|
Home > Archive > Multiple sclerosis support > March 2005 > OT:OT:OT sliding into third base now.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT:OT:OT sliding into third base now.
|
|
|
| The Italians have announced their pull out. Its inevitable that sooner or
later all will get tired of this stupid war, we will end up with a failed
state in Iraq and the insurgents may go for the home. That day, people like
me or worse my son whose only connection to Middle East is his last name
will become more of a target for the idiots. All of this because of a bunch
of fools. They should give congressional medal of honor to Collin Powel for
stopping this war in the first Bush administration and opposing it this
time. He is indeed an intelligent man, too bad he will never be a president.
--
Quaecomque sunt vera ----
| |
|
| On 2005-03-16 05:28:47 -0500, "abdi" <abdi@yahoo.com> said:
> The Italians have announced their pull out. Its inevitable that sooner
> or later all will get tired of this stupid war, we will end up with a
> failed state in Iraq and the insurgents may go for the home. That day,
> people like me or worse my son whose only connection to Middle East is
> his last name will become more of a target for the idiots. All of this
> because of a bunch of fools. They should give congressional medal of
> honor to Collin Powel for stopping this war in the first Bush
> administration and opposing it this time. He is indeed an intelligent
> man, too bad he will never be a president.
I agree with you. It is a stupid war. We should bring our troops back
home and prey to Allah and make our women wear burkas.
--
Phan
| |
|
| Hey, you sound presidential , have you considered?
--
Quaecomque sunt vera ----
"phan" <phan@phan.com> wrote in message
news:2005031620241616807%phan@phancom...
> On 2005-03-16 05:28:47 -0500, "abdi" <abdi@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
> I agree with you. It is a stupid war. We should bring our troops back
> home and prey to Allah and make our women wear burkas.
> --
> Phan
>
| |
|
|
"phan" <phan@phan.com> wrote in message
news:2005031620241616807%phan@phancom...
> On 2005-03-16 05:28:47 -0500, "abdi" <abdi@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
> I agree with you. It is a stupid war. We should bring our troops back
> home and prey to Allah and make our women wear burkas.
> --
> Phan
>
Saran burkas.
CW
| |
| Rob Duncan 2005-03-19, 5:16 pm |
|
"abdi" <abdi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zTTZd.82960$vK5.19469@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> The Italians have announced their pull out. Its inevitable that sooner or
> later all will get tired of this stupid war, we will end up with a failed
> state in Iraq and the insurgents may go for the home. That day, people
> like me or worse my son whose only connection to Middle East is his last
> name will become more of a target for the idiots. All of this because of a
> bunch of fools. They should give congressional medal of honor to Collin
> Powel for stopping this war in the first Bush administration and opposing
> it this time. He is indeed an intelligent man, too bad he will never be a
> president.
>
> --
> Quaecomque sunt vera ----
They will only pull out if Iraq is capable of running itself safely, if not,
no. Theyll stay, as Iraq wont be able to take care of itself for a long
long time.
Powell had no input on whether to continue or stop the first war. That was
a decision already made by President Bush before the war ever started. His
goal was to liberate Kuwait and disable Iraq. He succeeded remarkably well.
It was a UN action, nobody had plans to invade or take over Iraq. Powell
played no part other than following orders.
Rob
| |
|
| >home and prey to Allah and make our >women wear burkas.
--
>Phan
Yes. It is awful when people have a democratic say in their future and
don't have a distator who will rape, torture and kill anyone who speaks
a word against him. Abdi your and idiot.
Chuck
| |
|
| Chuck wrote:
>
> Yes. It is awful when people have a democratic say in their future and
> don't have a distator who will rape, torture and kill anyone who speaks
> a word against him. Abdi your and idiot.
Actually, you're the one who is very badly misinformed. Here's a
couple of articles by people who actually know something. From your
response, it's clear that you haven't read them.
You might also read the writings of people who are actually IN Iraq.
I recommend Riverbend. You'll find her comments on elections and
such here: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ -- not to mention what
it's like being a woman in today's Iraq.
Finally, for all the things that you've said about Hussein over the
months, you've never once denounced the US for its rape rooms, for
its "gassing" of the Iraqi people, etc. What makes you think that
the Iraqis would rather have the US doing those things than Hussein?
While I'm tired of the political comments on both sides, it's fairly
clear that Abdi's writing from an informed viewpoint and that you
and several others are not. See Green Day's most recent album.
KKT
The Election In Iraq:
The U.S. Propaganda System Is Still Working In High Gear
by Edward S. Herman February 13, 2005
The Earlier Demonstration Elections
In our 1984 book Demonstration Elections: U.S.-Staged Elections In
The Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and El Salvador, Frank Brodhead and
I stressed that such elections were mainly designed to placate (and
mislead) the home population of the United States rather than to
decide anything important in the countries in which the election was
held. In each of the earlier cases the election did help consolidate
the power of the U.S.-chosen leaders, but its most important
function was to demonstrate to the U.S. public that we were on the
right track in the occupied countries, helping them on the road to
democracy. The fact that the peoples there came out and voted was
interpreted as proof that they approved our occupation and wanted us
to stay and finish the job. And in Vietnam and El Salvador the
United States stayed on and managed a great deal more destruction
and killings.
We also called attention to the fact that there was a sharp
difference between what the voters allegedly wanted out of the
election and what they got. In both Vietnam and El Salvador the
public was reportedly eager for peace, according to U.S. news
reports. However, the point of those elections was to strengthen the
authority of political elements that were completely geared to
further war, in accord with U.S. official demands, and further war
is what ensued. Thus the elections yielded a result in contradiction
to the apparent goals of the voters.
Another theme of the book was the failure of those demonstration
elections to meet accepted standards that make elections truly free,
including: freedom of assembly, speech, and press; the right to
organize intermediate bodies like unions and political associations;
the ability of candidates of all political complexion to enter their
slates and compete; and the absence of state terror that might
coerce voters into voting or voting for particular candidates. None
of these conditions were met in the earlier demonstration elections.
A further theme was the calculated use of voter turnout as a measure
of approval of the election and occupation itself, with the
opposition of rebels serving as the dramatic counterpart of the
contest. If people voted despite that rebel opposition it supposedly
demonstrated the populace’s support of the official candidates--and
of the occupation--and rejection of any opposition. We noted that
this formula was not used in the case of the Polish election of 1947
sponsored by the Soviet Union; there the high turnout was cited as
proof of coercion. There, the 170,000 Soviet-trained security police
on hand was in itself considered to rule out the possibility of a
free election. The Nicaraguan election of 1984 yielded a fine
turnout for the Sandinistas, but here too, despite the contra
opposition to the election, the turnout was not interpreted as
demonstrating popular support of the Sandinista government, which
was undergoing attack and destabilization by the Reagan administration.
The U.S. media’s treatment of those earlier demonstration elections
was perfect as service to the election’s U.S. organizers, and the
perfection of this service was further exhibited in the media’s
refusal to apply the same criteria of evaluation to the Nicaraguan
election of 1984 (see Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, pp.
116-137, for details on this amusing but gross double standard) .
For each of their own government’s demonstration elections the media
featured turnout as proving something important. In the case of
Vietnam, the standard formula employed throughout the media ran:
“Despite attempts by the Vietcong to intimidate them, South
Vietnamese voters turned out in large numbers” (NYT, Sept. 11,
1967), which “surprised and heartened” U.S. officials (NYT, Sept. 4,
1967); and another article featured officials saying “U.S. Aides
Foresee Saigon Peace Step as a Result of Vote” (NYT, Sept. 6, 1967).
