November 29, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0036
"This is seriously incompetent lying."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:02 PM
| Comments (0)
Major General Raymond Odierno, speaking about Saddam Hussein (remember him?): "My guess is he probably has a plan to keep himself nice and cozy during the winter, while the rest of his people suffer. But we're going to try to keep him running so he can't be comfortable and doesn't have enough kerosene...to keep warm. And I hope he's lost lots of weight."
Uh, so they're still "his" people, and their continued suffering, for want of heating oil no less, is still his fault? And, they're still suffering? (Odierno may have unwittingly coined a new Orwellism here: "Liberation is suffering".)
As for keeping him running, how the fuck would they know? If they knew he were running, they'd know where he were running from and to, yes? And if they knew that, they'd be able to nab him, right?
November 26, 2003
The Blame Game
Major General Raymond Odierno, speaking about Saddam Hussein (remember him?): "My guess is he probably has a plan to keep himself nice and cozy during the winter, while the rest of his people suffer. But we're going to try to keep him running so he can't be comfortable and doesn't have enough kerosene...to keep warm. And I hope he's lost lots of weight."
Uh, so they're still "his" people, and their continued suffering, for want of heating oil no less, is still his fault? And, they're still suffering? (Odierno may have unwittingly coined a new Orwellism here: "Liberation is suffering".)
As for keeping him running, how the fuck would they know? If they knew he were running, they'd know where he were running from and to, yes? And if they knew that, they'd be able to nab him, right?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:20 PM
| Comments (0)
This blogger has argued before now that if we were truly interested in fighting a War on Terrorism, we would start by eliminating our own acts of -- as well as the sponsoring of and financing of -- terrorism.
Eliminating the double-standards inherent in U.S. Foreign Policy would not only meet the most elementary standards of logic and morality, but given the sheer volume of Terror for which we are responsible (the United States accounts for something on the order of 45% of the global arms trade, for example), would, obviously, result in a gigantic reduction in the over-all level of World Terror. It would also (no small potatoes) in all likelihood "drain the reservoir" of support for those that choose to practice terror against us -- not to mention greatly increasing the likelihood that those currently choosing to practice terror will continue to do so.
If all this sounds a little abstract, here's a more straight-forward recipe:
Cease engaging in terrorist activities, cease befriending and arming brutallly repressive dictators, cease bombing Third World countries into oblivion, cease meddling in others' affairs, cease stealing others' resources, cease imposing devastating austerity programmes; and these injustices will cease "blowing back" and biting us in the ass. It's really not terribly complicated.
All of which is to say that the "War On Terror" is, as currently conceived; seriously hypocritical, illogical, immoral.
But it's also, on its own terms, been a complete failure. Which is why the Bush Administration's touting of its terror-fighting credentials, in a new advertisement attacking the Democrats for lack of same, is as beguiling as this line of argument has always been.
"[The Democrats] are opposed to a policy of pre-emptive self-defense, and they are attacking the president for pursuing that policy," complains Republican Party chairman Ed Gillespie.
Did the Bush Administration fail to notice Bali? Did it fail to notice Riyadh? Did it fail to notice Istanbul? Did it fail to notice the almost-weekly terror bombings in Free Iraq? Did it fail to notice al-Qaida's having split into "dozens of autonomous, hard-to-find 'franchises'"?
In waging its "War on Terror" the Bush Administration has -- besides murdering tens of thousands, wrecking the U.S. economy, burning International Law to a crisp, ignoring (or exacerbating) the far more important threats to world "security", and trampling the civil rights of the world's citizenry -- apparently nabbed or knocked off a bunch of top-level followers of bin Laden.
With no discernible effect on the level of terror waged against us and our "allies" (unless the effect has been to increase it). Is this anything other than patently obvious?
Can't Bush In '04 come up with some other record upon which to campaign -- something that isn't so transparently ridiculous?
Incidentally, lest one think these are merely the latest ravings of an insipid pinko wrecker, be it noted that, "Experts who have served in top positions in both Republican and Democratic administrations are increasingly suggesting that the Iraq war has diverted momentum, troops, and intelligence resources from the worldwide campaign to destroy the remnants of al-Qaida."
With Friends Like These
This blogger has argued before now that if we were truly interested in fighting a War on Terrorism, we would start by eliminating our own acts of -- as well as the sponsoring of and financing of -- terrorism.
