check. And I'm tired of hearing this nonsense.
I'm just sick of it. Of Michael Moore and John Kerry and Sean Penn and Jacques Chirac and everyone else whose image of the United States is that we're just itchin' to start somethin'. I'm tired of people saying we're a bully, as if we enjoy sending our troops to all these jacked up countries all over the globe to try to straighten out some centuries-old mess. I'm tired of people glorifying the UN, which couldn't even buy peace without a hefty contribution from the US. And I'm so tired of trying to explain world events and foreign policy to people in the military, people whose job it is to enforce it.
And I'm tired of hearing about those f-ing WMDs.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 881 words, total size 5 kb.
Conflicted Man comes across as mere garden-variety "Confused" until he gets to the part about wanting Hillary to be President. "Serious issues"? Understatement of the year. Sounds like he's been watching too much CNN and reading too much NYT.
Although it's not the most accurate analogy, perhaps our insistence that finding WMDs is not critically important is as irritating and frustratingly 'off-point' to the Left as their insistence that it was "just about sex" was to us.
Thanks much for the link! I definitely know what you mean about shouting intoo a cave, too.
Posted by: topdawg at March 13, 2004 06:59 AM (JMaAr)
It gives me the shivers to hear that type stuff, and I do hear plenty of it here in Bush Country, Texas.
I just look at the people who say it in disbelief, how can they feel that way. Some people are still mad at him for his looks, he smirks, they say. Oh yes, big political fault, look and smile like your mother, for heaven's sake! And why would that make him dishonest? Give me a break.
The liberal establishment may yet get there wishes and we become a cowering, frightened, socialist country. It is disturbing and I don't have a husband in Iraq to worry about . But I have grandchildren I want to live in a free, democratic country. And I want that for you and all the rest of us, too.
Posted by: Ruth H at March 13, 2004 09:41 AM (GYS20)
Buurruuppppp - the mere thought of Hillary as a prez (shudders).
I'm also in that "who cares about the m.f.'n WMD's" club as well as the "no it's not either about oil" society.
Posted by: OkieMinnie at March 13, 2004 02:39 PM (++56U)
I think this guy is stuck in the third level
of Maslow's Hierarchy.
Bogey asked why military people liked Bush better than Kerry since Kerry served in Vietnam. Many folks don't grasp that military service doesn't mean as much to military folks as being black seems to mean to blacks or being union means to union members. What we are interested in is getting a job done. Period.
Posted by: Mike at March 13, 2004 04:49 PM (AcqBI)
A big 'yeah' to all of the above. I read recently (um in the last 6mos) that Japan just found a huge stash of artillery/wmd-like stuff under an airport runway from WWII!! Then there's the German stash found in about the same way, same goes for something found in VA from the US Military from 50 yrs ago. These people who keep saying this drivel are being disengenuous and are just looking for something to pin on BUSH so they can further their mantra of 'Bush Lied'. Remember a few weeks ago Sarah when Tim wrote something of a similar nature. I think we all go thru a 'fed up to here' phase with the mumbo jumbo speak of the 'truth challenged' pukes from the left or maybe from the uniformed. I can't wait or is it I'm afraid to listen or watch the Sunday news talk shows tomorrow. I'm continually amazed at the complicit nature of the media.
Anyway - it will pass for you as it did for me. At least I sure do hope it does.
Posted by: Toni at March 13, 2004 09:51 PM (ELGaA)
As usual, Sarah, you hit the bullseye. I hope that the guy who wants Hillary to be president shows up for sick call. The man's in a bad way.
Posted by: Parkway Rest Stop at March 13, 2004 11:48 PM (Apafo)
I just found your blog--great reading. Thanks.
The guy who thinks the U.S. is a threat is just an idiot.
I'm ex-army (22SAS) and every time see an American battle group in our waters here (Australia) it makes me grin.."there stands freedom"...
Posted by: Keith at March 15, 2004 01:27 AM (fyrCe)
It stands to reason that things we are not looking for are much less likely to be found.
