IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New It's time Britain admits it was suckered into war
[link|http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1936444|the truth]

It's time Britain admits it was suckered into war
By ROBIN COOK

CHUTZPAH is the word applied to people who radiate belief in themselves without any visible reason to justify it. In the chutzpah stakes, U.S. Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld is way off the top of the scale.

Before the war, he told us that Saddam Hussein had "large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and an active program to develop nuclear weapons." After the war, he explains away the failure to find any of these stockpiles or nuclear installations on the possibility that Saddam's regime "decided they would destroy them prior to a conflict." You have to admire his effrontery.

But not his logic. The least plausible explanation is that Saddam destroyed his means of defense on the eve of an invasion. The more plausible explanation is that he did not have any large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

We need to rescue the meaning of words from becoming a further casualty of the Iraqi war. A weapon of mass destruction in normal speech is a device capable of being delivered over a long distance and exterminating a strategic target such as a capital city. Saddam had neither a long-range missile system nor a warhead capable of mass destruction.

Laboratory stocks of biological toxins or chemical shells for use on the battlefield do not add up to weapons of mass destruction. But we have not yet found even any of these.

When the Cabinet of Prime Minister Tony Blair's government discussed the dossier on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, I argued that I found the document curiously "derivative." It set out what we knew about Saddam's chemical and biological arsenal at the time of the previous Persian Gulf War. It rehearsed our inability to discover what had happened to those weapons. It then leaped to the conclusion that Saddam must still possess all those weapons. There was no hard intelligence of a current weapons program that would represent a new and compelling threat to our interests.

Nor did the dossier at any stage admit the basic scientific fact that biological and chemical agents have a finite shelf life. Nerve agents of good quality have a shelf life of about five years and anthrax in liquid solution of about three years. Saddam's stocks were not of good quality. The Pentagon itself concluded that Iraqi chemical munitions were of such poor standard that they were produced on a "make-and-use" regimen under which they were usable for only a few weeks. Even if Saddam had destroyed none of his 1991 arsenal it would long ago have become useless.

It is inconceivable that no one in the Pentagon told Rumsfeld these home truths, or at the very least tried to tell him. So why did he build a case for war on a false claim of Saddam's capability?

Enter stage right (far right) his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, a man of such ferociously reactionary opinion that he makes Rumsfeld appear reasonable. He has now disclosed: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on weapons of mass destruction because it was the one issue everyone could agree on."

Wolfowitz is famously a regime-change champion. He was one of the flock of Republican hawks who wanted a war to take over Iraq long before Sept. 11. Decoded, his remarks mean that the Pentagon went along with allegations of weapons of mass destruction as the price of getting U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Britain on board for war. But the Pentagon probably did not believe in the case then and certainly cannot prove it now.

Wolfowitz also let the cat out of the bag over the "huge prize" for the Pentagon from the invasion of Iraq. It has furnished an alternative to Saudi Arabia as a base for U.S. influence in the region.

As Rumsfeld might express it, we have been suckered. Britain was conned into a war to disarm a phantom threat in which not even our major ally really believed. The truth is that the United States chose to attack Iraq not because it posed a threat but because they knew it was weak and expected its military to collapse.

It is a truth that leaves the British government in an uncomfortable position. This week, Blair was pleading for everyone to show patience and to wait for weapons to be found. There is an historic problem with this plea. The war only took place because the coalition powers lost patience with chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix and refused his plea for a few more months to complete his disarmament tasks.

There is always a bigger problem in denying reality than in admitting the truth. The time has come for the British government to concede that we did not go to war because Saddam was a threat to our national interests. We went to war for reasons of U.S. foreign policy and Republican domestic politics.

One advantage of such clarity is that it would help prevent us from being suckered a second time. Which brings us to Rumsfeld's latest saber-rattling against Iran. It is consistent with the one-dimensional character of the Rumsfeld world view that he talks of Iran as if it were a single unified entity. In fact, Iran is deeply divided by a power struggle.

On the one side are President Mohammad Khatami and the majority of the Parliament who are reformers, reflecting the political reality that most Iranians consistently vote to join the modern world. On the other hand are the conservative forces of the old Islamic revolutionaries led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who still retains control over the security apparatus.