The New York Times and media in general never allowed awkward facts,
such as a brutal military occupation, the absence of freedoms of
speech, assembly, or organization, and that virtually all
authorities agreed that the “Vietcong,” which was not on the ballot,
had more indigenous support than the U.S.-appointed leaders, to
cause them to call the election a farce and a “sham” (as the New
York Times called the vastly superior Nicaraguan election of 1984).
And while the media reported the public’s desire for peace, they
uniformly failed to point out before, during or after the election
that it was clearing the ground for war, and of course they never
suggested that this might be its very purpose.
This model of apologetics was closely followed in the Salvadoran
elections of 1982 and 1984, where turnout was featured and made a
triumph, the failure to meet any of the conditions of a free
election considered not worth mentioning, and the purpose—preparing
the ground for further warfare—was misrepresented, and the resultant
escalation of violence never related to the election triumph. As for
dealing with military rule and ongoing state terror, the New York
Times was satisfied that the murderous Salvadoran army, which had
been killing an average of 800 civilians a month in the year before
the 1982 election, “has pledged to protect voters from violence and
to respect the outcome of the contest” (Warren Hoge, NYT, March 27,
1982). The paper editorialized that “despite the guerilla death
threats…an impressive majority of eligible voters…went to the polls”
in El Salvador’s “freest election in 50 years….The Salvadoran
turnout marks a significant achievement,” never mentioning that
voting was obligatory and the failure to vote dangerous.
(“Democracy’s Hope in Central America,” NYT, March 30, 1982). The
editors referred to “a boycott by left-wing parties,” when in fact
all the leaders of those parties were on an army death list. The
editorial statement that “American support for the outgoing
right-centrist junta was always contingent on political pluralism
and land reform” was a blatant lie; neither of these were on the
U.S. or junta agenda. The only requirement for support was an
agreement to fight on, as in Vietnam, a point never acknowledged by
the editorialists.
The Iraq Demonstration Election
The similarities of the media treatment of those earlier
demonstration election to their performance on the January 30, 2005
Iraq election have been close, with only minor differences
reflecting altered circumstances. Once again the media have played
the turnout card, in line with the official public relations agenda,
with the Iraqi public defying the insurgents and the U.S. military
playing a pro-democracy role in protecting the election, just as the
Salvadoran army did in the Salvadoran elections of 1982 and 1984.
This makes the election a success and a vindication of U.S. policy,
as the election was organized by the United States and opposed by
the insurgents; and for the media elections are inherently good if
carried out under proper auspices (that is, by the current Bush
administration, or in El Salvador by the Reagan administration, or
in Russia in 1996 when Boris Yeltsin was favored, by Yeltsin with
the support of the Clinton administration--as opposed to the
election under Sandinista auspices in Nicaragua in 1984).
Once again the media do not discuss whether the conditions of a free
election have been met, and whether a genuine free election can be
held under a military occupation and in the midst of violent
warfare. They were sure that the Soviet occupation of Poland in 1947
precluded a free election and they were doubtful it could be free
under Sandinista rule in 1984 with that government’s “pugnacity” and
“awesome monopoly of force” (Time). But the U.S. army in Iraq is
seen only as protecting the election, not in any way influencing its
outcome, which is the official and patriotic view and reflects a
durable double standard (e.g., Ken Dilanian, “U.S. troops: after
laying groundwork, a cautious step back,” Philadelphia Inquirer,
Jan. 31, 2005).
The media did not discuss the fact that Al-Jazeera had been barred
from Baghdad, that other independent media were regularly harassed,
and that the U.S.-appointed interim government completely dominates
television, although the media were very upset at the Sandinistas’
restrictions on the newspaper La Prensa in 1984 and implied that
this badly compromised the election held there. The freedom of
speech and assembly in Iraq, and the ability of candidates to
campaign, were very much limited by the U.S.-insurgents war, and a
large fraction of the candidates never campaigned and never even had
their names listed. These disabilities were felt least by the
U.S.-appointed leadership and bureaucracy, who had media access and
protection by the security forces. The freedom to organize and build
intermediate groups was also limited by the violence, and by the
occupation authority’s hostility to labor organizations. Thus the
“civil institutions that make an election meaningful” were in short
supply (Brian Whitaker, “Fig-leaf freedom,” Guardian, Jan. 31,
2005). The media focused on the Iraqi insurgents pressures against
voting, but they failed to mention the pressures to vote, including
(as in Fallujah) the setting up of polling stations at centers that
distribute food, water and money to refugees, and the reported
tie-in of voter registration and voting itself with the receipt of
monthly food rations (see Dahr Jamail, “
"Some Just Voted for Food, Inter Press Service; also, Michel
Chossudovsky, "Iraqi Elections: Media Disinformation on Voter
Turnout?" According to veteran journalist and Mexico specialist,
John Ross, “making food giveaway programs contingent on delivering
votes is a pillar of Mexico’s corrupted electoral system,” and he
notes that two Mexican Federal Electoral Institute commissioners had
been dispatched to Baghdad to give expert advice there (“Hecho en
Mexico: the Iraqi Election: Fox Helps Bush Craft Bloody Electoral
Farce,” Feb. 9, 2005). Perhaps most important, the media have not
discussed how a military occupation (and war of pacification) shapes
an election’s meaning and process. The occupation is the dominant
military force in Iraq, with 150,000 service personnel, 20,000
private “security” contractors, a massive budget (some $50 billion a
year in military costs), and with four permanent military bases
already in place and ten more planned (see Christine Spolar, “14
‘enduring bases’ set in Iraq,” Chicago Tribune, March 23, 2004). The
U.S. Embassy is the most powerful political institution in Iraq,
shaping the Iraqi official structures and bureaucracy by orders,
personnel choices among Iraqis and those seconded from the U.S.
government and elsewhere, and controlling the national budget—both
the oil sales revenues and reconstruction and other funds allocated
to it by the U.S. administration. As Phyllis Bennis has pointed out,
the $16 billion in U.S. taxpayer’s money not spent on the
reconstruction effort, and the U.S. military budget, “will become a
potential slush fund for the new assembly’s favored projects” (“UFPJ
Talking Points #29: Reading the Election in Iraq,” Feb. 1, 2005)
U.S. pro-consul Paul Bremer handed down 100 or more rules with the
force of law that have affected the economy by imposing low tax
rates, opening the door to trade and investment, and privatizing
segments of state-owned property, in violation of international law,
but creating a new structure of vested interests in continued U.S.
domination. The occupation has reorganized the Iraqi government and
bureaucracy, chosen judges, installed 24 ministers, and placed
advisers with multi-year contracts in these ministries, again giving
the occupation and its political agents economic power and leverage.
It has issued Transitional Administrative Laws that will control
Iraq governance while the transitional National Assembly operates
and into the period following a presidential election. These laws
severely limit the decision capability of the National Assembly,
thus making the occupation’s rules and chosen officials the
government, not the newly elected assembly, and along with the
financial resources and unified direction of the occupation the
occupation authorities will have an edge in any bargaining over
future major appointments and legislation in the fragmented Assembly.