Eliminating the double-standards inherent in U.S. Foreign Policy would not only meet the most elementary standards of logic and morality, but given the sheer volume of Terror for which we are responsible (the United States accounts for something on the order of 45% of the global arms trade, for example), would, obviously, result in a gigantic reduction in the over-all level of World Terror. It would also (no small potatoes) in all likelihood "drain the reservoir" of support for those that choose to practice terror against us -- not to mention greatly increasing the likelihood that those currently choosing to practice terror will continue to do so.
If all this sounds a little abstract, here's a more straight-forward recipe:
Cease engaging in terrorist activities, cease befriending and arming brutallly repressive dictators, cease bombing Third World countries into oblivion, cease meddling in others' affairs, cease stealing others' resources, cease imposing devastating austerity programmes; and these injustices will cease "blowing back" and biting us in the ass. It's really not terribly complicated.
All of which is to say that the "War On Terror" is, as currently conceived; seriously hypocritical, illogical, immoral.
But it's also, on its own terms, been a complete failure. Which is why the Bush Administration's touting of its terror-fighting credentials, in a new advertisement attacking the Democrats for lack of same, is as beguiling as this line of argument has always been.
"[The Democrats] are opposed to a policy of pre-emptive self-defense, and they are attacking the president for pursuing that policy," complains Republican Party chairman Ed Gillespie.
Did the Bush Administration fail to notice Bali? Did it fail to notice Riyadh? Did it fail to notice Istanbul? Did it fail to notice the almost-weekly terror bombings in Free Iraq? Did it fail to notice al-Qaida's having split into "dozens of autonomous, hard-to-find 'franchises'"?
In waging its "War on Terror" the Bush Administration has -- besides murdering tens of thousands, wrecking the U.S. economy, burning International Law to a crisp, ignoring (or exacerbating) the far more important threats to world "security", and trampling the civil rights of the world's citizenry -- apparently nabbed or knocked off a bunch of top-level followers of bin Laden.
With no discernible effect on the level of terror waged against us and our "allies" (unless the effect has been to increase it). Is this anything other than patently obvious?
Can't Bush In '04 come up with some other record upon which to campaign -- something that isn't so transparently ridiculous?
Incidentally, lest one think these are merely the latest ravings of an insipid pinko wrecker, be it noted that, "Experts who have served in top positions in both Republican and Democratic administrations are increasingly suggesting that the Iraq war has diverted momentum, troops, and intelligence resources from the worldwide campaign to destroy the remnants of al-Qaida."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:31 PM
| Comments (0)
"We are the custodian of the taxpayer dollars. We have an obligation to see that things are done properly." -- Donald H. Rumsfeld
Quote Of The Moment #0035
"We are the custodian of the taxpayer dollars. We have an obligation to see that things are done properly." -- Donald H. Rumsfeld
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:01 PM
| Comments (0)
Some letters to the Editor of the November 23 Seattle Times:
This is a dark day in America.
A Massachusetts court has declared that homosexual marriage is legal. This will have monumental consequences for the nation.
For thousands of years, traditional marriage — the union of one man and one woman — has been celebrated by every culture on Earth as the cornerstone of society. But now, we have a court decision that declares that those thousands of years of culture are simply wrong.
If homosexual marriage is legal, then why isn't marriage between fathers and daughters legal; or marriage between people and animals?
There are two differences between human beings and animals. The first is our ability to communicate. We can pass on the collective knowledge of our civilization to our descendants using written words and verbal communication.
The second difference between animals and human beings is morality. We say that murder and incest, for example, are morally wrong. This distinguishes us from the animal kingdom.
Unless the people rise up in opposition to this court's decision, it will destroy society as we know it. - Fred McGee, Redmond
Americans need to do some deep soul-searching with respect to what this generation will unwisely place upon the next generation of grandchildren.
If homosexual marriages become legal, Americans must ponder the possibility of a homosexual president of the United States and his first man in the highest, most respected office in this land. His Cabinet could be made of homosexuals, such as a gay attorney general, secretary of state; homosexual appointments to the Supreme Court, where vital decisions for moral laws are made.
