Saturday, September 03, 2005

China offers U.S. $5 million in aid

BEIJING (Reuters) - China has offered $5 million in aid for victims of Hurricane Katrina ahead of President Hu Jintao's U.S. visit, the official Xinhua news agency said on Saturday.

The Chinese government would provide the aid in addition to a batch of emergency relief goods, Xinhua quoted Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang as saying.

If needed, the Chinese government would also send rescue workers, including medical experts, Qin said

An update on the current countries offering help

offers of help had been received from: Australia, Austria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belgium, Canada, China, Columbia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, France, Germany, Guatemala, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, NATO, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Organization of American States, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, South Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Health Organization.

If we got about five thousand Chinese in a brigade moving dirt in buckets and dumping it to shore up the levees, that would be a great start. They couldn't do worse, and if it didn't work then we could blame China.

By Anonymous Woody, at September 04, 2005 5:56 pm  

hehehe , yup , dont worry , they would blame the chinese

funniest thing i have read so far on this tragedy was

"george bush today announced plans to wage war on south america , he accuses them of harbouring hurricanes"

any help should be accepted ,the UK have sent today half a million food rations , the EU is sending blankets/doctors/food . everything

By Blogger _H_, at September 04, 2005 6:03 pm  

Better yet, instead of sending us supplies, let Europe take all those people who wouldn't get out of the city and see if they have better luck with them. You can bet that if a hurricane-like storm hit the dikes of Holland, that those people would be out of there in plenty of time. Somewhere along the line, personal responsibility has to be considered.

By Anonymous Woody, at September 04, 2005 6:10 pm  

There is a certain undertone in yor comment that worries me a litle woody

you wouldnt want to fall into the reverse trap of what it is you complain of and making this political


you spend time highlighting the VERY small number of people that may have made the choice not to leave , but spend no time mentioning the thousands in hospital beds that could not go anywhere

the thousands in old people centres that probably could not even walk to the porch never mind get out of the city

the ederly , the children , the mentaly ill . the very very poor , the homeless , the list is endless

these people had NO choice at all , the government (local and national) has a responsibilty to help those people and they failed , big time

a few idiots refusing to leave is a side issue to deflect from the major abandonment of US citizens

the same as the looting is a side issue .. yes some idiots were stealing TV's (how stupid , where would they plug them in) but MOST were looking for food and water , and i would have bust into wall mart (spelling ) too ,

babies being left with no water for 5 days , just because they could not (not would not) get out

why are you focusing on a small number of idiots when a crime of HUGE proportions has happened here

you sound like one of those that is defending the indefensible

why ?

By Blogger _H_, at September 04, 2005 6:42 pm  

_H_, I've said in comments outside of this post that I sympathize with those who couldn't leave. It's hard to assemble all of my comments or all of my thoughts here and each time I post. I know that thousands of people like you describe were evacuated. Some were left, and that's not their fault. However, this is turning out like some Hollywood disaster movie where people need to stay calm and cooperate to get to safety, like bailing out of a plane, but in which there is that one fat lady blocking the exit screaming and fighting being pushed to safety. These people fighting the rescuers are "fat ladies" holding up the rescue of others, and it's pretty disgusting. I never liked those characters in the movies and I especially don't like them in real life, because the lives they could cost are real.

By Anonymous Woody, at September 04, 2005 7:08 pm  

Of course woody , On your own site you place adverts pointing people to the red cross and to housing help they may offer , the flip side of your early point is

Yes i know you do show you care in other places but my reply is purely to your comment above , please take it for what it is , i am very direct with my comments (so used to responding to simple rhetoric) but dont feel i am personaly having a go at you (ever) just to the content left on m site

on the main part of your point the "fat ladies" well you can look at this two ways

yes there was a break down in civl order , of course , and some people (not a large number) acted in a way that was unhealthy

the other way to look at this is to see your govenment (local and national) as responsible for keeping order at times of crisis , on the monday and the tuesday (so an american general has said on british TV) the national guard were ready and able to enter new orleans , in large numbers but he said "we could not leave the base until the order to do so came through , that order never happened), so the troops were playing basketball instead of saving lives and keeping order , not due to them , but due to no order being issued from above

to me it is the second point that is worth noting , some people will always act like idiots , but the state has a responsibilty to install order , they failed

most of the chaos is due to the stupidity of the slow response , and it seems you (in these comments) are pointing out the side issues and not looking at who is responsible to prevent such things , ie why you pay your taxes

By Blogger _H_, at September 04, 2005 9:05 pm  

_H_, I never considered personal offense from your statements. I think that I know you well enough now not to infer that.

To be honest, no one, including you and I, have all the facts or a complete picture of problems with the preparation before the hurricane or the response afterwards. We see complaints and figer-pointing, we see pictures of people suffering and none of the people who are not, we hear people tell us who is wrong and who is right--yet, none of this provides the information needed to have an honest and complete analysis. It cannot be done with short-term snippets of editorials and sensational headlines. Help is being provided now and that help is more than sufficient.

Let's wait until full control and order is restored and then look back at the facts. There will be plenty of time to assess blame or, as I prefer, to assess the operations so as to improve them for future emergencies.

By Anonymous Woody, at September 04, 2005 11:51 pm  

aslong as the is a full and open enquiry that looks at everything from the president to the bottom of the pile i am happy with that

the concern many of my (left winged) American friends seem to have is that a general distrust for this government means that they feel that unless alot of noise is made then the issue will be swept under the carpet

being in the UK all the media (from all political angles) are saying that george bush has been damaged very badly by this .

as for headlines , i assume i fall under the same trap as the real media , my stories appear on a few news feeds and the headline brings in readers , though i dont think to date i have reported anything that has been seen to be untrue

i can not assume that an american army general would lie when he said he was ready to go but it tooks day for the order

so in essense i agree with you , although i dont blame the left for wanting to keep this at the front of the media's mind

i have seen both the left and the right do a fantastic job of highlighting issues such as the red cross and the housing issues , and i see equal amount of genuine concern and help for the victims

so if the left wing sites are posting these stories then i see no harm being done , it is only if they are standing in the way of the rescue effort then it would cross the line

it is a fine line , we are only a few weeks after i was watching cindy sheehan being called a "bitch in a ditch" and "media whore" from the right , both sides cross moral boundries sometimes but if it keeps people asking questions of their government (any government ) then it seems to do more good then harm

but lets hope for a quick and OPEN enquiry as soon as possible and where ever the buck stops , something went wrong somewhere

By Blogger _H_, at September 05, 2005 12:10 am  

I'm confident that an inquiry will be open, although I don't know how quickly it will be formed. This is government, after all. The opposing sides and the media will insure that at least President Bush gets his due.