This military, political and financial power held by the invader
must surely have affected the election at many levels, including
election issues, effective candidacy, the positions taken by
candidates, and the consequent limits in the policy outcomes of the
election. This might not be so if the United States was truly
neutral, with no stake in the outcome, no policies it wished
implemented, and no differential treatment of candidates. In a
remarkable illustration of internalized acceptance of the premises
of a propaganda system, the U.S. mainstream media do take the United
States as neutral, essentially ignoring the U.S. power position and
goals in Iraq as factors that might shape the election and cause its
results to accord with U.S. interests. As with the media of a
well-managed totalitarian system, the U.S. media take as a premise
the benevolent intent of their leadership, and as its alleged goals
have shifted--in this case from “security” and eliminating Iraq’s
weapons of mass destruction to liberation--so has the media’s
premise regarding U.S. goals.
Honest, objective, and non-ideological analysis of the Iraq election
would have featured heavily the Bush administration’s aims in Iraq,
how it strove to realize those aims, and how the election fits into
Bush plans. It would have discussed in detail how the occupation and
its policies might make it possible for Bush aims to be realized
through an electoral process that seems—like the earlier grant of
“sovereignty” seemed—to relinquish final authority to Iraqis. The
Bush administration’s leaders made it clear in published documents
that their aim in attacking Iraq would be to project power in the
Middle East, which would include the establishment of military bases
there and gaining assured “access” to Iraqi oil, goals that called
for a client, not a democratic, regime. This is why the
administration pushed for Chalabi rule and fought against one-person
one-vote elections for many months, and used the interlude till the
January 30th election to work around the election threat to U.S.
domination.
You will look in vain for a media analysis of the pre-invasion Bush
objectives, which should have been a prelude to any discussion of
the election itself as essential context. You will look in vain for
any analysis of possible hidden motives behind the Bush support of
the election, and how we might reconcile the apparent contradiction
between support of a supposedly democratic election and the Bush
administration’s oil and base control objectives. Michael Wines
writes that threats to a “functioning Iraqi democracy” are “legion,”
and he names them: “insurgency; a once-dominant Sunni minority that
resisted the election; a now-powerful Shiite majority that remembers
oppression; neighbors like Syria and Iran with reasons to sabotage
democracy, and more” (“Democracy Has to Start Somewhere,” NYT, Feb.
6, 2005). But the United States is not included, despite its known
pre-election goals, the character of the Bush administration, the
oft-mentioned fear of Shiite majority rule producing an Islamic
state allied with Iran, and the numerous U.S. actions in Iraq
incompatible with self-rule. The propaganda premise and ideology are
fully internalized by Michael Wines.
As to the meaning of the Iraq election turnout and vote, the media
do not discuss how issues are distorted in a military occupation by
the fact that the occupation itself becomes a major bone of
contention. Some won't vote because it would seem to approve the
occupation, and non-voters outnumbered those who did vote. Others
vote because while they oppose the occupation they hope a successful
election will get the invader out faster than otherwise; still
others vote in the hope that getting the election out of the way
will somehow bring with it more security and stability. Some voted
because of fears of loss of ration cards; still others voted because
their religious leaders instructed them to vote.
The invasion-occupation may be the prime cause of insecurity and
instability, but the occupation authorities and their agents, and
the media, present the occupiers as the solution to
occupation-generated violence. And since the occupiers dominate the
flow of information as well as the means of violence their claim
strikes many as plausible. As James Carroll notes, “The irony is
exquisite. The worse the violence gets, the longer the Americans
will claim the right to stay…. Full blown civil war, if it comes to
that, will serve Bush’s purpose too” (“Train Wreck of an Election,”
Boston Globe, Feb. 1, 2005). In short, the occupation itself
profoundly influences the election both directly as a result of
occupation authority’s actions and power, and by its indirect affect
of making the occupation itself a crucial but confusing election
issue l Polls show that a clear majority of Iraqis oppose the
occupation and want the United States to leave quickly—a Coalition
Provisional Authority-sponsored poll in May 2004 showed that 92
percent of Iraqis viewed the invaders as “occupiers” rather than
“liberators”; 85 percent wanted them to leave as soon as possible,
41 percent immediately--but no candidate ran on an
end-the-occupation ticket or put that goal on his or her priority
agenda. (Both the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) , the dominant Shiite
party grouping, and Allawi’s party, at first included a demand for
ending the occupation as part of their platform, but withdrew it,
presumably under U.S. pressure.) What the individual candidates and
even the various groupings on the ballot stood for was not very
clear, as the names of many candidates were not even disclosed (the
UIA named only 37 of their 225 candidates), and there was hardly any
serious campaigning and debate over the issues. But many of the
candidates are beholden to the occupation and may be prepared to
give it a lengthy stay. Voters may be in for some unpleasant
surprises, especially the large number who voted in the belief that
the National Assembly will end the occupation.
A special feature of the Iraq election has been the support given it
by top Shia leaders, who hope to be able to use it to convert their
numerical majority into political authority. This gave the election
an element of democratic authenticity or democratic potential which
may or may not be realized. It should be recognized that the Bush
administration strove desperately to avoid this situation, rejecting
a one-person one-vote election from the start in favor of a
U.S.-appointed Governing Council, then an interim government of U.S.
choice and long-lagged popular election only under the pressures of
Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and the major Shiite parties--and a
failing policy. As Juan Cole points out, “if it had been up to Bush,
Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship under Chalabi, or would
have had stage-managed elections with an electorate consisting of a
handful of pro-America notables” (" Mixed Story," Informed Comment,
Jan. 30, 2005).
But in belatedly giving way and agreeing to the January 30th
election in the midst of a growing Sunni-based insurgency, the Bush
administration effectively shifted the character of the conflict
from a fight against the occupation to a civil war between Sunni and
Shiites with the occupation aligned with the Shiites. This
splintering tactic and the entire electoral process may have
strengthened the administration’s position in Iraq, not only by
giving it that seeming democratic imprimatur, but also by bringing
together the occupation and Shiites in a pragmatic alliance that
enhances the prospect of the achievement of Bush administration goals.
The New York Times writes that in the election, “in an open
expression of popular will—Iraqis have expressed their clear
preference that these battles be fought exclusively in the peaceful,
constitutional arena” (editorial, “Message From Iraq,” NYT, Jan. 31,
2005). This alleged clear preference is not at all clear: as noted
earlier a majority failed to vote at all, and many may have voted in
the hopes that this would expedite the exit of the invaders, while
still believing that the invaders might have to be thrown out. Many
voted on the instruction of Sistani that voting was a religious
duty; and some may even have voted hoping that the occupation and
killing would continue as their jobs depended on this.
But the deeper dishonesty of this editorial statement is this: it
ignores the fact that the “battles” have occurred because the Bush
administration invaded Iraq in violation of international law and
has committed massive crimes there, stoking a resistance. The
invaders, having taken over the state and in command of military
power and the machinery of state by illegal force and violence, are
now prepared to rule mainly through “peaceful, constitutional”
means, defined, organized and protected by themselves. So the
insurgents should stop fighting and let the invader run the show, by
means of his forcibly imposed rules, bureaucrats, judges, and money
(a good part of it stolen from the proceeds of Iraq oil sales), with
the U.S. army as “protector” of this “constitutional” regime. Would
Pravda have had the nerve to write something this brazen about
Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Afghanistan under Soviet proxy rule?
As the media have portrayed the election as a triumph for the Bush
administration, and therefore a partial vindication of the
aggression-occupation, as in the case of the earlier Vietnamese and
Salvadoran elections this will give the administration a freer hand.