If you don't think this will happen in our beloved country, take a look at what the homosexuals, with the help of the United Way, have done to the honorable group called The Boys Scouts of America. The law will eventually have to come after and imprison or fine all Christians who honor God's word, the Bible, and Muslims who refuse to approve of homosexuality. Think! Think! - Diane Parker, Lynnwood
Although it would take several books to list the reasons the Massachusetts court decision to allow homosexual marriage is illogical and insane, common sense, reason and proof of thousands of years of experience are reasons enough. The institution of marriage precedes the state; therefore, the state has no authority to define or redefine it. If the state had this authority, it could define marriage as anything it chose from the relationship between any two people to the relationship between any number of people. Why stop at an arbitrary number?
Second, allowing homosexuals to marry is not a civil or human right. The state's role is to protect its citizens from harm, not encourage it. Homosexual sex is detrimental to the health and life of those practicing it and to society as a whole due to the social, economic and health costs related to it.
Third, allowing homosexual marriage will, in fact, destroy the institution and the family, which is the cornerstone of a healthy society.
Fourth, studies prove that children thrive and are healthier when they are raised by a father and a mother. Homosexuals want marriage first and then adoption rights. Why purposely place children's health and well-being at risk?
Finally, who gave unelected judges the right to legislate their morality upon the masses, particularly when the majority is against homosexual marriage?
Unless we have a collective wish to commit societal suicide, we need to take back our country from insane judges and marriage destroyers before it's too late. - Elaine Biggerstaff, Sumner
One could almost conclude that the letters were intended to be read as satire -- except that, as we learned just a few days ago, satire is dead.
And you say George W. can't be re-elected?
November 23, 2003
Which Way To The Stoning?
Some letters to the Editor of the November 23 Seattle Times:
This is a dark day in America.
A Massachusetts court has declared that homosexual marriage is legal. This will have monumental consequences for the nation.
For thousands of years, traditional marriage — the union of one man and one woman — has been celebrated by every culture on Earth as the cornerstone of society. But now, we have a court decision that declares that those thousands of years of culture are simply wrong.
If homosexual marriage is legal, then why isn't marriage between fathers and daughters legal; or marriage between people and animals?
There are two differences between human beings and animals. The first is our ability to communicate. We can pass on the collective knowledge of our civilization to our descendants using written words and verbal communication.
The second difference between animals and human beings is morality. We say that murder and incest, for example, are morally wrong. This distinguishes us from the animal kingdom.
Unless the people rise up in opposition to this court's decision, it will destroy society as we know it. - Fred McGee, Redmond
Americans need to do some deep soul-searching with respect to what this generation will unwisely place upon the next generation of grandchildren.
If homosexual marriages become legal, Americans must ponder the possibility of a homosexual president of the United States and his first man in the highest, most respected office in this land. His Cabinet could be made of homosexuals, such as a gay attorney general, secretary of state; homosexual appointments to the Supreme Court, where vital decisions for moral laws are made.
If you don't think this will happen in our beloved country, take a look at what the homosexuals, with the help of the United Way, have done to the honorable group called The Boys Scouts of America. The law will eventually have to come after and imprison or fine all Christians who honor God's word, the Bible, and Muslims who refuse to approve of homosexuality. Think! Think! - Diane Parker, Lynnwood
Although it would take several books to list the reasons the Massachusetts court decision to allow homosexual marriage is illogical and insane, common sense, reason and proof of thousands of years of experience are reasons enough. The institution of marriage precedes the state; therefore, the state has no authority to define or redefine it. If the state had this authority, it could define marriage as anything it chose from the relationship between any two people to the relationship between any number of people. Why stop at an arbitrary number?
Second, allowing homosexuals to marry is not a civil or human right. The state's role is to protect its citizens from harm, not encourage it. Homosexual sex is detrimental to the health and life of those practicing it and to society as a whole due to the social, economic and health costs related to it.
Third, allowing homosexual marriage will, in fact, destroy the institution and the family, which is the cornerstone of a healthy society.
Fourth, studies prove that children thrive and are healthier when they are raised by a father and a mother. Homosexuals want marriage first and then adoption rights. Why purposely place children's health and well-being at risk?
Finally, who gave unelected judges the right to legislate their morality upon the masses, particularly when the majority is against homosexual marriage?
Unless we have a collective wish to commit societal suicide, we need to take back our country from insane judges and marriage destroyers before it's too late. - Elaine Biggerstaff, Sumner
One could almost conclude that the letters were intended to be read as satire -- except that, as we learned just a few days ago, satire is dead.