Don't believe everything that you see in the British press (or a lot of the American press.) Based upon my historical views of the British press and what I know to be the truth here, I have absolutely no confidence it its accuracy and its objectivity.

Briefly on the general, that is very uncharacteristic of an officer to cast doubts on the mission and commands of his superiors. There has to be something wrong with that report, or it is an incomplete picture. For instance, he may have said that they had not been called up, but there was likely a reason besides incompetence, as is the presumption. Maybe they decided to call a closer group, maybe these are held in reserve for other emergencies (which they do), maybe their equipment was not adequate for those troops to be effective, etc. Don't assume that they weren't called up because Bush was derelict in his duties. If the general even implied that, then he would be breaking with his chain-of-command and isn't much of a general. I think that there is more to that story.

By Anonymous Woody, at September 05, 2005 1:49 am  

hehehehe , I didnt say "bush" didnt give the order , but some of your answers are funny

you have an entire city under water and a theory that comes to mind is "maybe these are held in reserve for other emergencies" really ? you can't believe that can you surely ?

as for the british press , they are infact very open , even to the point of when a D notice (censorship request by government)) are put in place we are informed of the fact , to compare the open natured non political british media to the american press is laughable , the american's have without doubt the most biast media of any 'democratic' country on earth , the worst news company of any that i have ever seen has to be fox , they actually make al-jaazera look honest , there is NO free press in your country ,

if you doubt me , all i ask is you scroll down to the video links i put up a few days ago , and compare what we are seeing to what you guys are seing

the american media is one of the main reason i started this site ,

the strange concept of 95% of your press accepting every word that comes out of the whitehouse is an enigma you will not see in the rest of the west

i am truly shocked , most people i speak to genuinly know how awful your press is , and always ask me to send the "real" news from britain as they can't get it in the US

you do suprise me woody , but what can i say , if it is what you feel i respect your view

but it is the first i have heard of it , even from my right winged american friends

hmmm

By Blogger _H_, at September 05, 2005 1:59 am  

Actually, it's true about the reserves. They do not commit all resources to one emergency as there could be other ones for which rapid response and resources would be needed. I know this for a fact, and it makes sense. There are other hurricanes coming across the Atlantic and there are terrorist threats for which other forces must be available to handle.

We definitely will not agree on the press. The main stream media in this country is overwhelming liberal. When I read your British papers, which are worse, I have to laugh. If you want to see it from my perspective, go to http://www.mrc.org/ .

By Anonymous Woody, at September 05, 2005 2:53 am  

I doubt we will agree

on the troops not commiting to one emergancy

hmmm

well no troops arrived monday , no troops arrived tuesday , only a small handfull arrived wednesday

so is it safe to assume that the whole american national guard was waiting for a bigger emergancy then new orleans droping under water ! .

i could accept your point woody if troops were actually there , but NO TROOPS turned up

now the best argument i hear is that nobody at all not one soldier , from anywhere ,from any camp in the whole country turned up incase there was a erm (cough) bigger emergancy ? really ?

as for the press , your right , we probably won't agree

the newspapers over here (just like yours) are slanted one way or another so i would ask which ones you read , they are about 50/50 split between left and right

half of the media in my country (as in yours) is owned by rupert murdock

the television media is a different thing

you can always tell when the media is doing a fantastic job because both sides of politics complain

recently the BBC was debated in the idiot chamber of parliment and i can not remember the exact numbers but the left thought the BBC was way way to right wing , the right thought the BBC was way way to left wing

journalists should be agressive in their pursuit of the truth , not as long arm of the government

your news for example on the iraq war is often mocked over here

you tv companies put patriotism above truth

they call the insurgents in iraq "the enemy"
they call the US forces "our boys"

and if for one second someone complained they would be attacked for being some kind of traitor

that is absurd , it is NOT the job of the news companies to promote "your side" the news company has one duty to your people and that is to tell the truth , regardless

6000 people (women and children etc) were murdered in fallujah , not one single american news company picked it up

now i am all in favour of patriotism my friend i have plenty my self

but i EXPECT better from the media

allow the white house to say what they want , but allow the press to be free to report "facts" not propaganda

i will give you one example of the thousands i easily could

(i studied propaganda at university)

cluster bombs

during an eight day study of US publications the US media (in all sources ) only mentioned cluster bombs 120 times (according to the nexus database that records all reports)

ny comparison british news agencys reported the use of these weapons in iraq mentioned this 394 times in the same period

so whilst cluster bombs are killing innocent iraqi civilians in huge numbers , you dont see it , they wont show you

during times of american conflict , the truth disapears from your screens and is replaced with the white house broadcasting company

what is more concerning the the world wide known fact that the US censors the truth from its own people , is that someone as intelligent as you can't actually see that they are doing it

when saddam offered his "evidence" to the UN of what weapons he had or didnt have , every country in the security council wanted the whole thing released , there was no secret details of how to make a bomb , so let people see it

but nooooo the usa insisted that 8000 pages of a 12000 page document be censored as it listed all the american companies and government agencies that helped saddam get what he got

now that is censorship

think about it , british , french , german and russian companies also helped saddam , but not one of these countries tried to prevent their own people from finding this out

yours did

propaganda is a fascinating subject i would enjoy debating with you

it is amazing what people don't know about their own media

By Blogger _H_, at September 05, 2005 3:21 am  

Roberts Set Out Doubts On Genocide Treaty

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. once expressed some agreement with conservatives who opposed entering an international anti-genocide treaty, saying that foreign governments might try to use it to prosecute the United States for its military actions overseas.

But Roberts, then a young White House lawyer, ultimately urged President Ronald Reagan to sign it, arguing that to do otherwise would be a public-relations embarrassment on the world stage.