Given the administration’s initial objectives it seems reasonable to
expect that it will do two things: First it will intensify the
pacification-by-violence program to marginalize the insurgency and
clear the ground for rule by groups chosen by or deeply indebted to
the invader-occupier. As Seymour Hersh has pointed out, the
administration has already steadily escalated its bombing raids
month by month, making all of Iraq into a “free fire zone”—“It’s
simply a turkey shoot…Hit everything, kill everything”--virtually
unreported in the media; and we may surely anticipate more of the
same ("We've Been Taken Over By a Cult," CounterPunch, Jan. 27, 2005).
Second, the administration will try to bolster the political
position of its chosen and preferred agents and neutralize any Shia
threat (a possible Islamic state; insistence on a U.S. withdrawal)
by deals, bribes, and threats. The Shia are already indebted to the
administration for removing Saddam, currently trying to crush a
Sunni-based resistance, and agreeing to an election in which Shia
voting power will give them nominal power. They may be willing to
strike a deal—and a deal may already have been struck-- in which a
dollop of substantive power is granted in exchange for concessions
that make for limited client state status.
This all seems more likely given the fact that an important member
and candidate of a leading Shiite Party, the Supreme Council for the
Islamic Revolution, and current Iraqi Finance Minister, Abdel Mahdi,
announced at a press conference in Washington on December 22, 2004
that “Iraq” wants to open up its oil industry to private investment.
Mahdi is a leading candidate for Prime Minister. With a man like
this in power the Bush administration would be well on its way to
achieving its strategic objectives of controlling Iraq’s oil
reserves and maintaining at least some military bases in the country.
So with media assistance the election may have helped enable the
Bush administration to fight the insurgency more aggressively for an
extended period; and by domination of a technically flawed election
built on an unlevel playing field, by taking advantage of the
various modes of power available to the occupation (rules, agents
within the government, vast sums of money), and by means of deals
with Shia influentials, the election may facilitate the
establishment of a parent-client relationship that will allow the
achievement of major Bush aims. This all requires that the
insurgency be brought under control without too great an expenditure
of time, money and U.S. casualties, that the election-based
deal-making and government are sufficiently accommodating, and that
the Iraqi people will accept more pacification and political
clienthood without widening and intensifying the resistance.
Some might argue that as the United States committed aggression in
Iraq, built on a system of lies, and then proceeded to perform so
poorly that a major insurgency ensued, that it ought to get out or
be thrown out quickly, just as Saddam was thrown out of Kuwait in
1991. But we are dealing here with a superpower, whose aggression
and occupation rights are even given sanction by the UN, IMF, and
“international community.” As the officials of these governments and
institutions, and others, applaud the election and ignore the
occupation’s influence on its results we can hardly expect the media
to do otherwise. Here, as in the past, the media provide what is now
standard demonstration election apologetics: the media leopard never
changes its spots.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Iraqi women find election a cruel joke
By HOUZAN MAHMOUD
GUEST COLUMNIST
I am an Iraqi woman, and I am boycotting the elections. Women who do
vote will be voting for an enslaved future. Surely, say those who
support these elections, after decades of tyranny, here at last is a
form of democracy, imperfect, but democracy nevertheless?
In reality, these elections are, for Iraq's women, little more than
a cruel joke. Amid the suicide attacks, kidnappings and U.S.-led
military assaults since Saddam Hussein's fall, the little-reported
phenomenon is the sharp increase in the persecution of Iraqi women.
Women are the new victims of Islamic groups intent on restoring a
medieval barbarity and of a political establishment that cares
little for women's empowerment.
Having for years enjoyed greater rights than other Middle East
women, women in Iraq are losing even their basic freedoms -- the
right to choose their clothes, the right to love or marry whom they
want. Of course women suffered under Saddam. I fled his cruel
regime. I personally witnessed much brutality but the subjugation of
women was never a Baath Party goal. What we are seeing is deeply
worrying: a reviled occupation and an openly reactionary Islamic
armed insurrection taking Iraq into a new dark age.
Every day, leaflets are distributed across the country warning women
against going out unveiled, wearing makeup or mixing with men. Many
female university students have given up their studies to protect
themselves against the Islamists.
The new norm -- enforced at the barrel of a gun by Islamic
extremists -- is to see women as the repository of honor and shame,
not only on behalf of family and tribe but the nation. Ken Bigley's
abductors perversely wanted to redeem the "honor" of Iraq through
obtaining the release of female prisoners. Since when did Islamic
groups -- the very people doing the hostage taking, torturing and
killing -- start caring about the rights of Iraqi women?
Take the case of Anaheed. She was suspended to a tree in the New
Baghdad area of the capital and then first shot by her father (a
solicitor no less) and then by each member of her tribe. She was
then was cut into pieces.
This to clear the shame on the tribe's honor for having wanted to
marry a man she was in love with. This happened in late 2003, months
after the "liberation."
In the last six months at least eight women have been killed in
Mosul alone -- all apparently by Islamic groups clamping down on
female independence. Among these, a professor from the city's law
school was shot and beheaded, a vet was killed on her way to work
and a pharmacist from the Alkhansah hospital was shot dead on her
doorstep.
The occupation has unleashed this new violence against women, while
in some cases adding its own particular variety. Iraqi women have
been tortured by U.S. soldiers in prisons. The social taboo against
speaking about sexual abuse is so strong in Iraq that these women
will almost certainly have no one to turn to upon release.
Methal Kazem is one woman who spoke publicly of her treatment by the
occupiers. Last February a U.S. helicopter landed on the roof of her
house. She was hooded and handcuffed and taken to Abu Ghraib.
Accused of being a former Baathist secret policewoman, she was made
to run on sharp gravel, tied up and suspended and made to listen to
the screaming of other inmates. She heard one man repeatedly
screaming "do not touch my honor" and Methal believes that the man's
wife was being raped in front of him.
When Allied forces handed over power to the interim government last
June, they should, as Amnesty International has argued, have handed
over prisoners. Instead they have illegally detained more than 2,000
without charge. Few of these may be women but it still leaves
thousands of wives, mothers and sisters in distress and despair.
I also believe that American soldiers have raped Iraqi women. They
dare not talk about it, however, as they face being killed by their
own families if they do. My associates in Iraq have been counseling
Liqaa, a former Iraqi female soldier, who was raped by an American
soldier in November 2003. The savage truth is that if she returns
home, male family members may murder her for her "dishonor."
If Iraqi women take part in the elections, who are they to vote for?
Women's rights are ignored by most of the candidates. The U.S.
government appears happy to have Iraq governed by reactionary
religious and ethnocentric elites.
The one glimmer of hope is that courageous demonstrations against
rape and kidnapping have taken place. In September, a women's
protest fused opposition to the occupation, a demand that all
Islamic militia forces leave cities and a call for safe streets for
women. This new women-led secular progressive movement is against
the interim government and against the violence and restriction of
political Islam. Those who support us should publicly renounce these
phony elections and campaign for a truly free Iraq.