And you say George W. can't be re-elected?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:00 PM
| Comments (4)
"International law...would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone." -- Richard "I am above the law!" Perle
November 22, 2003
Somebody Notify The Constable (Quote Of The Moment #0034)
"International law...would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone." -- Richard "I am above the law!" Perle
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:13 PM
| Comments (0)
"Let us be very clear. What has caused the terrorist attack today in Turkey is not the President of the United States, is not the alliance between America and Britain. What is responsible for that terrorist attack is terrorism." -- Tony Blair
Blair may have been been boning up on his George Shultz (ca. 1984): "Terrorism is a modern barbarism that we call terrorism."
Tautology Of The Moment #0003
"Let us be very clear. What has caused the terrorist attack today in Turkey is not the President of the United States, is not the alliance between America and Britain. What is responsible for that terrorist attack is terrorism." -- Tony Blair
Blair may have been been boning up on his George Shultz (ca. 1984): "Terrorism is a modern barbarism that we call terrorism."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:54 PM
| Comments (0)
Not anymore, that is: "Afterwards, the military ordered that all donkey carts be stopped and searched."
Swift is dead. Orwell is dead. Even Gilliam is dead. Ari Fleischer is the new sage. Long will he reign?
Rumours Of Satire's Demise Can Not Possibly Be Exaggerated
Not anymore, that is: "Afterwards, the military ordered that all donkey carts be stopped and searched."
Swift is dead. Orwell is dead. Even Gilliam is dead. Ari Fleischer is the new sage. Long will he reign?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:47 AM
| Comments (0)
"You are with us, or with the terrorists. And if you are with the terrorists, you will face the consequences." -- President George W. Bush, November 7, 2001
"I don't expect everybody in the world to agree with the positions I've taken. But certainly, those should agree with the goals of the United States, which is peace and freedom. You see, we believe that freedom is not America's gift to the world, we believe freedom is the Almighty's gift to everybody in the world. We believe free societies are peaceful societies. We believe in human justice and human dignity and human rights." -- President George W. Bush, November 13, 2003
November 19, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0033
"You are with us, or with the terrorists. And if you are with the terrorists, you will face the consequences." -- President George W. Bush, November 7, 2001
"I don't expect everybody in the world to agree with the positions I've taken. But certainly, those should agree with the goals of the United States, which is peace and freedom. You see, we believe that freedom is not America's gift to the world, we believe freedom is the Almighty's gift to everybody in the world. We believe free societies are peaceful societies. We believe in human justice and human dignity and human rights." -- President George W. Bush, November 13, 2003
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:33 PM
| Comments (0)
An untimely confluence of distractions has kept your humble servant away from the ol' keyboard -- thus unable to update either this blog or the fallout page -- with great frequency of late.
Particularly untimely given the newest phase of Operation: You May Not Love Us; You May Not Want Us Here; You May Not Respect Us; But, Dammitall, We're Gonna Drop 500-Pound Bombs On Your Neighbourhoods Anyhow.
Considering The Bush Administration's current comportment in Iraq -- blowing up the homes of "suspected insurgents" -- it looks like time to revisit this blog's Quote Of The Moment #0020: "For U.S. soldiers wondering what they should and should not do in their role as occupiers of Iraq, help may be on the way from the Israel Defense Forces."
Anyhow, get your asses over to Billmon's Whiskey Bar. Even during a so-called "sabbatical", it's still the best blog going, bar none.
Ack!
An untimely confluence of distractions has kept your humble servant away from the ol' keyboard -- thus unable to update either this blog or the fallout page -- with great frequency of late.
Particularly untimely given the newest phase of Operation: You May Not Love Us; You May Not Want Us Here; You May Not Respect Us; But, Dammitall, We're Gonna Drop 500-Pound Bombs On Your Neighbourhoods Anyhow.
Considering The Bush Administration's current comportment in Iraq -- blowing up the homes of "suspected insurgents" -- it looks like time to revisit this blog's Quote Of The Moment #0020: "For U.S. soldiers wondering what they should and should not do in their role as occupiers of Iraq, help may be on the way from the Israel Defense Forces."