So, it seem Roberts thinks it's no concern that hundreds of thousands die if an American soldier can avoid prosecution under international law. But heaven forbid America is embarassed!

shocking


Read more Here

source : Washington post

Five Days After Katrina, Refugees Waiting

NEW ORLEANS - A day after the National Guard finally arrived in force and began mass evacuations, thousands of people remained behind Saturday as fires belched ribbons of smoke over the city and sporadic gunfire echoed through the night.

Ful story Here

Depleted Uranium

Interesting read from the moscow times

And make no mistake: DU ammo is a chemical weapon of fearsome properties. After Daddy Bush dumped 300 tons of DU on Iraq in the first Gulf War, the Pentagon's own studies showed it to be an uncontrollable hazard, an indiscriminate tormentor of civilians and combatants alike. But the military brass love those malignancy-spawning munitions, which can cut through stone and steel like paper. So they ignored the studies, denounced their own experts -- and expanded the DU arsenal instead.

read it all Here

What's Bush Got To Do With It?

When the face of suffering is black, somehow our high standards for effective action and compassion begin to sag. The truth is, George W. Bush left these people behind a long time ago

Don't say that a hurricane destroyed New Orleans. Hurricanes don't drown cities. It was a "perfect storm" of a different kind which put that great city underwater: Bush-era neglect of our national infrastructure, combined with runaway global warming and a deep contempt for poor African-Americans.

The result: catastrophe. The flooding was not a result of heavy rains. It is a result of a weak levee -- one that was in mid-repair when the storm hit. And that levee, which has held back floodwaters for time beyond memory, collapsed for one simple reason: Bush refused to fix it last summer, when local officials were begging him to do so. Instead, he diverted those funds to the war effort.

full story Here

I won't waste a lot of ink on this, but these claims are pure nonsense and simply ill debated political attacks. The levees are as good as they were under Clinton and were deemed 99.5% effective. Nothing is perfect, but they were deemed adequate until such time further spending could be justified. If you want a similar, and as silly, counter argument: Clinton could have taken those soldiers that he used in Waco to kill those families and sent them to New Orleans to work on the levees. Silly? It's the same as arguments being made by the left.

The money spent on the levees, or not spent, was determined after creating budgets based on national priorities, balanced with potential costs and risks. That's the way the system works.

You can always find people predicting disasters of which 99.9% will never occur. Yet, you will focus on the 00.1% that did. "Experts" are predicting that we'll get hit by an asteroid. So, should we divert all resources to that just because some think that it could happen soon? No.

Think rational and logically about this. The problem of New Orleans spans many administrations and local and state governments. If it is Bush's fault, then it is shared with all those who preceded him and all the others who sat around.

It is amazing, but not unexpected, that the left would want to divert attention and resources to blaming Bush rather than helping people in need. I'm not surprised. To the left, power is more important than doing what is right.

By Anonymous Woody, at September 04, 2005 4:34 pm  

as you know woody , I am not American , so i dont feel it my place to get to involved , but the article above was one that paint's a popular view with many and it puts across the views of that camp rather well

my personal opinion:

Katrina was not like sept 11th , The warnings were there for over a week .

The government (local and national) have no excuse for not being prepared for a worst case situation

when the tragedy of the tsunami happened in asia , food and water was being dropped within an hour

when 50,000 died last christmas in Iran from an earthquake the rescue team were on site and saving lives in large numbers within a few hours


in both of the above there was NO reports of robbery,rape,anarchy,chaos,murder etc

the rescue effort for katrina was a complete shambles and how this is being shown outside the US is not how you are seing it

there weree tens of thousands of people who could not leave when they were asked to , they had nowhere to go , they had no car or cash to use

these people were abandoned ,

this is shocking , they had 5 days notice

the troops should have been on standby

did you know that yesterday was the FIRST DAY that paramedics actually landed in the city of new orleans

did you know that the red cross was ORDERED not to enter New Orleans at all by the government , they say so very cleartly on there own web site

disorder at such a time should not have been possible , if the standby had been put in place then the troops could have been there within HOURS not days !

we can get food dropped on a country in africa within a few mere hours of a crisis but a super power can't even drop so blankets and medicine in 4 days !

come on woody , it is a shambles

at least hundreds have died , not due to a hurricane , not due to a flood , but due to absurdly disorginised attempts to do something

another example , the local government told people to go to the stadium as they would be safe

they were NOT

there was no water
no toliets
no eletricity
no food
no medicine
no doctors
nobody in charge
people were murdered inside the stadium
british tourists were raped in full view of everyone inside the stadium , having done exactly what they were told to do

why on earth after 5 days had the government not dropped in any of the following ?

medics ?
food ?
medicine ?
generators ?
soldiers ?
the red cross ?
clothing ?
blankets ?

those people got nothing , and horrific though it is , it does not compare to what the people of asia had to cope with recently

America is a super power and they cant even get food to people in there own city ? come on please

i dont care where the buck stops

but people are to blame , to say that there was a 0.1 % chance of this happening does not seem to add up

how often do the authorties become so concerned that they tell the entire city to leave before the event ?

how dumb do you have to be to not realise that some people would not be able to ,

(i was just watching them (7days on) evacuating a hospital only half a mile from dry land , these people had run out of medicine and electricty days ago , people have died , and they are only HALF A MILE away ,

i agree with all those that say that a crisis like this should not be political , but some people dont release that this works TWO ways

defending the undefendable is just as wrong

hundreds of americans have died due to not being prepared for an event that had a whole week to be ready for

heads should roll and plenty of them

By Blogger _H_, at September 04, 2005 5:41 pm  

I am not defending the response. I'm deflecting inappropriately directed blame. In our system, the city and state have primary responsibilities for these matters with the federal government supporting them in emergencies.

This was not like 9-11, but if we knew that the WTC and Pentagon were going to be bombed and told the people to get out of the buildings, then those buildings would have been emptied. The city took its time to order an evacuation, partly because of legal concerns by the mayor, and the mayor did not use the city's transportation system to move people out.