When Labor took office, I initiated a policy of constructive engagement with the reformist government, which has been skillfully continued by British Foreign Minister Jack Straw.

The blanket hostility to Iran of the Bush administration has undermined the reformers and provided a welcome shot in the arm to the ayatollahs.

British policy on Iran makes sense in securing the advance of the reformers, which is in the interests of ourselves and of the Iranian people. This time we must make clear to the White House that we are not going to subordinate Britain's interests to a U.S. policy of confrontation. Iran must not become the next Iraq.

Cook is the former foreign minister of Great Britain and was a member of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Cabinet before resigning over the decision to go to war with Iraq.

lincoln
"Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig"
[link|http://users3.ev1.net/~bconnors/resume.htm|VB/SQL resume]
[link|http://users3.ev1.net/~bconnors/tandem_resume.htm|Tandem resume]
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
New s/Britain/Blair/
Unlike the American populace, the UK man on the Clapham omnibus was, is and will be resolutely anti-war.

Apparently, we're so uncivilised that we think that bombing the shit out of people isn't the best way to bring them on-side.

Perhaps 30 years of up-close and personal low-level civil war in Northern Ireland has given us a different perspective on what it means to "engage in military operations".


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New Dresden?
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


But take your time, think a lot,
Why, think of everything you've got.
For you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not.


Y. Islam - Father and Son
New toosmall a sample try here
[link|http://www.google.com/search?q=british+bombing&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N|google British Bombing] goes on for bloody ever. Although from the news the boys are enjoying favors from the Iraqi POW's :-)
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

"I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
New Since we're having a little fun now...
how about [link|http://www.regiments.org/milhist/nations/map.htm|http://www.regiments...t/nations/map.htm]
...

No, the red spots are not just war zones over the last century, they're the pacifist former British Empire...

Peter, juxtapose your statement
Unlike the American populace, the UK man on the Clapham omnibus was, is and will be resolutely anti-war.

Apparently, we're so uncivilised that we think that bombing the shit out of people isn't the best way to bring them on-side.


with [link|http://home.att.net/~genophilia/mw1.htm|http://home.att.net/~genophilia/mw1.htm] taken from the thread starting "Gory revelations..." A scant 55 years ago, your nation was very different. I'm glad to see that your populace has progressed so much so quickly.

Perhaps this is a weapon of mass irony you are attempting in an effort to shock and awe us?
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


But take your time, think a lot,
Why, think of everything you've got.
For you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not.


Y. Islam - Father and Son
New Oh, for those too lazy to click links...
an excerpt from [link|http://home.att.net/~genophilia/mw1.htm|http://home.att.net/~genophilia/mw1.htm] to illustrate Peter's statement (bold added by me):
"Unlike the American populace, the UK man on the Clapham omnibus was, is and will be resolutely anti-war."


THE ALLIED TERROR BOMBING OF GERMANY
\ufffdA MOST UNCIVILISED MEANS OF WARFARE\ufffd
During the war, more bombs by weight were dropped on the city of Berlin than were released on the whole of Great Britain during the entire war. All German towns and cities above 50,000 population were from 50% to 80% destroyed. Dresden, an unprotected city was incinerated with an estimated 135,000 civilian inhabitants burned and buried in the ruins. Hamburg was totally destroyed and 70,000 civilians died in the most appalling circumstances. Cologne one of Christian Germany\ufffds most beautiful cities was turned into a moonscape. As Hamburg burned the winds feeding the three-mile high flames reached twice hurricane speed to exceeded 150 miles per hour. Trees three feet in diameter on the outskirts of the city, were sucked from the ground by the supernatural forces of these winds and hurled miles into the city-inferno, as were vehicles, men, women... and children. The volcanic flames reached 1,500 metres with gases as high again caused meteorological reaction as high as the stratosphere. Likewise Frankfurt and other cities like them. Between 1940 and 1945, sixty-one German cities with a total population of 25 million souls were destroyed of devastated in a bombing campaign that was initiated by the British government. Destruction on this scale had no other purpose than the indiscriminate mass murder of as many German people as possible quite regardless of their civilian status. It led to bombing retaliation resulting in 60,000 British dead and 86,000 injured.