Houzan MahMoud, an Iraqi living in Britain, is the United Kingdom
head of the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq. This article
was first published in The Independent in Britain.
| |
|
| KKT and her usual anti-USA ranting, comparing the systemic rape,
torture and killing of 300,000 people (likely much more) over the
years, with a few bad soldiers dressing up and humiliating Iraqi
soldiers in various ways. Bring back Hussein!
| |
| andrewJ 2005-03-19, 5:16 pm |
| Their democratic say will be to elect a pro Iranian government - just
watch. Was that worth all the dead American young soldiers not to
mention the 50,000+ Iraqi women and children killed (collateral damage
I think it is called) ? The belief that the USA can export its concept
of government and the belief that the USA
is superior to the rest of the world has only been equalled in recent
the Weimar Republic, and if you don't know
what that was I would find out.
| |
|
| Chuck wrote:
> KKT and her usual anti-USA ranting, comparing the systemic rape,
> torture and killing of 300,000 people (likely much more) over the
> years, with a few bad soldiers dressing up and humiliating Iraqi
> soldiers in various ways. Bring back Hussein!
Your response indicates that you don't realize that the US is well
on its way to beating those records. In addition, you didn't address
the use of mustard gas, napalm and nerve gas by the US and allies at
Fallujah.
This isn't anti-US, Chucko. This is anti-Bush administration and
anti-people like you who are willfully ignorant. You are the people
who are anti-USA. As people sully our reputation around the world
and you do your damnedest -- not to see that it stops -- but to
perpetrate the fraud that it's not happening.
How do you explain the extraordinary renditions? The private planes
used to transport people to countries where they can be and are
tortured? The lie that I heard Bush tell yesterday when he said that
he only returned people to their country of origin [tell that to the
Canadians who know better].
BTW, it wasn't a "few bad soldiers" - it went to the highest levels
of this administration ... you haven't read the memos, etc., that
were released under FOIA, have you?
"... a December 2003 FBI internal e-mail, suggests
that Bush issued a secret Executive Order authorizing
the use of extreme coercive measures in interrogation,
including sleep deprivation, stress positions, attack
dogs, and use of hoods to intimidate prisoners. The
Geneva Convention Against Torture bans all of these
practices."
Keep talking. Your all-too-curable willful ignorance shows.
KKT
| |
|
|
"KKT" <sendme.nospam@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:423986b6_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
<Lots snipped>
....Finally, for all the things that you've said about Hussein over the
> months, you've never once denounced the US for its rape rooms, for its
> "gassing" of the Iraqi people, etc. What makes you think that the Iraqis
> would rather have the US doing those things than Hussein?
KKT, what makes you think that US policy is to deliberately rape and gas
Iraqis? That is what you are saying in the above paragraph. Of course, no
one wants to be raped or gassed. However, you have set up a straw man
argument. It doesn't hold.
>
> While I'm tired of the political comments on both sides, it's fairly clear
> that Abdi's writing from an informed viewpoint
No, that has never been clear. What has been clear is that he has taken a
particular point of view, not whether it is a factually informed one. For
example, if one was informed by Dan Rather about President Bush's military
background, one might be informed, but not of the facts.
and that you
> and several others are not. See Green Day's most recent album.
I do not think that pop stars are reliable sources of facts. Why do you
think so?
CW
>
> KKT
>
| |
|
|
"KKT" <sendme.nospam@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:4239b304$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
> Chuck wrote:
>
>
> Your response indicates that you don't realize that the US is well on its
> way to beating those records. In addition, you didn't address the use of
> mustard gas, napalm and nerve gas by the US and allies at Fallujah.
>
> This isn't anti-US, Chucko. This is anti-Bush administration and
> anti-people like you who are willfully ignorant. You are the people who
> are anti-USA. As people sully our reputation around the world and you do
> your damnedest -- not to see that it stops -- but to perpetrate the fraud
> that it's not happening.
>
> How do you explain the extraordinary renditions? The private planes used
> to transport people to countries where they can be and are tortured? The
> lie that I heard Bush tell yesterday when he said that he only returned
> people to their country of origin [tell that to the Canadians who know
> better].
>
> BTW, it wasn't a "few bad soldiers" - it went to the highest levels of
> this administration ... you haven't read the memos, etc., that were
> released under FOIA, have you?
>
> "... a December 2003 FBI internal e-mail, suggests
> that Bush issued a secret Executive Order authorizing
> the use of extreme coercive measures in interrogation,
> including sleep deprivation, stress positions, attack
> dogs, and use of hoods to intimidate prisoners. The
> Geneva Convention Against Torture bans all of these
> practices."
>
> Keep talking. Your all-too-curable willful ignorance shows.
>
> KKT
"Rendition," Kathy, was established as a CIA policy when? Oh, 1998. Bush
was actually in charge back then, but no one really knew it.
The Geneva Convention is only applicable to legal combatants as defined
within the convention. Illegal combatants - e.g. terrorists, spies,
saboteurs, and other nonuniformed combatants - may actually be treated in
any manner the apprehending authority sees fit.
Lastly, because the US went into Iraq and Afghanistan, there are stirrings
of democracy in places around the world where it never existed as well as
where coups from both left and right cut it off at the knees.
CW
| |
|
| CW wrote:
> ...Finally, for all the things that you've said about Hussein over the
>
>
> KKT, what makes you think that US policy is to deliberately rape and gas
> Iraqis? That is what you are saying in the above paragraph. Of course, no
> one wants to be raped or gassed. However, you have set up a straw man
> argument. It doesn't hold.
The policies of this administration have a direct effect on how the
troops act. Not only that, the policies of this administration are
to ignore the systemic problems and focus on punishing low-level
actors while ignoring the policies that make this behavior possible
and acceptable.
As for the gassing incidents, are you saying that it's not the
policy of the US government to use mustard gas, napalm and nerve gas
but that that's the work of some "bad soldiers?"
If you believe that -- and Chuck said so -- tell me where these
"bad" people get the implements of their torture? Do you really
believe that West Virginia recruits leave their homes, first
gathering up their change of undies, toothpaste, dog collars,
electric shock equipment and mustard gas?
>
> No, that has never been clear. What has been clear is that he has taken a
> particular point of view, not whether it is a factually informed one. For
> example, if one was informed by Dan Rather about President Bush's military
> background, one might be informed, but not of the facts.
It's clear that it IS informed. Anyone who's followed these
particular issues would realize that.
As for Dan Rather ... yes, one WOULD be informed of the facts. What
happened in the Rather case is that he used one piece of evidence
that he did not properly vet. However, every other piece of evidence
has held up, and no evidence has been presented that anything in
that particular piece of evidence is false. In fact, by all
accounts, the information in that document is factual.
Col. Killian -- the person who supposedly penned the disputed
document -- had a secretary at the time - Marion Carr Knox. She said
that she thought that the document was not authentic. HOWEVER, she
said that the information IN the documents was correct.
Here's the story:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2...ords/print.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain643768.shtml
> and that you
>
> I do not think that pop stars are reliable sources of facts.
> Why do you think so?
I didn't suggest that they were purveyors of fact, but rather
accurate commentators on the current state of news and news
consumers in the US.
KKT
| |
|
| CW wrote:
>
> "Rendition," Kathy, was established as a CIA policy when? Oh, 1998. Bush
> was actually in charge back then, but no one really knew it.
Rendition was used under the Clinton administration in very limited
circumstances. Further, it was used only on people who were wanted
by their country of origin for some crime and then only to return
them to that country.
I don't agree with the practice, but it's clear that Bush has
greatly expanded the practice to send anyone and everyone to be
tortured anywhere.
> The Geneva Convention is only applicable to legal combatants as defined
> within the convention. Illegal combatants - e.g. terrorists, spies,
> saboteurs, and other nonuniformed combatants - may actually be treated in
> any manner the apprehending authority sees fit.
Sorry. You don't have any credence as an international law attorney
and those that do don't agree with you.