Today, I am watching rescuers on the news frustrated because, even now, they cannot get people to leave their homes that are up to five feet in water. Even when the govenment is doing all it can, you find that you can't save stupid people from themselves.

By Anonymous Woody, at September 04, 2005 6:05 pm  

this point from you is similar to the one you posted under "China offers U.S. $5 million in aid " woody so i have answered you there

By Blogger _H_, at September 04, 2005 6:45 pm  

Friday, September 02, 2005

Official: Saddam's Trial to Begin in Oct.

Iraqi authorities plan to put Saddam Hussein on trial within five days after the Oct. 15 referendum on the new constitution, an official close to the proceedings said Thursday.

The official spoke after government spokesman Laith Kubba announced that Iraq had carried out its first executions since Saddam was ousted in 2003. Three men were hanged at 10 a.m. in a Baghdad prison for murdering three policemen.

U.S. officials scrapped the death penalty in 2003 but Iraqi authorities reinstated it after the transfer of sovereignty so they would have the option of executing Saddam if he is convicted of crimes committed during his regime.

full story Here

He'll get a fairer trial than the people whom he had run through the plastic shredders, putting them feet first to let them see their fate unfold and to draw out the pain. Let's have a fair trial and then stone him. Too bad Johnny Cochran isn't around to defend him.

By Anonymous Woody, at September 02, 2005 5:38 pm  

Yeah woody, but the D.U we have showered a majority of Iraq in is way more humane.

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at September 02, 2005 6:10 pm  

hehehe woody , you won't get much support for that here ,

I would be happy to see saddam executed , as long as i get to see george bush being charged with war crimes at the hague

of course saddam should be jailed for his crimes , but on a second note i come from a country (like 95 % of the world) that does not believe in the death penalty ,

an eye for an eye makes us just as hypocritical

in dealing with cases where the crime is sick and horrific (talking about more domestic type stuff) and not being a great believer in this heaven and hell stuff , i think killing someone is actually just giving them a get out clause ,

i think it is better to spend 50 years locked in a cell , then to have some injection that just ends it all

there are many of us regarding Iraq see a huge double standards

accidents asside (and are often preventable by better training and more respect for human life) the use of depeleted uranium , the use of land mines (that 99% of the world have designated illigal in and an equal threat to these WMD we all talk about)

and one that may not have passed through your media circles would be the massacre at Fallujah of women and children , that in a few years will be compared to the infamous massacre at Mai Lai

i wont go on , there is no middle ground to meet on i am sure , but peeps like me and phishy see a certain hypocracy that folks like yourself don't see

By Blogger _H_, at September 02, 2005 6:33 pm  

Hypocrisy? Your lack of a moral standard is quite disgusting actually.

Bush has NOT ordered the intentional killing of innocent Iraqis. Saddam did. The fact that you equate the two makes you at best an author of poor analogies, and at worst, a blindly partisan and intellectually vacuous Euro-twit seething with hatred of a man with whom you disagree politically.

I despised Bill Clinton with every fiber of my being, though I never thought he should be tried for the deaths of the Branch Davidians at Waco that his bumbling AG Janet Reno set ablaze in a bungled raid in Waco. Unlike you, I didn't let my intense political disagreements with a morally bankrupt president cloud by ability to reason, especially about legal matters. Sorry to hear that there must be something in the water where you live that produces such mind-numbing drivel from you.


Bush tried for war crimes? Dude, don't forget your Thorazine tablets. They're located next to your futon, on top of your copy of The Communist Manifesto.

By Blogger Jonathan, at September 02, 2005 7:47 pm  

"I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."
-- Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant, presiding at Pablo Paredes' court-martial

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051305X.shtml

Torture and inhuman treatment, which have been documented in Iraqi prisons, constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes under the US War Crimes Statute. The United States has ratified both the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, making them part of the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

"Bush has NOT ordered the intentional killing of innocent Iraqis. Saddam did."

We already went to war with Iraq 14 years ago over the gassing of innocent Iraqi's, I'm referring to this current war in Iraq. And why exactly are we there in Iraq now Jonathan Leffingwell? Is it because of WMD's (none were found). Is to find Osama? (he's not there, nor were he and Saddam allies). Oh yeah, that reminds me, What about Osama? You know, the guy Who is supposedly responsible for 9/11. I haven't heard much about him lately. Iraq had nothing, nadda, zip, zero, zilch to do with 9/11. So really why are we there.

And if you say to liberate and bring democracy to the people of Iraq, or to remove a dangerous dictator. Well you would be wrong, because those are not the reasons congress voted for this war.

Hypocrisy?
How about Illegal war where thousands of innocent people (including thousands of USA's finest men and women soldiers) are fighting and dying for basically lies?

Also Jonathan Leffingwell "Euro-twit"? Are you that much better then Europeans?

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at September 02, 2005 8:40 pm  

Phish, what lies. I mean really. Name a flat out, provable, no questions asked Lie. Not what we "think", not what we "assume", and not what "most people" agree on.

To say it was lies means
A.) Iraq never ever talked with, dealt with, or looked kindly at someone from Al Qaeda. And it means that Iraq never supported or Sponsored Terrorism. Both of which we know are untrue. They may not have happend the way it was insinuated, but it did happen.

B.) Iraq never had, never used, and was not working on any WMD programs, and the Administration knew it. This we also know is untrue because before the invasion, and before Bush started saying it, everyone from France to Clinton to Kerry said he has WMD. Also, we have found some limited older ammounts. Again, it may not be to the extent that they proposed, but it most certainly wasnt a lie.

H,

War crimes are ordering those actions which directly violate the Geneva Convention. You show me where Bush order those violations, and we will start talking. People throw around the world war-crimes for political propaganda. Realistically, look who has been brought up, and successfully convicted of war crims in the past. Nazis that slaughtered hundreds of thousands in death camps. Milosavich, who was conducting ethnic cleansings. Soon to be Darfur officials that hired Arab malitias to slaughter out entire villages at a time.