Anyhow, get your asses over to Billmon's Whiskey Bar. Even during a so-called "sabbatical", it's still the best blog going, bar none.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:27 PM
| Comments (2)
"When you see we had five, six attacks a day in May and now it's 30, it's unmistakable that the number of engagements is increasing." -- Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. general in Iraq
November 12, 2003
Tautology Of The Moment #0002
"When you see we had five, six attacks a day in May and now it's 30, it's unmistakable that the number of engagements is increasing." -- Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. general in Iraq
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:58 PM
| Comments (0)
This blogger's favourite historian, Gabriel Kolko, has recently authored two good pieces concerning current world events: an op-ed for the Australian paper The Age, entitled "Iraq Already Looks Ominously Like Vietnam"; and a longer analysis, for Counterpunch, comparing Vietnam-era intelligence with Iraq-era intelligence.
Both are recommended.
November 11, 2003
Gabriel
This blogger's favourite historian, Gabriel Kolko, has recently authored two good pieces concerning current world events: an op-ed for the Australian paper The Age, entitled "Iraq Already Looks Ominously Like Vietnam"; and a longer analysis, for Counterpunch, comparing Vietnam-era intelligence with Iraq-era intelligence.
Both are recommended.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:02 PM
| Comments (0)
"Now we know that no other President of the United States has ever lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably ... The presumption now has to be that he's lying any time that he's saying anything." -- CIA Analyst Ray McGovern
Quote Of The Moment #0032
"Now we know that no other President of the United States has ever lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably ... The presumption now has to be that he's lying any time that he's saying anything." -- CIA Analyst Ray McGovern
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:49 PM
| Comments (0)
"Mr. Bush has not read history. Who supported and still supports the very governments whose oppressive rules breed extremism and terrorism?"
Now, now. Mr. Bush hasn't said that he doesn't read history -- only that he doesn't read the newspaper.
November 10, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0031
"Mr. Bush has not read history. Who supported and still supports the very governments whose oppressive rules breed extremism and terrorism?"
Now, now. Mr. Bush hasn't said that he doesn't read history -- only that he doesn't read the newspaper.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:11 PM
| Comments (0)
So the Los Angeles Times is no longer permitting use of the phrase "resistance fighters" in reference to "the Iraqis who have killed more than 100 U.S. soldiers since Washington declared major combat over in May" because the phrase romanticises the resistance and evokes World-War-II-era heroism.
And we know the LA Times would never permit the romanticisation and/or heroic World-War-II-era evocation of the "coalition forces" who have killed 20,000 or so Iraqi conscripts and civilians since Washington declared major combat initiated in March. Right?
The Times' editorial staff apparently missed, by the by, a U.S. soldier having made reference to an "Iraqi freedom fighter" on Nightline last week. (Much obliged if anybody can track down a transcript -- it was the November 3 edition of the program.)
Freedom Of The Presses
So the Los Angeles Times is no longer permitting use of the phrase "resistance fighters" in reference to "the Iraqis who have killed more than 100 U.S. soldiers since Washington declared major combat over in May" because the phrase romanticises the resistance and evokes World-War-II-era heroism.
And we know the LA Times would never permit the romanticisation and/or heroic World-War-II-era evocation of the "coalition forces" who have killed 20,000 or so Iraqi conscripts and civilians since Washington declared major combat initiated in March. Right?
The Times' editorial staff apparently missed, by the by, a U.S. soldier having made reference to an "Iraqi freedom fighter" on Nightline last week. (Much obliged if anybody can track down a transcript -- it was the November 3 edition of the program.)
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:01 PM
| Comments (0)
"The [troop] reduction will still occur as planned -- if all goes according to plan." -- A senior military official who asked not to be named
Tautology Of The Moment #0001
"The [troop] reduction will still occur as planned -- if all goes according to plan." -- A senior military official who asked not to be named
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:09 PM
| Comments (0)
As we know, the U.S. military has responded to the latest downing of one of its helicopters by sweeping through Tikrit and blasting abandoned buildings suspected of being used by insurgents as hideouts, and menacing that, "This is to remind the town that we have teeth and claws and we will use them."
More generally, "We are on offensive operations. You can expect to see an increase in the level of intensity and the amount of activity that is occurring, especially in those 'challenging' areas."
Some notes on these latest developments.