THE MOST UNCIVILISED FORM OF WARFARE
The British war historian and strategist, Captain Sir. Basil Liddell Hart declared that through this strategy victory had been achieved "through practicing the most uncivilized means of warfare that the world had known since the Mongol invasions." The Evolution of Warfare. Baber & Faber, 1946, p.75

"Was absolutely contrary to international law." Said British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who added: "The British Government would never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children for the purposes of mere terrorism."

HITLER'S REVULSION
Adolf Hitler was repelled by the thought of bombs raining down on civilian populations. "The construction of bombing aeroplanes would soon be abandoned as superfluous and ineffective if bombing as such were branded as an illegal barbarity. If, through the Red Cross Convention, it definitely turned out possible to prevent the killing of a defenseless wounded man or prisoner, then it ought to be equally possible, by analogous convention, and finally to stop the bombing of equally defenseless civil populations. "I owe it to my position not to admit any doubt as to the possibility of maintaining peace. The people want peace. It must be possible for governments to maintain it. We believe that if the nations of the world could agree to destroy all their gas and inflammatory and explosive bombs it would be a much more useful achievement than using them to destroy each other." Adolf Hitler

WHO WAS THE FIRST TO BOMB CIVILIANS?
"Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones." J.M Spaight. CB. CBE. Bombing Vindicated, p.47. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry

"Churchill was obsessed with getting America into the war. He tried to frighten Roosevelt with the prospect of an early German victory. He searched for an outrage, such as the sinking of the Lusitania in the First World War that would arouse American public opinion. German bombing of British civilians might well achieve this. But for weeks it looked as if the Germans had no intention of being so obliging." The First Casualty, Phillip Knightley, Andre Deutsch. London. 1975

THE FIRST BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
"This raid on the night of May 11th 1940, although in itself trivial, was an epoch-marking event since it was the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces, Their flight marked the end of an epoch which had lasted for two and one-half centuries." F.J.P Veale, Advance to Barbarism, p.172

"The first 'area' air attack of the war was carried out by 134 British bombers on the German city of Mannheim, on the 16th December 1940. The object of this attack, as Air Chief Marshall Peirse later explained, was, 'to concentrate the maximum amount of damage in the centre of the town.'" The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany. (H.M Stationery Office, London, 1961)

As early as 1953 H.M Stationery Office published the first volume of a work, The Royal Air Force, 1939 - 1945, The Fight at Odds.p.122 described as 'officially commissioned and based throughout on official documents which had been read and approved by the Air Ministry Historical Branch, its author, Dennis Richards, reveals that: "If the Royal Air Force raided the Ruhr, destroying oil plants with its most accurately placed bombs and urban property with those that went astray, the outcry for retaliation against Britain might prove too strong for the German generals to resist. Indeed, Hitler himself would probably lead the clamour. The attack on the Ruhr was therefore an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London." "We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland.\ufffd J.M. Spaight, CB., CBE., Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry / "Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May,11th, 1940, the publicity it deserves." Bombing Vindicated. J.M. Spaight, CB. CBE, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry "Air Marshall Tedder made every effort to be a worthy pupil of his superior, Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The Marshall told high British officers that Germany had lost the war because she had not followed the principle of total warfare."

New York Times, January, 10th 1946

"Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany... there was a reasonable possibility that our capital and industrial centres would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany." J.M. Spaight, CB. CBE. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry

"The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it would be impossible to carry on a modern war." Dennis Richards, The Royal Air Force, 1939 - 1945; The Fight at Odds. H.M Stationery Office

"It gave Coventry and Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton, the right to look Kiev and Kharkov, Stalingrad and Sebastopol, in the face. Our Soviet allies would be less critical of our inactivity if they had understood what we had done." J.M. Spaight, CB., CBE., Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry

THE TRUTH HIDDEN FROM THE BRITISH PUBLIC
"It is one of the greatest triumphs of modern emotional engineering that, in spite of the plain facts of the case which could never be disguised or even materially distorted, the British public, throughout the Blitz Period (1940 - 1941), remained convinced that the entire responsibility for their sufferings it was undergoing rested on the German leaders. Too high praise cannot, therefore, be lavished on the British emotional engineers for the infinite skill with which the public mind was conditioned prior to and during a period of unparalleled strain." Advance to Barbarism, P.168. Mitre Press, London. F.J.P Veale, British Jurist

"... the inhabitants of Coventry, for example continued to imagine that their sufferings were due to the innate villainy of Adolf Hitler without a suspicion that a decision, splendid or otherwise, of the British War Cabinet, was the decisive factor in the case." F.J.P Veale. Advance to Barbarism, P.169

"One of the most unhealthy features of the bombing offensive was that the War Cabinet - and in particular the Secretary for Air, Archibald Sinclair (now Lord Thurso) felt it necessary to repudiate publicly the orders which they themselves had given to Bomber Command." R.H.S Crosman. Labour Minister, Minister of Housing. Sunday Telegraph, Oct.1st, 1961

"Is terror bombing now part of our policy? Why is it that the people of this country who are supposed to be responsible for what is going on, are the only people who may not know what is being done in their name? On the other hand, if terror bombing be part of our policy, why was this statement put out at all? I think we shall live to rue the day we did this, and that it, (The bombing of Dresden) will stand for all time as a blot on our escutcheon.\ufffd Richard Stokes, M.P. This Member of Parliament was referring to the Associated Press Correspondent of Supreme Allied Headquarters in Paris, which had gloatingly described: "this unprecedented assault in daylight on the refugee-crowded capital, fleeing from the Russian tide in the East. The report had been widely broadcast in America, and by Paris Radio. It was suppressed in Britain for fear of public revulsion.

"Thus, in a minute dated 28th February, 1943, Sir Archibald Sinclair explained to Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff, that it was necessary to stifle all public discussion on the subject because if the truth had been disclosed in response to the enquiries being made by influential political and religious leaders, their inevitable condemnation would impair the morale of the bomber crews and consequently their bombing efficiency." F.J.P Veale, Advance to Barbarism, p.29

WORKING CLASS TARGETED FOR HIGH KILL RATIOS
"The third and last phase of the British air offensive against Germany began in March, 1942, with the adoption of the Lindemann Plan by the British War Cabinet, and continued with undiminished ferocity until the end of the war in May, 1945. The bombing during this period was not, as the Germans complained, indiscriminate. On the contrary. It was concentrated on working class houses because, as Professor Lindemann maintained, a higher percentage of bloodshed per ton of explosives dropped could be expected from bombing houses built close together, rather than by bombing higher class houses surrounded by gardens." Advance to Barbarism, F.J.P Veale, British Author and Jurist


I don't know about the "was" part, Peter... Even Hitler was disgusted...
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


But take your time, think a lot,
Why, think of everything you've got.
For you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not.


Y. Islam - Father and Son
New Way to lose context.
I thought we were talking about the Iraq conflict.

What happened a generation ago, I can't speak to. History is there to be learned from.

Oh well.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New Let's hope...
In all honesty, I admire your optimism and your idealism. I posted the Allies article, perhaps as a way to demonstrate that France, Germany, and the Soviet Union may not have that much "moral high ground" to judge us (USGB - The United States of Great Britain), as well as to remind you that your country was not always as "pacifistic" as your statement about "Unlike the American populace, the UK man on the Clapham omnibus was, is and will be resolutely anti-war." It was intellectually offensive to anyone who knows anything about history - especially the "was" part.

Now, substitute the word Kurd for Jew or Armenian. There's a little moral high ground there?

Peter, to wit, a generation ago is not that long in a historical sense. I am 41 years old. When I was born in 1961, the insanity of World War II was only over for a scant 16 years. But it was just a story in a history book to me. Now that I am 41, 16 years ago ain't that long - nor is 50.