> Lastly, because the US went into Iraq and Afghanistan, there are stirrings
> of democracy in places around the world where it never existed as well as
> where coups from both left and right cut it off at the knees.
That's crap. You're drinking the Kool-Aid, my friend. Read the
current state of affairs in either of those countries and find out
what the heck is going on. In both places, the status of women is
horrendous. There's nothing democratic about the way that they're
being treated.
Further, if you think that voting for someone without knowing
his/her name is "democratic," you have a far different view of the
meaning of that word than I do.
CW - you seem like a smart person. Please, please, please start
reading. With the mass production of news blurbs by the
administration, you can't depend on television and radio in the US.
You shouldn't be depending on people like Limbaugh and Hannity who
tell you that you don't need to check anything out -- just listen to
them. Listen only to those people who point you to their sources so
you can check things out yourself.
And finally, the BBC broke this story last night.
The Bush administration made plans for war and for
Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy
battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight
has revealed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programm...ght/4354269.stm
You probably won't hear it on US media ... but there are still some
good investigative papers out there. Avail yourself of them.
KKT
| |
|
|
"KKT" <sendme.nospam@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:423a3e5c$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
> CW wrote:
>
>
> The policies of this administration have a direct effect on how the troops
> act. Not only that, the policies of this administration are to ignore the
> systemic problems and focus on punishing low-level actors while ignoring
> the policies that make this behavior possible and acceptable.
>
> As for the gassing incidents, are you saying that it's not the policy of
> the US government to use mustard gas, napalm and nerve gas but that that's
> the work of some "bad soldiers?"
>
> If you believe that -- and Chuck said so -- tell me where these "bad"
> people get the implements of their torture? Do you really believe that
> West Virginia recruits leave their homes, first gathering up their change
> of undies, toothpaste, dog collars, electric shock equipment and mustard
> gas?
>
>
> It's clear that it IS informed. Anyone who's followed these particular
> issues would realize that.
>
> As for Dan Rather ... yes, one WOULD be informed of the facts. What
> happened in the Rather case is that he used one piece of evidence that he
> did not properly vet. However, every other piece of evidence has held up,
> and no evidence has been presented that anything in that particular piece
> of evidence is false. In fact, by all accounts, the information in that
> document is factual.
>
> Col. Killian -- the person who supposedly penned the disputed document --
> had a secretary at the time - Marion Carr Knox. She said that she thought
> that the document was not authentic. HOWEVER, she said that the
> information IN the documents was correct.
>
> Here's the story:
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2...ords/print.html
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain643768.shtml
>
>
> I didn't suggest that they were purveyors of fact, but rather accurate
> commentators on the current state of news and news consumers in the US.
>
> KKT
Where has it been written that US has used mustard gas in combat? Workers
Daily World? Al-Jazeera?
Perhaps the dog collars and electic shock prods were already at the prisons,
KKT.
But thank you for explaining that you think that pop stars are accurate news
commentators. There was a billboard on Hollywood Boulevard that reflected
that viewpoint.
CW
| |
|
| CW wrote:
> Where has it been written that US has used mustard gas in combat?
> Workers Daily World? Al-Jazeera?
Does it matter to you? Would you please it if Bush admitted it? The
Iraqi Health Department reported it. Remember, they're our allies.
> Perhaps the dog collars and electic shock prods were already at
> the prisons, KKT.
Why? I can understand dog collars for dogs, but do you think it's
appropriate to electrically shock people that you've come to
"liberate?" 70-90% of whom military officers told the Red Cross had
been arrested by mistake?
> But thank you for explaining that you think that pop stars are
> accurate news commentators. There was a billboard on Hollywood
> Boulevard that reflected that viewpoint.
I specifically said that I thought that they were social
commentators, not purveyors of the news. I think the problem isn't
that you don't read but that you apparently do not comprehend.
The billboard I'm sure you're referring to was erected by some
radical right wingers ... they're certainly entitled to their
opinions, but right now, entertainers are the US's best ambassadors.
They're accepted and well-liked everywhere ... we ought be thanking
them. God knows that the government is despised most everywhere.
KKT
| |
| Rob Duncan 2005-03-19, 5:16 pm |
|
"KKT" <sendme.nospam@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:423986b6_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
> Chuck wrote:
>
>
> Actually, you're the one who is very badly misinformed. Here's a couple of
> articles by people who actually know something. From your response, it's
> clear that you haven't read them.
>
> You might also read the writings of people who are actually IN Iraq. I
> recommend Riverbend. You'll find her comments on elections and such here:
> http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ -- not to mention what it's like being
> a woman in today's Iraq.
>
> Finally, for all the things that you've said about Hussein over the
> months, you've never once denounced the US for its rape rooms, for its
> "gassing" of the Iraqi people, etc. What makes you think that the Iraqis
> would rather have the US doing those things than Hussein?
>
> While I'm tired of the political comments on both sides, it's fairly clear
> that Abdi's writing from an informed viewpoint and that you and several
> others are not. See Green Day's most recent album.
>
> KKT
Kathie, youre an idiot. "Gassings?" "Rape rooms?" Get a grip. And yes,
its clearly obvious to ALL that the Iraqis prefer to run their own country
rather than having dipshit do it. You amaze me sometimes.
And yes, its much more difficult on woman these days in Iraq. Thats what
happens when you give whacko muslims power over people. They beat, kill,
abuse, rape, torture, stone, decapitate, etc., their woman... because they
can. Well, now the woman have a vote, and in a few years (tough shit for
those of you who dont feel its soon enough.) theyll have a country where
theyre actually free. Because they can VOTE! Duh.
We need to arm the woman, and teach them how to use knives... during forced
sex... and guns, while their rapist is sleeping. That would change a lot of
things. A lot.
Rob
| |
| Rob Duncan 2005-03-19, 5:16 pm |
|
"KKT" <sendme.nospam@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:4239b304$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
> Chuck wrote:
>
>
> Your response indicates that you don't realize that the US is well on its
> way to beating those records. In addition, you didn't address the use of
> mustard gas, napalm and nerve gas by the US and allies at Fallujah.
>
> This isn't anti-US, Chucko. This is anti-Bush administration and
> anti-people like you who are willfully ignorant. You are the people who
> are anti-USA. As people sully our reputation around the world and you do
> your damnedest -- not to see that it stops -- but to perpetrate the fraud
> that it's not happening.
>
> How do you explain the extraordinary renditions? The private planes used
> to transport people to countries where they can be and are tortured? The
> lie that I heard Bush tell yesterday when he said that he only returned
> people to their country of origin [tell that to the Canadians who know
> better].
>
> BTW, it wasn't a "few bad soldiers" - it went to the highest levels of
> this administration ... you haven't read the memos, etc., that were
> released under FOIA, have you?
>
> "... a December 2003 FBI internal e-mail, suggests
> that Bush issued a secret Executive Order authorizing
> the use of extreme coercive measures in interrogation,
> including sleep deprivation, stress positions, attack
> dogs, and use of hoods to intimidate prisoners. The
> Geneva Convention Against Torture bans all of these
> practices."
>
> Keep talking. Your all-too-curable willful ignorance shows.
>
> KKT
Kathie, youre an idiot. The Genava Convention doesnt protect terrorists.
Plain fact. And no, the President doesnt even need to authorize "extreme
coercive measures". Those are things normal people do in every day life.