You see, us going to war for political reasons you disagree with, and then innocent people getting killed by accident does not institute war crimes. If Bush ordered our forces to go in, round up all the Shia, shoot them, and mass grave bury them, then we have broached into war crims. Otherwise it is just political babble.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 02, 2005 9:04 pm  

simple G , let me give you a few examples

Incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier on the "Highway of Death," a name the press has given to the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait, to Basra, Iraq. U.S. planes immobilized the convoy by disabling vehicles at its front and rear, then bombing and straffing the resulting traffic jam for hours. More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols.

the choice to invade iraq without UN authority can be covered by

Article 2 of the geneva convention

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members....
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations

so before we even start , by your own criteria the decision to invade iraq is againsnt the geneva convention and I assume you will now be ready to "talk"

but let me go on

Ignored by AI and the Western media, the Lancet study also revealed that 14 per cent of US soldiers and 28 per cent of US marines had killed a civilian: US-authorised war crimes. The Los Angeles Times reported (July, 25, 2005) that "U.S. forces killed 33 unarmed civilians and injured 45 in the capital [Baghdad alone] between May 1 and July 12 — an average of nearly one fatality every two days". In a deliberate and criminal practice called "shoot to kill", hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians are killed every week.

another war crime

During the siege of Fallujah by US forces, water, food and electricity were cut off to the 300,000 citizens of the city – in violation of the Geneva Conventions. In blatant violations of the Law of War, US forces have prevented the departure of able-bodied males (ages of 16 and 60 years old) from leaving the besieged city. Occupation forces then adopted Nazi Germany terror bombing of the Spanish city of Guernica. More than 6,000 civilians, according to the Red Cross, were slaughtered in cold blood.

another war crime


listen G , i wont go on , for one reason and one reason alone , i wish not to offend you , that is it

the list of US war crimes are immense

but dont tell me , you have "good reason" to pick and choose when to apply the geneva convention

where as everyone else is told that this is world law , you and you alone are exempt

these are war crimes G , and the troops are NOT responsible , the leaders are

looking forward to your reply

By Blogger _H_, at September 02, 2005 9:20 pm  

the first one could be used against daddy bush , though probably the most frequent commiting of war crimes in history (of those never charged ) would be mr Kissinger , but we wont go there

By Blogger _H_, at September 02, 2005 9:23 pm  

march 17, 03

Bush declared, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." No doubt? The administration pushed this no-doubt line for months. Bush, Fleischer, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz--they all said it. The main reason for war was that Saddam Hussein possessed actual, ready-to-go weapons of mass destruction that at any moment could be handed over to anti-American terrorists like al Qaeda. The Bush argument was not that Saddam Hussein had to be stopped before he developed such weaponry.

If thats not a lie, then it's very misleading. Which is nothing short of lying. I expect nothing less then honesty from the elected officials who essentially govern me. And if there was ever anything ANY presidential administration has got to make sure there facts are 100% on would be a case to go to war.

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at September 02, 2005 10:53 pm  

UK: Kenneth clark speach in full, his reason for not supporting war

Conservative leadership hopeful Ken Clarke gives his first speech since announcing his intention to stand. Read it here.

I had previously supported every war embarked upon by a British Government of whatever party throughout my Parliamentary career.
This was not such a case. The reasons given to Parliament for joining the invasion were bogus

read the full speach Here

I like this guy. I love this part;

"What has been done, has been done. The Prime Minister responsible has made himself accountable to the public in a General Election, which he won."

Is that the jab to the head I think it was?

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at September 02, 2005 11:10 pm  

yes , it is a jab ... this is the guy i talk about in "my voting dilema"


he is one of the few people to be able to take the moral high ground as he has not changed his mind and he actually voted agaisnt the war

he is not seen as pacifist due to supporting every previous war

so he has credentials

but he is from the "right wing party"

so i would disagree with him on every domestic policy i am sure

but he is the first British senior politician ( george galloway is small time) to stand up and say this stuff , and he can't be shut up by the usual cries of "you voted for the war" etc

the right wing leader is standing down (as he lost the election) so the right wing party are going to choose a new leader to challenge Blairs party , and he is one of the front runners , so it could be him

straight talk from a british right wing party has not been seen here for some time

it could make things interesting . esp as tony blair has already said he will step down at some point before the next election

By Blogger _H_, at September 03, 2005 12:41 am  

Thursday, September 01, 2005

New Orleans : A view inside the city

Shocking :

Two BBC video clips that show the real anger and confusion happening now after the horror in New Orleans

Video 1 Video 2

My Heart goes out to them

.....

London Bomber left video message to the west

BBC :

One of the four bombers behind the 7 July Tube attacks which killed 52 people has appeared in a video on Arab television.
Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, described himself as 'a soldier' and spoke of his motives on a tape on al-Jazeera.
Khan said the UK government had committed atrocities against Muslims and he was inspired by Osama Bin Laden.

The eldest of the four bombers, Khan was responsible for the Edgware Road Circle Line explosion which killed six people and injured 120.

On the tape, the man says bombings in London and in Madrid were the fault of "Western citizens" and the public should no longer feel safe as they would be targeted again.
In a West Yorkshire accent, he said: "Our words are dead until we give them life with our blood. I and thousands like me have forsaken everything for what we believe."
He said the public was responsible for the atrocities perpetuated against his "people" across the world because they supported democratically elected governments who carried them out.
"Until we feel security, you will be our targets," he said.
"Until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight.
"We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation."
.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the tape's message would "chill people to the marrow".
"To hear a fellow countryman in the familiar accent of North Yorkshire - a man who gave much of his life to teaching under privileged children - to say ever so calmly 'This is why I am a soldier in the name of Islam, this is why I regard you all as legitimate targets in my war', will shock and horrify people."

Scotland Yard has confirmed it is aware of the tape.

New Orleans :The world offers kindness,equipment and cash

WASHINGTON - In a dramatic turnabout, the United States is now on the receiving end of help from around the world as some two dozen countries offer post-hurricane assistance.



Venezuela, a target of frequent criticism by the Bush administration, offered humanitarian aid and fuel. Venezuela’s Citgo Petroleum Corp. pledged a $1 million donation for hurricane aid

On Tuesday, President Vladimir Putin sent condolences to President Bush and said Russia was prepared to help if asked.

Boats, aircraft, tents, blankets, generators, cash assistance and medical teams have been offered to the U.S. government in Washington or in embassies overseas.