Unlike many in this group, I think the USGB did the right thing and in the right way (cameras, ground war, etc.) in Afghanistan and Iraq. Compare the way we conducted this war with WWII in the links I provided. You don't have to be ashamed.
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


But take your time, think a lot,
Why, think of everything you've got.
For you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not.


Y. Islam - Father and Son
New Learning from history
We have history to learn from, so we don't repeat our past mistakes or the mistakes of those before us.

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't there British troops in the current Iraqi War? Is this fact being ignored? Also British fighters, etc. They were and are our allies. They got their hands bloody too. So did some of Iraq's neighbors. So you can't just blindly blame everything on the USA. We had some partners in this war.


"If you're going to cheat, cheat fair. If there's anything I hate it's a crooked crook!" -Moe Howard
New Re: Learning from history
We have history to learn from, so we don't repeat our past mistakes or the mistakes of those before us.

I already said that, but with less words. Is there a reason for repeating it?
Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't there British troops in the current Iraqi War? Is this fact being ignored? Also British fighters, etc. They were and are our allies. They got their hands bloody too. So did some of Iraq's neighbors. So you can't just blindly blame everything on the USA. We had some partners in this war.

I never said anything to the contrary. My point was that while the US public was overwhelmingly pro-war, the UK public wasn't, probably because we're tired of seeing people—our people—get blown up after watching it on the news night after night for the past 30 years.

Our administration acted against the express will of the people, and I expect them to reap the rewards at the next General Election. However, given the amusingly fractured state of the Conservative Party, there isn't a viable alternative to Labour unless the Liberal Democrats get their act together.

Me? I'm going to vote Lib Dem, because they at least seem honest. This is the party that says, up front, that they're going to stick a penny on income tax for the purpose of properly funding education. Labour (whom I voted for in the past two elections) have shot their bolt with me.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New Re: Learning from history

I never said anything to the contrary. My point was that while the US public was overwhelmingly pro-war, the UK public wasn't, probably because we're tired of seeing people\ufffdour people\ufffdget blown up after watching it on the news night after night for the past 30 years.


We have a lot of US Citizens upset about the war, more than you think. I wouldn't say that we are overwhelmingly pro-war, about less than half of us actually seem to be pro-war. An overwhelming amount of us are misinformed or uninformed about the war facts and why we went over there. I must admit I was buying the story of there being WoMD over there, but I would have accepted our government saying they have to remove Saddam from power to free the Iraqi people from his dictatorship before he kills any more of them. I'm hoping that they find at least some WoMD over there before time runs out. In any case we have had a lot of Anti-War protests over here, too many to be considered that the US public was overwhelmingly pro-war.


"If you're going to cheat, cheat fair. If there's anything I hate it's a crooked crook!" -Moe Howard
New What party is your MP?
What are the party rankings in your constituency? I'm also thinking of voting Liberal Democrats, not Labour, except Lib Dems are 3rd in my constituency way behind 2nd place Conservative. A vote for Lib Dems would be a vote for Tory. So, I can't do it.
Matthew Greet


But we must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig, cow after cow, village after village, army after army. And they call me an assassin. What do you call it when the assassins accuse the assassin? They lie. They lie and we must be merciful to those who lie.
- Colonol Kurtz, Apocalypse Now.
New Re: What party is your MP?
[link|http://politics.guardian.co.uk/hoc/constituency/0,9338,-1129,00.html|http://politics.guar...338,-1129,00.html]

Excellent resource.

Although the Lib Dems have only 10% or so of the vote, they're on the up, and the Conservatives are waning. I hope to push this process along :-)


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New #2: Oh thank heavens, for a while I thought I was reading ..
of firebombing raids on the east coast of Honshu

One has to visit the cities from Tokyo to Okayama to understand the meaning of firebombing. What happened along this coast was horific and long before the atom bombs were unleashed. This area was Japan's industrial coastline of densely populated wooden cities which were devestated by 'firestorms' and 100s of 1000s died horrible deaths by burning there - more died in the firestorms than from the later Nuke blasts. Until I had vsited these cities and visited the museums and 'castles', I had no idea how serious the US raids had been. Read on ...