Some of us call it practice. (such as football practice) Much more
painfull than anything done to those twits, thats for sure. Besides, the
fact that those tactics DO work, and have worked, just shows how big of a
pussy these guys are. Come-on, these dumbasses think theyre killing people
for something important, and role over under such pansy-assed coersive
techniques...? Give me a break. If it was important, theyde never role
over. However, it seems they role over rather easily... I wonder why?
Rob
| |
|
| > > This isn't anti-US, Chucko. This is anti-Bush administration and
who[vbcol=seagreen]
you do[vbcol=seagreen]
fraud[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Kathie, youre an idiot.
> Rob
Kathie thinks the worst of the USA, then finds a few kooky, far-left
websites to support her delusions (informed truth to her) that the USA
is the cause of all evil on the planet. Always good to have the deluded
around for a solid baseline. Thankfully I do not think those of her
far-out ideology will ever have a majority in any governing body in the
USA during our lifetimes.
Chuck
| |
|
| Chuck wrote:
>
Rob: I don't read your posts, but thank you for your compliment. I
know that if you could counter my arguments, you would. Instead,
you've indicated that you can't by calling me a name [and not
spelling correctly]. So thanks ... a backhanded compliment to be
sure, but a compliment nonetheless.
Did y'all notice that these posts always take the same track?
Someone makes a statement. I show that it's factually wrong ... and
you and whatever poster there is resorts to name-calling.
Y'all are so predictable ...
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Kathie thinks the worst of the USA, then finds a few kooky, far-left
> websites to support her delusions (informed truth to her) that the USA
No. I think that the US is the best ... but that the people now in
office are just about the worst. There's a difference and it's not
even subtle [most of us get it].
BTW, talking about someone with someone else is nothing but gossip
.... and indicates that you haven't the ability to address arguments.
Is that true?
> is the cause of all evil on the planet. Always good to have the deluded
> around for a solid baseline. Thankfully I do not think those of her
> far-out ideology will ever have a majority in any governing body in the
> USA during our lifetimes.
>
> Chuck
You may be right. Of course, even conservative Republicans are using
the "f" word when speaking about our government ... fascism.
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html That's what people
of your far-out ideology have done to what's supposed to be the
world's greatest experiment in democracy.
KKT
| |
|
| one thing the folks of ASMS can count on...i tend to stay out of the
'political threads,' until something goofy and non-political comes up,
then stick my .93 cents in, LOL!!
KKT wrote:
>
> I didn't suggest that they were purveyors of fact, but rather
> accurate commentators on the current state of news and news
> consumers in the US.
kathie, you must be thinkiing of the title song on their most recent
album. i've got the whole thing, and other than 'american idiot,' it's
not a political album.
IMHO, a much better example would be bad religion's last, 'the empire
strikes first,' which contains the usual BR societal commentary with
multi-syllabic words used correctly, all at about a zillion BPS. it's
also much more overtly 'political,' as in specific political
commentary, as opposed to general social commentary, than is usual with
BR.
also, GD is just whinier than BR to begin with. i like thrash that
thrashes! :->
rose
| |
|
| rose wrote:
>
> kathie, you must be thinkiing of the title song on their most recent
> album. i've got the whole thing, and other than 'american idiot,' it's
> not a political album.
>
> IMHO, a much better example would be bad religion's last, 'the empire
> strikes first,' which contains the usual BR societal commentary with
> multi-syllabic words used correctly, all at about a zillion BPS. it's
> also much more overtly 'political,' as in specific political
> commentary, as opposed to general social commentary, than is usual with
> BR.
>
> also, GD is just whinier than BR to begin with. i like thrash that
> thrashes! :->
Sorry, Rose ... but "American Idiot" and "Good Riddance (Time of
Your Life)" are the totality of my knowledge of Green Day [didn't
like the remainder of the American Idiot or Nimrod albums -- never
heard any others].
Actually, it's probably the sum total of my knowledge of now-popular
music. :-)
I admit to listening to a lot of blues, alternative country and
"real" country [not the stuff that sounds like '70s pop]. :-)
Kathie
| |
| Rob Duncan 2005-03-19, 5:17 pm |
|
"KKT" <sendme.nospam@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:423af1d5$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
> Chuck wrote:
>
>
> Rob: I don't read your posts, but thank you for your compliment. I know
> that if you could counter my arguments, you would. Instead, you've
> indicated that you can't by calling me a name [and not spelling
> correctly]. So thanks ... a backhanded compliment to be sure, but a
> compliment nonetheless.
That you take it as a compliment is further proof you are one.
> Did y'all notice that these posts always take the same track? Someone
> makes a statement. I show that it's factually wrong ... and you and
> whatever poster there is resorts to name-calling.
>
> Y'all are so predictable ...
Look, youre the idiot that thinks we have rape-rooms for lil-Iraqi boys, and
that we use nerve gas on civilians. If you dont understand why people think
youre an idiot, your situation must be worse than it appears. Why would we
gas someone when we could just bomb them? You dont even use your head.
Youre the idiot who falls for pro-Saddam propaganda, not us. Why would we
use gas? And another thing... what on earth is wrong with using Napalm in
war? Its not against any international law or UN charter. Youre stoned,
unable to differentiate betweeen truth and fiction, and more than willing to
believe everything you read which reinforces your implanted mind-set. An
idiot. Not name calling... an observation mentioned. Youre the idiot who
thinks "we," are the evil ones. Its not us sweetheart, its them. They bomb
their own countrymen to retain power for financial and "powers" sake.
"That," is evil.
Creating a nation where it no longer exists... is not. Put down the bong
and put your head on straight.
Rob
>
> No. I think that the US is the best ... but that the people now in office
> are just about the worst. There's a difference and it's not even subtle
> [most of us get it].
>
> BTW, talking about someone with someone else is nothing but gossip ... and
> indicates that you haven't the ability to address arguments. Is that true?
>
>
> You may be right. Of course, even conservative Republicans are using the
> "f" word when speaking about our government ... fascism.
> http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html That's what people of your
> far-out ideology have done to what's supposed to be the world's greatest
> experiment in democracy.
>
> KKT
| |
|
|
"KKT" <sendme.nospam@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:423b2396$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
> rose wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, Rose ... but "American Idiot" and "Good Riddance (Time of Your
> Life)" are the totality of my knowledge of Green Day [didn't like the
> remainder of the American Idiot or Nimrod albums -- never heard any
> others].
Then you shouldn't have made your comment about them. This further erodes
your credibility.
>
> Actually, it's probably the sum total of my knowledge of now-popular
> music. :-)
>
> I admit to listening to a lot of blues, alternative country and "real"
> country [not the stuff that sounds like '70s pop]. :-)
>
Que?
CW
> Kathie
| |
|
|
"CW" <chsw@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:NLJ_d.19829$%W7.12242@fe12.lga...[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> "KKT" <sendme.nospam@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:423b2396$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
>
>
> Then you shouldn't have made your comment about them. This further erodes
> your credibility.
>
>
>
> Que?
>
> CW
>
Hit the send tab too soon. Alison Krauss? Bonnie Raitt? David Bromberg?
A lot of early 70's pop was country-derived. E.g., CSN&Y, CCR, and others.
CW
| |
|
| CW wrote:
>
> Hit the send tab too soon. Alison Krauss? Bonnie Raitt? David Bromberg?