Offers have been received from Russia, Japan, Canada, France, Honduras, Germany, Venezuela, Jamaica, Australia, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Greece, Hungary, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, China, South Korea, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, NATO and the Organization of American States, the spokesman said.

read more Here

Thanks for the information. So far, I am puzzled as to why we're not accepting any help, unless it's for security reasons or if some is duplication of existing efforts. Some of the offers for help are vague statements of intent while one of them is of questionable value to the displaced residents. Similarly, the offer to open up oil reserves helps the rest of the U.S. and is much appreciated, but doesn't do much for the emergency. Frankly, what is needed is money to pay for the effort and materials. Nevertheless, I appreciate the concern and offers from other nations and hope that they continue to come in and are accepted.

By Anonymous Woody, at September 02, 2005 5:57 pm  

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

My Personal voting dilema

I guess I already know the answer to this one , but i am interested in what anyone who would care to comment thinks

Normally I am what you would call in the United Kindgdom a Natural Labour(democrat for ease of conversion) voter . Anyone who reads my post's here will quickly realise that my views on most subjects are left of center .

When the Labour party regained power from the conservatives(republicans for a simple comparision) in this country , they did so by having to move camp from the left towards the center right , something that gave them power but also lost them a lot of support too .

Again , you would have to be a fool to not notice that i am not a supporter of our action in the war on Iraq and found myself unable to vote for a leader who is responsible for taking us there.

the last election was easy , in my view the conservative candidate was a far right wing nutter (hey thats my view) who i could never ever have voted for , so given the two choices my choice was not to vote at all

Now it looks like the conservatives are likely to have a new leader (likely to be kenneth clarke)
a likeable chap , who would be the first leader of the two main parties that actually voted against invading iraq , something i respect

however , he is a conservative (republican) so I am quite sure that apart from his views on iraq , there would not be a single policy of his that i would be to keen on

so do i support someone who shares my moral view of invading iraq but nothing else ?

or do i support someone who is more likely to have the odd domestic policy i support but i have no time for due to recent history ?

or do i find myself best representing my views by not voting .. again !
bah to two party politics !

H, I'm not sure if the conversions are exact or just closely resemble dems or conservatives. In the USA 60 or 70 years ago the democrats were actually the conservatives, and the republicans were closest to todays democrats. Then the repubs were champions of human rights, and wanted minimal government. The Dems believed in fiscal conservation. Somewhere along the lines the party's kind of switched, i'm sure it was very gradual but their beliefs changed a whole lot. Conservative is not a bad thing, Our government today is far from conservative, even though they claim to be. I think H, you will have too (like many Americans did in November) vote for the lesser of two evils. Hopefully one day we will have a better choice (more party's) like I said in the previous post. Until then it is exactly that, the lesser of two evils.

And G, I use that 'lesser of two evils' not as a description but as an example. I'm not calling anyone evil, just saying that my best interest is probably not in mind.

It reminds me of the bugs bunny cartoon when bugs is dividing up some carrots or money or something.
One for you one for me, two for you one two for me, three for you one two three for me....... you get the point. I guess I'm just saying to vote for the rabbit who will give you your fair share of carrots.

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at August 31, 2005 9:42 pm  

thanks phishy ,

yes of course the comparison is not entirly correct , it was just a rough guide to anyone who knows nothing at all of british politics

the labour party should = left
the conservative party should = right


as to the lesser evil , i refer you to your own point in a post further down

they are so much the same ,it is hard to tell

i am so desperate for representation over here that i would consider voting for big bird from seseme street if i had a chance

thankyou for your thoughts on this

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 10:07 pm  

H, I understand nothing of British politics, I think our political systems are very similar but really don't know much about it at all. Does the Royal Family have any say in your domestic and foreign policy?

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at August 31, 2005 10:18 pm  

there are very similar phishy yes

the offical name for our kind of 'democracy' is a constitutional monarchy

what that means is that the government erm governs through the permision of the queen

when you have a new law or a new government or an act of war etc , then then before we act on it , the prime minister takes it to the queen for permision on both domestic and foreign policy

when we vote for a new leader , the person who wins must ask the queen if it is ok to follow the wishes of the people

the houses of parliment , is the only place the queen can not go , she must get one of her minions (we call him black rod) to knock three times on the door of parliment to ask permision to enter ,

but every single law and act in this country does not become so , until signed by the queen

sounds creepy ? .. well if all that was true it would be yes , but it isnt

it is what i call pomp

yes the queen must sign every single law , and yes she could say no , but she would have a civil war if she did ,

the truth is the royal family have absolutly no say what so ever in anything at all , on any subject at all

they just go through the motions

if tony blair made a law tomorrow that all say erm green people should be shot , then the queen would sign it

it is what we call parlimentory procedure

government makes choice then parliment makes it law , then queen signs it to make it true

think of it as tradition , not as having any part of government

i dont think (and someone may proove me wrong) that the royal family has even attempted to not sign one of these laws for at least a few hundred years

so the queen is the head of state , on paper she has ALL the power but in reality , she is just a figuire head ,who stamps the final copy and brings in the fat tourists

i can think of plenty of times the royal family have expressed a dislike for one law or another , but they still signed the thing

i hope that this makes sense

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 10:33 pm  

for a more detailed view you may want to look at this

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:QI8h73E9chMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_government+british+government+monarchy&hl=en

but my version is more fun

this one doesnt even have any green people !!!!!

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 10:36 pm  

Thanks for the explanation and also the link. Your political system is pretty close to what I imagined. I knew there was allot of tradition involved. Also it is very, very similar to ours.

Although I don't align myself with any political groups, I still vote. If anything at all I agree with the green values mostly.

http://greenparty.org/values.php

I can hear G's eye rolling in his head as he sees this.

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at August 31, 2005 10:56 pm  

Sorry G, typo. I did not mean to imply that you have only one eye.

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at August 31, 2005 10:58 pm  

hehehe . it is not when G's eye(s) are rolling that we have a problem , it is when they stop that i take two steps back :-)

(just kidding G)

as for the greens , for some reason that i am sure will seem to bizare to me , they seem to get a bad press in the US , not so over here

they are about 4% of the national vote (i think)

and their views are closer to mine then any of the two/three main choices we get here

(its 2 really but a liberal democrat (do not confuse with your liberal or democrats) will probably say , eh . remember us !)