[link|http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II|http://www.wikipedia...o_in_World_War_II]

>>
The first "fire bomb" raid was on Kobe on February 3 and following relative success the AAF continued the tactic. Much of the armor and the defensive weapons of the bombers were also removed to allowed increased bomb loads, Japanese air defence in terms of night-fighters and anti-aircraft guns was so feeble it was hardly a risk. The first such raid on Tokyo was on the night of February 23-24 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile of the city. Following on that success 334 B-29s raided on the night of March 9-10, dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs around 16 square miles of the city were destroyed and over 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the "fire storm". It was the most destructive conventional raid of the war against Japan. In the following two weeks there were almost 1,600 further sorties against the four cities, destroying 31 square miles in total at a cost of only 22 aircraft. There was a third raid on Tokyo on May 26.
<<

Definition of 'fire-bombing' [link|http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_bomb|http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_bomb]

In reading local accounts of these fire-storms I came across one telling account describing the horror: It described what it was like going into an air raid shelter & finding it had become a big vat of melted humans where skins had become bags for the bones & all lying in a vast vat of jellified human fat, juices, skins & bones.

Doug M
Expand Edited by dmarker June 7, 2003, 08:49:21 AM EDT
Expand Edited by dmarker June 7, 2003, 09:02:35 AM EDT
Expand Edited by dmarker June 8, 2003, 01:16:58 AM EDT
New " the pacifist former British Empire.."
Ah yes - to lose an empire is obv. too high a price to pay; right, Dan?

What's a good price to build a new one? Is the next 3 generations a good enough investment?
New slong as its not my three generations : Prescott
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

"I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
New Who said they lost it?
Are we not just a "former" member. To wit, the "rest of the world" views us (the US and Great Britain) as the same entity ala the term UNILATERAL... The description of what the USGB (nice ring to it) did in Iraq. UNI - ONE. Are we our own empire or an extension of an existing one? I think it's a good question to ponder if one is to make sense of current world events.

If any nation threatened GB, it is an auto war against US as well. Notice how the Monroe doctrine didn't apply to GB in the Falklands? etc... etc... etc...

I suspect that Peter is just as out of touch speaking for GB's popular opinion as you are speaking for US's. :-)

50 years ago is not that long ago, by the way.

And as I've said before, your contention that it will take time to repair the damage the current administration has done is plain old politically motivated BULLSHIT. This country's reputation pre Bush wasn't so great either. The World Trade Center was bombed during your precious Clinton years by people who claimed to be mad at another Bush... ad nauseum. But, you know that. You've just found a point to rail on with the current crop of politicos. This country is no better nor worse than any other. All the countries of the world possess "leaders" who are masters of deceit, greed, et al. They are called "politicians".

Are you your brother's keeper?
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


But take your time, think a lot,
Why, think of everything you've got.
For you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not.


Y. Islam - Father and Son
New We can still agree on a few points.
Did you ever look up that ballet, The Green Table -?- wherein the 'diplomats' open the first act - gesticulating at each other over an umm green table. Next scene shows a damn good balet improvisation of the reulting heaped dead young cannonfodder. Then return the Suited Ones, offering each other cigars. So yes: most leaders are there for possession of oer'weening Pride, Ego and Unscrupulousness .. most; fortunately for the entire world: not all or usually not too many of the patent misanthropes all-at-once. No argument here. So then - give up? Chant, Today Afghanistan/Iraq! Tomorrow Iran/et al -- die Welt!!

You continue to be (or to play) dumb about the puppeteers behind our variously-challenged bogusly-ensconced Leader. Dismissing all evidence of the larger organization behind the scenes, is a level of insouciance just above believing then, in the Tooth Fairy IMO.

It's hard for me to imagine your whole-hearted acceptance of the Slogans du jour - but less hard to imagine you haven't done fuck-all in closely inspecting the history of the principals in this play -- at very least Rove, Wolfowitz, Kristol + a bevy of others in the Cabinet: and their past writings (esp. the seemingly unguarded ones - though Rove is too smart to put anything much on paper: except the pabulum of the day).

So why should I argue with the intentionally uninformed?