• Though eyewitnesses reported seeing the helicopter having been fired upon, the U.S. didn't confirm until 24 hours after the event that it had indeed been shot down. Yet, the "retaliation" began before dawn Saturday -- in other words, well before confirmation that it hadn't been an accident. Granted, the initial evasiveness was surely just a PR maneouvre. But if we take the military at its own word, it launched its "retaliation" before even knowing what it was "retaliating" against.
• As this blog has noted before now, it is entirely within the rights of those under foreign occupation to engage in resistance. General Assembly Resolution 37/43, passed in December of 1982, "Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity, and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle."
To put it in terms the Bush Administration seems to understand: the "coalition" forces are the "bad guys". The resistance may or may not be at least partially comprised of "bad" guys as well, but these bad guys at least have the right to defend their own country.
• The "retaliation" destroyed suspected hideouts. Is this how military "justice" works -- by acting upon suspicions? Yeah, that was a rhetorical question (just ask the victims -- numbering into the tens of thousands, by some accounts -- of Bill Clinton's 1998 destruction of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory).
• Why, if the U.S. truly suspected these abandoned buildings (and if they really were abandoned) of being insurgent hideouts, did it wait until after the downing of the helicopter to take them out? The "retaliation" may play well on the teevee, but that's clearly what it's designed for: to reassure the viewing public that the "coalition" knows what the fuck it's doing, even while it's perfectly obvious that it doesn't have the slightest clue.
• In justifying the newest rampages, one anonymous U.S. official helpfully reminds us that, "Part of warfare is coercion and affecting the hearts and minds of the enemy and certainly a show of force is a tool that can be used by commander." So we're no longer trying to win hearts and minds, but rather to "affect" them? And we're still at war? And freedom is slavery? Got it.
Is This What "Liberation" Looks Like?
As we know, the U.S. military has responded to the latest downing of one of its helicopters by sweeping through Tikrit and blasting abandoned buildings suspected of being used by insurgents as hideouts, and menacing that, "This is to remind the town that we have teeth and claws and we will use them."
More generally, "We are on offensive operations. You can expect to see an increase in the level of intensity and the amount of activity that is occurring, especially in those 'challenging' areas."
Some notes on these latest developments.
• Though eyewitnesses reported seeing the helicopter having been fired upon, the U.S. didn't confirm until 24 hours after the event that it had indeed been shot down. Yet, the "retaliation" began before dawn Saturday -- in other words, well before confirmation that it hadn't been an accident. Granted, the initial evasiveness was surely just a PR maneouvre. But if we take the military at its own word, it launched its "retaliation" before even knowing what it was "retaliating" against.
• As this blog has noted before now, it is entirely within the rights of those under foreign occupation to engage in resistance. General Assembly Resolution 37/43, passed in December of 1982, "Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity, and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle."
To put it in terms the Bush Administration seems to understand: the "coalition" forces are the "bad guys". The resistance may or may not be at least partially comprised of "bad" guys as well, but these bad guys at least have the right to defend their own country.
• The "retaliation" destroyed suspected hideouts. Is this how military "justice" works -- by acting upon suspicions? Yeah, that was a rhetorical question (just ask the victims -- numbering into the tens of thousands, by some accounts -- of Bill Clinton's 1998 destruction of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory).
• Why, if the U.S. truly suspected these abandoned buildings (and if they really were abandoned) of being insurgent hideouts, did it wait until after the downing of the helicopter to take them out? The "retaliation" may play well on the teevee, but that's clearly what it's designed for: to reassure the viewing public that the "coalition" knows what the fuck it's doing, even while it's perfectly obvious that it doesn't have the slightest clue.
• In justifying the newest rampages, one anonymous U.S. official helpfully reminds us that, "Part of warfare is coercion and affecting the hearts and minds of the enemy and certainly a show of force is a tool that can be used by commander." So we're no longer trying to win hearts and minds, but rather to "affect" them? And we're still at war? And freedom is slavery? Got it.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:44 PM
| Comments (0)
A fairly edifying piece from the New York Times last week, detailing the methods by which humans might wean themselves from fossil fuels.
But there's a striking line in the print edition not included in the abridged online version: "No existing technology appears capable of filling that void. The futuristic technology might be impractically expensive. Developing a solar power satellite, for example, has been estimated at $200 billion."