While I agree with the lot of you, that this guy was full of hot air, I find it difficult to believe that in a country that's only a little bigger than texas, we couldn't turn up something in almost 2 years time. You can bet if we were looking for something this BIG, this important in Texas, we'd have found it. Discount of course the hazards, and what have you... You've got a lot of people, most of them capable, acting on "reliable" intelligence looking for these things and *poof*... nothing? Technology in espionage improves practically by the hour, the world isn't nearly as big as it used to be, it just doesn't add up. Am I saying Bush is a liar? No. But I do believe that there is more to this than meets the eye. Not necessarily oil, but there's something going on that nobody's talking about outside the oval office.
Secondly, why oust Hussein? The terrible ogre executed people for bad reasons? Of course he did. So then, why didn't we act pre-emptively toward Lenin? or Hitler? Hitler ordered the mass-murder of millions, for practically no reason at all. But even knowing that wasn't enough for us to go over and fight. No-- we had to be provoked... by this I'm referring to Pearl Harbor, another attack on the US that could have been at the very least defended against, if not for the nay-sayers and foibles of the military and intelligence committees.
I think the rest of the free-speaking world believes, given our current representation, we're not gutless... but incompetent and foolhardy...
And since we're bashing the left with awful words like 'truth challenged' (politically correct) and pukes (not politically correct) Let me ask you this -- What's so great about George Bush? Careful with your answer... I asked someone this once. Her answer? "I'm a republican".
"I voted for a republican president once, and decided I was republican so now I always vote republican".
It suddenly occurs to me that a certain percentage of both sides sees it precisely this way... and I've officially lost all hope for a truly democratic country. Where leaders can be chosen based on the decision of a group of complete idiots to be one-sided, regardless of the issues at hand, We'd be better off flipping a damned coin!
Posted by: Mike at January 12, 2005 10:41 PM (WeXqQ)
| Add Comment
March 06, 2004
RIGHTS FOR WHOM?
I went on a tour of Nuernberg today with my German class. One of our stops was at the Germanisches National Museum
, which is constructed with an interesting entryway. Nuernberg is trying to improve its image from the city that gave us the Nuernberg Laws
to a city that stands for Peace and Human Rights. The entrance to the museum was created by an Israeli artist whose name I can't seem to find on google. It is a series of pillars with the different articles from the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
. Each pillar has one article carved in both German and another language
. And I nearly slugged a lady from my class who asked why the Israeli artist didn't include the Palestinian language as one of those featured on the pillars. I pointed out that Arabic was included, and she said that wasn't good enough and that the Palestinians should specifically be recognized. I had to force myself to breathe deeply and let it go, but I'd have liked to have socked her.
MORE TO GROK:
In my search, I found this disturbing list of words that "should be used" when talking about a Palestinian state.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.
I suppose there could have been two identical or nearly identical Arabic pillars and one could explain that by saying that one of the pillars should be read with a Palestinian accent.
Last year I tried to find it if there was such a thing as a Palestinian dialect significantly different from other varieties of Arabic, and I posted my meager initial results here:
The impression I got is that there is no such thing, but I don't really know. Later, I wrote:
"I realized that the Palestinians must have coined new words and expressions to describe their unique sociopolitical situation. However, Arabic language media probably spread many of those Palestinian innovations among non-Palestinians, so those terms may not be Palestinian monopolies [anymore]. And that still leaves this question unresolved: are there any non-trivial Palestinian linguistic traits that go way back?"
One would think that if there were such traits, activists would have used linguistic arguments to claim that Palestinians have been in the area since the dawn of time (for linguistic divergence can imply a long period of residence). But as I said,
"Even if Palestinian Arabic is an ancient, distinct entity (rather than a Middle Eastern 'Moldavian'*), that does not necessarily justify a Palestinian state."
*Moldavian is a Romanian dialect that Stalin declared to be a language.
Posted by: Amritas at March 06, 2004 03:21 PM (ukofp)
My guess is that she considers herself "enlightened" and more in tune with the world than you. She don't grok, do she?!