Brother's Keeper -?- nonsequitur:
Christian dogma speaks of this. Most Muricans think they sorta believe it's a Good Thing. Theoretically. Now as to what most Christians practice daily - we've had those threads.

"Brotherhood" is a concept about as far from the Murican psyche as would be indicated by 'our' utter addiction to 'Action', almost solely dedicated to increasingly graphic portrayal of the creation of heaped dead -pref. still dying- bodies -- in what we call 'entertainment'! Locally as bereft of meaning as the inane phrase, The Murican Peepul Want ___. There ain't no such animal - nor are 'we' a melting pot neither..

Give me a break. Dubya cannot utter a sentence with the words brotherhood or compassion - except in.. his.. ... most.. .. stilted-form .. yet-observable. Ever a robotic recitation and such great body-language to observe - you have eyes; use the fucking things: See! what you are Looking At.


Ashton
New Not perfect == can't screw it up more?
No, we never had a perfect reputation. Pretty damned close in the months after 9/11, though. But it has never been (and isn't yet) so bad that it couldn't get screwed up more.

For example, we were assumed to be a theoreticaly non-aggressor nation, invading only after establishing a reasonably convincing argument that we were opposing an act of overt aggression, even if we did have to fake it sometimes. I do know enough 20'th C. US history to know Iraq wasn't an innovation in action. But it was an innovation in words, and words do mean something.

On the world stage, Clinton had a fairly good reputation. So did George I. Not as particularly moral or generous or good-hearted individuals, but as negotiators with whom one could make a profitable deal. Remember how George I's coalitions used to involve big countries that could actualy send troops? I never was much of a fan of the guy, but he was good at foreign policy. He knew what the hell he was doing. George II on the other hand has made it known he isn't making any real deals. This is how it's going to be, take it or leave it. He won't be building any real coalitions. Sure, he's willing to throw some cash around and make some concessions on minor stuff, so he can get Mexico to not oppose too much, and Spain and Camaroon to do a little cheerleading. GB doen't count - if Bush announced he was taking down the Archbishop of Canturbury because English people talk funny, Tony Blair would go before the UN and point out "see? I'm doing it right now!" and then send troops to attack themselves.

You can say it doesn't matter - those other countries never sent all that many troops anyway. But it does - George II will never have the options of economic sanctions or weapons blockades and will have to march our troops all over hell and back because there will continue be so many countries they can't cross.

Bombing the WTC was never a very good indication of world opinion. Rather the opposite - the WTC represented more than just the US. It represented global commercialism of which the US is the flagship, not the fleet. The better the US was doing with the fleet, the worse the playa-haytas wanted to blow it up.

Polls have rather consistently shown that a majority (not an overwhelming majority as the media has painted it - more in the 60% range than the 90% range) of US citizens are in favor of the invasion of Iraq, while a substantial majority of pretty much everybody else, the English included, are rather strongly opposed.

----
Sometime you the windshield, sometime you the bug...
     It's time Britain admits it was suckered into war - (lincoln) - (18)
         s/Britain/Blair/ - (pwhysall) - (17)
             Dresden? -NT - (screamer) - (16)
                 toosmall a sample try here - (boxley) - (15)
                     Since we're having a little fun now... - (screamer) - (14)
                         Oh, for those too lazy to click links... - (screamer) - (8)
                             Way to lose context. - (pwhysall) - (6)
                                 Let's hope... - (screamer) - (5)
                                     Learning from history - (orion) - (4)
                                         Re: Learning from history - (pwhysall) - (3)
                                             Re: Learning from history - (orion)
                                             What party is your MP? - (warmachine) - (1)
                                                 Re: What party is your MP? - (pwhysall)
                             #2: Oh thank heavens, for a while I thought I was reading .. - (dmarker)
                         " the pacifist former British Empire.." - (Ashton) - (4)
                             slong as its not my three generations : Prescott -NT - (boxley)
                             Who said they lost it? - (screamer) - (2)
                                 We can still agree on a few points. - (Ashton)
                                 Not perfect == can't screw it up more? - (mhuber)

He's using his E.T. powers!
69 ms