, the choice is do you vote with your principles , or vote for one of the two that can actually win

again . as i do on the comments from the post bellow , i shout

bring forth proportional representation .. then i could vote green .. or who ever , and the vote would actually count for something

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 11:36 pm  

Well said H.

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at August 31, 2005 11:41 pm  

you know what i find so funny over here phishy

that the majority of people accross the board actually want proportional representation , but to get it into law , then the majority of the party who wins needs to want it which never happens

a perfect example of how the wishes of the people can never be represented in a two party system

in short , to change the rules , you have to win by using the current rules , and to win by using the current rules means , you will never be able to change the rules

sounds like runsfield doesnt it !

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 11:46 pm  

It's exactly stuff like this that makes me Wonder how involved if at all Bohemian Grove, Illuminati, Globalists, World banks, Federal Reserve, Skull and bones etc. are.

Now just for mentioning the above organizations I will be labeled a Conspiracy theorist or worse. I simply see the names of the above come up quite often in regards to your statement above and why the people can not get there way.

Also again I am not saying thats the case, but it's certainly a possibility. And the secrecy of these groups as well as the super high profile of there members and their 'elitist' status, only makes me more suspect.

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at September 01, 2005 12:57 am  

for what it is worth , i think the label "conspiracy theorist" is used as a label to try to riducule people who often get to close to the truth

take the PNAC phishy , they dont hide their view (it is right there on their web site)

they dont deny they are now in power (you just have to look)

they do not deny that they planned to attack iraq long before they got into power (there names are clear and simply read under the documents from the 1990's)

there is no doubt that all these things are true

but if you even mention something like the PNAC then you get called a conspiracist

what easier way is there to stop people from asking questions then to tell everyone that these people are nutters

and it hurts me to say it , but it works , and i dont know how to react to it

without doubt when it comes to groups like the Illuminati the freemasons , families like the rothschilds etc etc etc

that i have a whole computer full of articles and copies of genuine documents to fill a web site on its own just on these subjects

the stuff i have would if on any other subject be accepted by almost all as FACTS

but i dont post it ... why ?

well , its a tough call ... people are almost brainwashed into rejecting anything that anybody has ever called a conspiracy

i know its true , you know its true , but there is NO way on earth that you will convince anybody

when i was younger i thought i could , but i was wrong

a good example that comes to mind is on another subject ... i am not expressing a view either way here am just telling a story which is true


a british government minister in the 1970's was asked about an unidentified object spotted flying over part of the country

he said something like

" of course it was not a UFO , even if it was a UFO , trust me it wasnt a UFO , if I had a UFO parked outside ten downing street and i was charging people 10 pence to go in and walk round ,people would still refuse to accept it, so it can't be a UFO , for the day i stand here and say that it is , the government will collapse and i will lose my job"

I am not saying it was a UFO either , what i am saying is that people are conditioned to accept what they are expecting to accept

there are a lot of dark forces at work behind the scenes and for those that follow the devolpment of modern history

the way the statue of liberty was a gift from the french freemasons
for example

the full story of the knights templer

and nobody who looks into these things for themselves comes out the thinking the same way

but nobody you actually try to convince will ever think about you the same way either

so people have to find such things themselves

I have what would be called a conspiracy that i have been desperate to post for about 5 weeks , but i just can't , i want to , i know it is true , i know it is mind blowing , and i know that it questions a part of modern history that we think we all have answers to

but i can't ...

firstly nobody would believe me (regardless of the sources i provided)

and secondly ( nobody would then believe me when i came next to highlighting what MR bush is upto)

so it is a trade off

you hold back a large part of the truth you see , to enable people to see your view on the more imediate danger ,

and on the bigger global truths . i hope and pray that people will wake up and see them for themselves one day .. and soon

for i could never convince them

By Blogger _H_, at September 01, 2005 1:20 am  

H, I agree with you on all of the above, except, I feel people are starting to awaken from there slumbers. Albeit painfully slow, people are waking up.

I for one have always questioned inequalities and injustice.
So I searched for something or other on the CPU one day and found an amazing piece of American history that they don't teach you in school. I won't get into it but it takes place around christmas 1913, and president Wilson was at the helm. Anyway I believe this is the biggest turning point in American history since they wrote the constitution 200+ years ago. There are some interesting Wilson quotes I found regarding this as well.

Anyhow given the information I just gave you it is easy to find what I speak of if interested.

Oddly enough, it was a big cheesy corporation (ehe-MCI) that relentlessly billed me long after I dropped them. They had collection agency's after me constantly claiming I still had them as my phone company. I did not for years use this damn company. After lengthy battles with the collection agency's I would eventually straighten out everything. But sure as shit 8 or 9 months later it started up all over again. I spent countless hours on the phone with the rudest representatives of this company, many times getting disconnected after hours. My last conversation with them I asked for the reps name and they told me they don't have to give me that info. This enraged me. I told them to make sure to remove me from there system ( being that they have all my personal info on a screen in front of some rude punk thats giving me a hard time trying to put an end to all of this). These people told me we will not remove you from our system! Well what the fuck can I do. Nothing. It has since stopped, but this little incident was enough to make me take a closer look at politics and why this extortion is legal. I mean I find it hard to believe that I am the only person in the world that these animals wrongly billed time and time again. Criminals that operate within the law. And the smallest people are the victims. Point being that the internet is where most will look for answers of any type, and if the info is there then they can decide (do I wake up or ignore it), but the info should most definitely be available in case one does look for answer.

Sorry it probably reads like a crazy nonsensical story but the point is there, somewhere.