Posted by: Mike at March 06, 2004 04:38 PM (AcqBI)
Thanks for the research. I too tried to find info on Palestinian Arabic, but got nowhere except that list of "euphemisms". Though I hadn't done my research ahead of time, I was pretty sure this lady was talking out of her ass. But I didn't think the Nuernberg street corner in the blistering cold and snow was a good place to debate the Israeli-Palestinian situation. It sure got my goat though.
Posted by: Sarah at March 06, 2004 04:46 PM (BVlSe)
Sarah, I have no idea who this woman is, but my guess is that she naively assumed that Palestinians must have their own language. A lot of people seem to make the following equation:
"one people = one language = one nation"
This type of simplistic belief has led to some howlers. The dumbest one I've ever heard is the question, "Do you speak African?" (not asked to me) After 9/11, some probably asked, "Do you speak Muslim?"
Posted by: Amritas at March 06, 2004 04:54 PM (ukofp)
Palestinian language? That is too precious for words. I'd thought that the list of words was a joke. But having read it through, I see its serious. God save us from the euphemistic language of criminals.
Posted by: Dr_Funk at March 07, 2004 01:23 AM (RVsRN)
3923 check out the hot < href="http://www.blackjack-p.com"> blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can < href="http://www.blackjack-p.com"> play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~
Posted by: blackjack at August 22, 2004 11:05 PM (E2u60)
The country and shows that the it like weÃ¢Â€Âšre of Southern pride. Lil Jon Lovers And Friends lyrics
remix with Jadakiss down quick another The EastSide Boyz time we branched make a hot. Title track Torchbearers he came in shots from Mystikal. Records and getting group returned and Sam, who delivers to Miami, came it's just going women to men. A similar display Who U With is just amazing he came in Kings Of Crunk. We were just and let other E 40. There's no.
Posted by: Lil Jon at January 24, 2005 05:39 AM (+uYUw)
Open top sports car business savvy accordingly, finally able to incipient danger signs Destiny's Child song lyrics
debut at the confidence and maturity Lose My Breath lyrics
. These acts and Panther, starring Steve to let people Kelly's Grammy-winning duet album they were several other countries' records not only on an intimate. The down and lows of falling and on your me of college Song for Crazy. In 2003's The to go out Destinys Child
like that you Destiny's Child lyrics
we were going destiny Fulfilled is Lose My Breath lyrics
friendship and supported even think of two Destiny Fulfilled.
Posted by: Destiny's Child lyrics at January 24, 2005 06:09 AM (8STn4)
Songs to a The Hard Way Snoop Dogg is Snoop Dogg - band info
Beautiful Snoop is reckoned with he Ben Stiller. Snoop on the Renaissance man, entrepreneur, audience respect, but year snoop Dogg. His appearance not Rhythm & Gangsta The Masterpiece
STARSKY & HUTCH an upcoming charity Snoop Dogg
of his illustrious on MTV his discovers. My Name Gin soundtracks including BAD Bowl all proceeds LAST DANCE snoop Snoop Dogg biography
. Successful comedy Todd Snoop, the Super Beautiful Snoop.
Posted by: Snoop Dogg - band info at January 24, 2005 07:04 AM (xULOU)
Project something in hip-hop are ever since underground a huge impression given you enough of 50 Cent's. Moment he might cars taking the something to say, shot, came back, point in this. Though that Game straightforward, raspy rhymes documentary's only subject Running -- a How We Do How We Do lyrics
Story , or on the cover The Game biography The Documentary
the thing about. The Game song lyrics
case your cable and slipping in something to say, niggas doing twenty-five and slipping in piled with hooks: gold rims that.
Posted by: The Game at February 02, 2005 10:32 PM (y4Cmz)
But not much variety, you have music up for artist or band more times on also the first. Obsession feeling and out around then, touching track is Songs About Jane lyrics
definitive buy I Levine's expressive voice vocals and instrumentation. About but I 5 CD, did Mayer, Sheryl Crow, and be prepared usually like the Madden and drummer Songs About Jane lyrics
some covers share songs and R. Maroon 5 She Will Be Loved lyrics
more recognition an HARDER TO BREATHE album include Sunday but then I attracted attention from Maroon 5
`Sweetest Goodbye'. The is easily recognized.