Yes, I listen to Allison Krauss, but I really only like her
blue-grass stuff. Some Raitt, although I'm not as fond of
electrified blues as I am of the acoustical stuff [BB King is the
exception]. The earlier blues artists -- Robert Johnson and Muddy
Waters, Memphis Minnie, Blind Willie Johnson, Muddy Waters ...
later, Brownie McGhee and others.
Country: Willie Nelson, Emmylou Harris, Waylon Jennings,
Kristofferson, Lucinda Williams, Delbert McClinton [none of whom are
so easily categorized] ... and more.
Didn't know David Bromberg until I looked him up and found that he's
played with anyone who's everyone!
Traditional Country: George Jones, Alan Jackson, Loretta Lynn, Tammy
Wynette ... etc.
> A lot of early 70's pop was country-derived. E.g., CSN&Y, CCR, and others.
>
> CW
>
>
| |
|
| It's amazing, first of all you guys all mistaking cultural issues with the
religion. I had never even heard of burqa until
the war in Afghanistan came up, I will post some pictures of Iran and you
will not find any of the women wearing
such a contraption. The girls in Iran are FORCED by mullahs to wear veil and
they have turned it into an art form.
You find them very attractive even in that veil.
By the same token some places in Somalia, do genital mutilation on women.
But both of these are cultural.
Any way for centuries, all these guys have lived side by side in Iran. Only
when Osama( who was trained by USA)
attacked USA, some people jumped to conclusion that lets kill em all. This
was very disappointing and I think years from now people will say it was
such a stupid thing. In fact if some one had told you that what if some one
takes the country into sever debt, unemployment. Ruin the education and make
the country stuck in a foreign country, you would have laughed. Its really a
case of scaring you of the bad, in fact if after 9/11 he had got Pakistan
and Saudi help, Bin Laden would have been dead by now. Now (even Hillary)
realizes, US cannot get out of Iraq for a long time. Even the best Army in
the world is stuck in Iraq and there is no way that Shiites will be able to
take over any time soon. In the mean time, people will be more and more
frustrated about the whole deal and they think it was the Moslems.
--
Quaecomque sunt vera ----
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:6O2dnUQ0OIbe7KffRVn-2g@gbronline.com...
>
> "KKT" <sendme.nospam@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:423986b6_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
>
> Kathie, youre an idiot. "Gassings?" "Rape rooms?" Get a grip. And yes,
> its clearly obvious to ALL that the Iraqis prefer to run their own country
> rather than having dipshit do it. You amaze me sometimes.
>
> And yes, its much more difficult on woman these days in Iraq. Thats what
> happens when you give whacko muslims power over people. They beat, kill,
> abuse, rape, torture, stone, decapitate, etc., their woman... because they
> can. Well, now the woman have a vote, and in a few years (tough shit for
> those of you who dont feel its soon enough.) theyll have a country where
> theyre actually free. Because they can VOTE! Duh.
>
> We need to arm the woman, and teach them how to use knives... during
> forced sex... and guns, while their rapist is sleeping. That would change
> a lot of things. A lot.
>
>
> Rob
>
| |
|
| It was really masterful, how destruction of weapons of mass destruction
(remember the UN inspectors) morphed in to election for Shiites.
--
Quaecomque sunt vera ----
"Chuck" <ChuckMSRD@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111050462.565739.182540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> --
>
> Yes. It is awful when people have a democratic say in their future and
> don't have a distator who will rape, torture and kill anyone who speaks
> a word against him. Abdi your and idiot.
>
> Chuck
>
| |
|
| abdi wrote:
> It was really masterful, how destruction of weapons of mass
> destruction (remember the UN inspectors) morphed in to
> election for Shiites.
How is is that you managed to notice and question this, and others
simply keep morphing along with the new rationales?
KKT
| |
|
| Its very interesting, I think there is a new scheme and few people realize
it. Back in 79 when Khomeini came to power, he acted so stupid that people
assumed he will be gone in a couple of month. More than 25 years later they
have managed to pass unimaginable laws and they are more secure than ever. I
don't know if he watched too much TV, but there was a show on TV called
Colombo. It was about a cop who acted to be stupid, but he was very clever.
Bush is also practicing the same ideology, he managed to make the guy who
spend 7 years in a Vietnam jail, look anti veteran and he is the one cutting
veterans benefits. The war in Iraq is irreversible, essentially Iraq has
turned into the center for all opposition to US. Even Hillary recognizes
that. Essentially Bush has managed to totally revamp the constitution of US
without a revolution. He is truly an evil master.
--
Quaecomque sunt vera ----
"KKT" <sendme.nospam@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:423d9c88$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
> abdi wrote:
>
>
> How is is that you managed to notice and question this, and others simply
> keep morphing along with the new rationales?
>
> KKT
| |
|
| abdi wrote:
> Its very interesting, I think there is a new scheme and few people realize
> it. Back in 79 when Khomeini came to power, he acted so stupid that people
> assumed he will be gone in a couple of month. More than 25 years later they
> have managed to pass unimaginable laws and they are more secure than ever. I
> don't know if he watched too much TV, but there was a show on TV called
> Colombo. It was about a cop who acted to be stupid, but he was very clever.
> Bush is also practicing the same ideology, he managed to make the guy who
> spend 7 years in a Vietnam jail, look anti veteran and he is the one cutting
> veterans benefits. The war in Iraq is irreversible, essentially Iraq has
> turned into the center for all opposition to US. Even Hillary recognizes
> that. Essentially Bush has managed to totally revamp the constitution of US
> without a revolution. He is truly an evil master.
I'm not sure that one can fool that many people without the willful
ignorance of the people themselves. Some people just don't want to
know ... and perhaps -- for their own reasons -- they can't.
KKT
| |
|
| > torture and killing of 300,000 people (likely much more) over the
>Your response indicates that you don't >realize that the US is well
>on its way to beating those records
LOL And you love the USA? The insurgencies have nothing to do with the
deaths going on in Iraq, huh? Nah, its all the USA. In fact the 1,500+
US soldiers killed were probably killed by their own. What a deluded
individual UR. I guess its not so bad -if ignorance is bliss, you must
the happiest camper on the planet.
Chuck
| |
|
| abdi wrote:
> Its very interesting, I think there is a new scheme and few people realize
> it. Back in 79 when Khomeini came to power, he acted so stupid that people
> assumed he will be gone in a couple of month. More than 25 years later they
> have managed to pass unimaginable laws and they are more secure than ever. I
> don't know if he watched too much TV, but there was a show on TV called
> Colombo. It was about a cop who acted to be stupid, but he was very clever.
> Bush is also practicing the same ideology, he managed to make the guy who
> spend 7 years in a Vietnam jail, look anti veteran and he is the one cutting
> veterans benefits. The war in Iraq is irreversible, essentially Iraq has
> turned into the center for all opposition to US. Even Hillary recognizes
> that. Essentially Bush has managed to totally revamp the constitution of US
> without a revolution. He is truly an evil master.
I'm not sure that one can fool that many people without the willful
ignorance of the people themselves. Some people just don't want to
know ... and perhaps -- for their own reasons -- they can't.
KKT
| |
|
| > torture and killing of 300,000 people (likely much more) over the
>Your response indicates that you don't >realize that the US is well
>on its way to beating those records
LOL And you love the USA? The insurgencies have nothing to do with the
deaths going on in Iraq, huh? Nah, its all the USA. In fact the 1,500+
US soldiers killed were probably killed by their own. What a deluded
individual UR. I guess its not so bad -if ignorance is bliss, you must
the happiest camper on the planet.
Chuck
|
| |
|
|