In other words, due to the "impracticality" of spending roughly one-fourth of what the United States spends on the military in a given year, the human race may be doomed to extinction -- even though, in a sidebar layout, the Times enthuses that, "Capturing just 1 percent of the solar energy that hits the Moon could meet all global energy needs in 2050."
Why is military spending considered "practical", but alternative energy development considered "impractical"? Uh, maybe because Dick Cheney et al. are invested in fossil fuels extraction? Just a guess.
Oh, well. The human race may be fucked, but at least the economists will be happy.
November 09, 2003
It Would Be Impractical
A fairly edifying piece from the New York Times last week, detailing the methods by which humans might wean themselves from fossil fuels.
But there's a striking line in the print edition not included in the abridged online version: "No existing technology appears capable of filling that void. The futuristic technology might be impractically expensive. Developing a solar power satellite, for example, has been estimated at $200 billion."
In other words, due to the "impracticality" of spending roughly one-fourth of what the United States spends on the military in a given year, the human race may be doomed to extinction -- even though, in a sidebar layout, the Times enthuses that, "Capturing just 1 percent of the solar energy that hits the Moon could meet all global energy needs in 2050."
Why is military spending considered "practical", but alternative energy development considered "impractical"? Uh, maybe because Dick Cheney et al. are invested in fossil fuels extraction? Just a guess.
Oh, well. The human race may be fucked, but at least the economists will be happy.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:26 PM
| Comments (0)
A few months ago, this blog surmised that the Bush Administration's harebrained scheme to run a "futures" market for geopolitical events might have seen speculators putting down some serious cash on Dubya reinstating the draft.
Holders of draft futures would today be giddily licking their lips: "The Selective Service System wants to hear from men and women in the community who might be willing to serve as members of a local draft board."
How low can The Superbrain's popularity go? Hang on to your hats, boys 'n' girls: we're about to find out.
Can you say "giant sucking sound"? I knew you could!
Update: "The Pentagon wouldn't comment on the notice, and by [November 7] it had been pulled from the Web site without explanation." The missing page has been restored by the always-helpful miners at The Memory Hole.
November 05, 2003
We Have A Winner For The Big First Prize
A few months ago, this blog surmised that the Bush Administration's harebrained scheme to run a "futures" market for geopolitical events might have seen speculators putting down some serious cash on Dubya reinstating the draft.Holders of draft futures would today be giddily licking their lips: "The Selective Service System wants to hear from men and women in the community who might be willing to serve as members of a local draft board."
How low can The Superbrain's popularity go? Hang on to your hats, boys 'n' girls: we're about to find out.
Can you say "giant sucking sound"? I knew you could!
Update: "The Pentagon wouldn't comment on the notice, and by [November 7] it had been pulled from the Web site without explanation." The missing page has been restored by the always-helpful miners at The Memory Hole.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:23 PM
| Comments (2)
Tim, the battle we're engaged in, the global war on terrorism, is an important one. It is a different one than we've been in previously, although terrorism's not new. But the nature of terrorism is that its purpose is to terrorize. Its purpose is to alter people's behavior. And to the extent free people end up behaving in a way that is different from the way free people behave, they've lost. -- Donald H. Rumsfeld
Got that?
November 02, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0030
Tim, the battle we're engaged in, the global war on terrorism, is an important one. It is a different one than we've been in previously, although terrorism's not new. But the nature of terrorism is that its purpose is to terrorize. Its purpose is to alter people's behavior. And to the extent free people end up behaving in a way that is different from the way free people behave, they've lost. -- Donald H. Rumsfeld
Got that?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:34 PM
| Comments (3)
The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity that's available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become. -- George W. Bush, October 27, 2003
To answer those who ask if we're serving any purpose in being there, let me answer a question with a question. Would the terrorists have launched their suicide attacks against the multinational force if it were not doing its job? The multinational force was attacked precisely because it is doing the job it was sent to do in Beirut. It is accomplishing its mission. -- Ronald W. Reagan, October 27, 1983
Plus ça change...
It Was Twenty Years Ago Today
The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity that's available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become. -- George W. Bush, October 27, 2003
To answer those who ask if we're serving any purpose in being there, let me answer a question with a question. Would the terrorists have launched their suicide attacks against the multinational force if it were not doing its job? The multinational force was attacked precisely because it is doing the job it was sent to do in Beirut. It is accomplishing its mission. -- Ronald W. Reagan, October 27, 1983
Plus ça change...