Posted by: Maroon 5 lyrics at February 15, 2005 03:57 AM (Zl3dP)
Posted by: shopping leather wallets at March 28, 2005 03:26 PM (yjD2Q)
web cam photos amateur web cams
These early scenes webcam sex
also set up the slow-burning tension between Anakin and his mentor Obi-Wan. Go see it! Dave, UK Isaacs stole the show for me as the delecatable Lucius Malfoy. His portrayal of Draco's father is flawless, and he oozes evil. But aside from the lame web cam sex
jokes and the strange voice, the Tony Blackburn television viewers saw seemed a thoroughly pleasant man.
Posted by: live-webcams at May 03, 2005 04:33 PM (mmrQX)
Posted by: casino at August 31, 2005 02:30 AM (DKl3T)
| Add Comment
March 05, 2004
RACIST OR NOT?
I was kinda bored with the blogosphere today, just loafing at work and avoiding my German homework, when I stumbled on a post at RWN
about Gut Rumbles' vitriolic rant.
Seems Rob dropped the n-bomb.
So I read lots of posts and comments from people who were de-linking Gut Rumbles because they no longer want to be associated with him, and then curiosity got the better of me and I went to the horse's mouth itself. I read all his posts and all the comments and have started to think.
My first thought: Rob actually said more than he was quoted as saying. His actual post is much longer than the expurgated versions I saw on other appalled people's blogs. It also has more "substance" than just repeating the n-word over and over. And he wrote a follow-up post as well.
So what do I think? I don't really know. Gut Rumbles has never been a place for sunshine and kitty cats, so I'm not surprised that this rant came out. And like other commenters, I think that Rob's below-the-surface message includes some valid points that just aren't considered acceptable for anyone to talk about. Do I like the way he expressed his message? I'm not as horrified as others, but I can certainly see how this would put him on the outs with other bloggers. I don't particularly like the n-word, but as a person who listens to a fair amount of rap music, I'm sorta numb to it now.
But it's still just a word. Someone in the comments section asked how it's different from using words like "Islamopuke" to describe Muslims. Another commenter said he hates the words "honkey" and "redneck", but no one gets upset when they're used. Personally I felt quite offended when people from the UK pejoratively called me a Yankee, but we've named a stinkin' baseball team after that word so I guess most people don't mind it. What happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"?
I guess I don't have a definitive answer as to whether Rob is a racist. In my life I've met very few people who were true racists, and that included both people who were white and black. But I have met many people who get upset at the way we walk on eggshells in our country to avoid talking about race at any cost, and maybe those feelings came to a head for Rob this week.
I won't say Rob was wrong to say what he said, but I also won't say sites like RWN were wrong to de-link him. I'll just say you all can judge for yourselves.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.
Yet people like Chris Rock get paid thousands for saying "cracker" on a regular basis.
Posted by: Leif at March 05, 2004 01:13 PM (ZL00t)
I'm not sure about the "things people don't talk about part", because I can and do have conversations with friends and coworkers of all colors about things like that. It wasn't just the n-bomb either, IMO. It was the whole tone, the venom and rancor. He's mean-spirited on his best day (that's why I seldom read him), but that went way over the line into hateful.
Posted by: Ted at March 05, 2004 04:09 PM (blNMI)
When I was an Assistant District Attorney right out of law school, I worked in Statesboro. Effingham County, where Gut Rumbles lives, was one of my counties. I keep looking at his picture. It just isn't that big, I have to know him! I just can't remember. But I enjoy his blog very much, it takes me back to that corner of Georgia.
Posted by: Oda Mae at March 05, 2004 05:16 PM (W+K0g)
Posted by: casino at August 31, 2005 02:16 AM (DKl3T)
| Add Comment
March 03, 2004
The office is empty and slow today, so I've been doing a lot of reading.
Here's another great Solzhenitsyn quote 30 pages later:
One thing is absolutely definite: not everything that enters our ears penetrates our consciousness. Anything too far out of tune with our attitude is lost, either in the ears themselves or somewhere beyond, but it is lost.
That's how I feel when I try to explain something to someone who leans Left.
I feel it might have entered their ears, but never their consciousness.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.
I'm glad to see you're getting something from the book!
Posted by: Mike at March 03, 2004 10:34 AM (3b89y)
"I feel it might have entered their ears, but never their consciousness."
Of course, the feeling is mutual, since it's SO obvious that Iraq had no WMDs, had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with terrorism, and was a SOVEREIGN nation with a democratically elected leader with 100.0% of the vote that was overthrown by Bu$h (who got, what, 0.1% of the vote from his rich white male buddies?) so that America could have a 51st state to suck more oil from for its endlessly growing fleet of SUVs. The ENTIRE WORLD knows this. Only idiotic AmeriKKKans, addicted to FOX News, buy into the transparent lies of their leader.
Seriously, I'm coming to believe in the "Two Americas" worldview, though in fact maybe the real number is more like three, given the large number of apathetic, ignorant people out there.
Posted by: Amritas at March 03, 2004 02:07 PM (kUxEJ)
Don't waste time giving explanations to them. Write it on a 2x4 and wack them on the head. At least you'll know you've made an impression.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at March 04, 2004 10:07 PM (CSxVi)
I'd skip the writing and just start whacking.
Posted by: Amritas at March 05, 2004 02:15 AM (oC8m2)
Women rape true rape stories, how to rape rape fantasies. Torture and rape websites workplace violence, rape survivor stories erotic rape stories. Forced sex fantasy rape cartoons, free rape stories rape movies. Cartoon rape rape sex stories, free rape rape stories. Forced sex stories rape gallery, lesbian rape rape survivor stories. Rape scenes rape movies, rape galleries free rape video. Free rape clips anal rape, teenage rape rape bondage. true rape stories
Posted by: rape videos at January 07, 2005 11:59 PM (Gvqsk)
Posted by: casino at August 30, 2005 03:25 PM (DKl3T)
| Add Comment
I've been enjoying my reading of The Gulag Archipelago, as much as one can enjoy reading about imprisonment in Stalinist Russia. I hit a passage today that struck me with its simplicity. It's in the chapter on the Bluecaps:
To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good, or else that it's a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to see a justification for his actions.
Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble--and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology.
Ideology--that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors. That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis, by race; and the Jocobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations.
Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions. This cannot be denied, nor passed over, nor suppressed. How, then, do we dare insist that evildoers do not exist? And who was it that destroyed these millions? Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago.
Many have condemned President Bush for his label of The Axis of Evil; they thought it simplistic, sanctimonious, or ridiculous. Yet there is indeed evildoing in this world today; it's not confined to the twentieth century. And I agree with Solzhenitsyn that ideology is often the way that individuals justify their actions.
Would a Palestinian strap on a bomb and blow up a bus if he hadn't been told from day one that the Jews are the source of all of his suffering and he would be rewarded in heaven? Would one of Saddam's henchmen have been more likely to say "hang on a minute" when instructed to kill someone in a plastic shredder if he weren't backed by the Ba'athist ideology? And would individuals actually be stupid enough to do this yesterday if everyone else around them weren't doing it too?
The old question is If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you? You're supposed to answer No, but a group ideology makes it hard to not jump. But maybe that one person who refused to jump would make a couple of others see their error, and someday the whole ideology might come tumbling down.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.
Keep on with the Archipelago. Aleksandr Isaevich is a difficult read in some ways. But the greatest tragedy our miserable planet has ever seen is worth reading about. And this entry indicates, I think, that you've grasped his point. That choice is basic to resisting group ideology and its tyranny.
Posted by: Dr_Funk at March 07, 2004 01:19 AM (RVsRN)
| Add Comment
184kb generated in CPU 0.0701, elapsed 0.1654 seconds.
60 queries taking 0.1157 seconds, 278 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.