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at September 01, 2005 2:05 am  

I hear you phishy , ,

i always thought people were waking up ,

i am not ancient but i remember feeling in the 80's when i first looked at this stuff , that if only people would listen , we could change the world , and when i did , people from the 60's said to me "we have tried that"

i remember listining to people in the 90' say the same thing ..

the forces are there pulling the strings yes , without doubt ... but after a few decades of trying to get people to sit up and notice ,i am no longer the optimist i once was

i see what the danger is , and i do all i can to put my finger on the most visable and obvious part of the picture , the image that anyone and everyone can see . and i highlight that , ,

so instead of trying to "win the war" i would be happy to just win one battle (ie see george bush out)

and hope that ..... and there i will stop myself :-)

the problem of a public forum , it is just impossible to be direct ,

so H will crawl away now .. and the last thing you will hear is

"hmmm the stories i could tell"

respek

By Blogger _H_, at September 01, 2005 2:19 am  

speaking strictly on your story

we have over here a thing called the "data protection act" and that means that if anyone .. even me .. wishes to keep any files at all on computer about any person
...
(your phone company would be a good example)

then they have to inform the person that they are doing so , the person has a lawful right to see that file , and a lawful right to force them to change any errors

i ruin the life of companies every day by calling them on data protection issues . its kind of a hobby

the people who MUST show you ALL your files if asked is EVERYONE , the government , the police , the bank , the doctor ,

and if they dont inform you that they have a file or they refuse to change it then the company head can go to jail

there is onle ONE exception

MI5 can keep a file on me and not tell me , NOBODY else can

and if i went to some UK web site and spotted my name (real name) there and they refused to remove it , they could go to jail , and they would be fined for not informing me

do you not have anything like that ?

i thought you did

By Blogger _H_, at September 01, 2005 2:26 am  

I think we have similar protections in place. They have recently been put into effect. At least for telemarketers. And to my enjoyment MCI went down in flames 4 or 5 years ago. Our federal government I am sure keep info on all, and the patriot act makes it that much easier for the government and any of it's agency's to keep track of us.
I am sure I am on more government lists then most (I am a medical marijuana patient). So I know they keep tabs on us.
And the battle that is going on between the federal government and the state over medical cannabis is almost fascinating. If you could only see what's going on over here (California). Which comes right back full circle into my theories. Why cannabis is considered just as serious as heroine or coke. Even hemp which has no psychoactive properties at all is considered a drug and is illegal. And if you look into the miracle that is hemp, we can ween ourselves off of oil, and produce a cleaner, renewable, more ecologically responsible fuel. But thats not all, we can make superior linens and fibers, also plastics and rope. Plus better paper, and you can grow a crop for paper in months and produce more then you can by cutting down a 75 year old acre of forrest. Sorry to rant about hemp, Im not even sure where I was now. Oh yeah, solutions are out there but forces are in place to not allow us to help ourselves. I apologize for going off track. But H, please continue to present the "evidence" if you will, I know some people will get something out of it. That is for sure, You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. But most horses will eventually drink.

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at September 01, 2005 3:42 am  

"Why cannabis is considered just as serious as heroine or coke."

i have always found this a joke , and in this country , it has now effectivly been (quietly) taken out of the courts

we have 3 classes of drug , A,B,C

any Hemp product is classed as a C , meaning the same as taking someone elses pescription drugs

if what you have is for personal use then it is still illigal but you won't be charged , and they wont waste the much needed time of judges to deal with such petty things

what happens .. the policeman will just take it from you ... you sign no paper , and he probably smokes it himself ,


it is only dealing that is treated serious , possesion and personal use is just left alone


it has always puzzled me how i have seen many friends(in a lose term kind of way) end up in hospital due to drinking alcohol
and getting loud and agressive , i have seen family members die due to a life times alcohol abuse but it is taxed and consumed and taxed and consumed for ever more

I have never seen anyone become violent or create any problem when stoned , apart from asking for me to find them the cartoon channel and more snacks.. but it is not taxed so , it is bad

maybe you should move to the UK hehehe

or Holland of course

as for presenting the evidence , if i can convince one person a month to take the very surface level argument i present here and use them to go and search for themselves what the truth really is then i have achieved ,

you never know , maybe one day i will be able to post real facts on this site and know that any readers won't just dismiss them as someone told them once that this type of thing was a conspiracy

but until then , i will continue to post , as i do , and i suppose i use as my ethics the workd being done on sites like information clearing house , and i would be more then happy to stick to the ethics , rules and moral standpoint that they do

I will end with the followings words from ICH and I feel that although I am in a different country ,and could not dream of being any where near to having the impact that they do , this is my tiny attempt at continuing the work they do


Purpose and Intent of this website:

This website does not suggest that it contains the "truth". The truth is a combination of all information and all facts relating to a topic. It is therefore unachievable (in my opinion) for anyone to say "I know the truth."

If you came to this site in search of "the truth" you will be disappointed. That is also true of CNN, FOX , ABC etc.

If you came to gather information you may find it a useful resource.

Gibran says in the "Prophet" Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth."

That brings me to my first point:

John Adams said "Liberty can not be preserved without general knowledge among people" this statement points to the absolute necessity of an informed citizenry if our nation is to remain a functioning free society.

This means that each citizen has a civic responsibility to inform himself and share that information with others. The corporate media pumps information into our homes and does a great job of providing the information that our government wants us to know.

It has in my opinion become the propaganda arm of government,


and a great number of those who call themselves journalists are in fact nothing less than presstitutes.

Those who wish to inhibit free access to information are in my opinion a great danger to our nation. Why would any adult interfere with the right of fellow citizens to inform themselves?

There is a war going on for the minds of America, those waging this war are determined to control the American people by taking possession of our minds and by controlling our sources of information.

Truth is indefinable. Information is unlimited

By Blogger _H_, at September 01, 2005 5:38 am  

H, I really don't have anything to add to the dialogue the you and SP already covered. I think they only logical choice in your given situation, as well as ours is to vote for the lesser of two greedy-incompetant-war-mongers. Come 2008 if Hillary gets the Dem ticket - as of right now she mostly likely will - she will have my vote. Assuming of course that the GOP doesn't offer a better alternative. I don't agree with most of Hillary's positions on the issues, but she most likely will be the lesser of two evils. Such is life.

By Blogger Dionysus, at September 01, 2005 1:42 pm  

H, Phish... yeah, I got here finally:

Now, Dion's bubble world aside (smack talk, back off), I think the thing you need to look at of the conservative party cadidate is WHY did he oppose the war. Many far rights in this country opposed the war, not because they thought it was wrong, but because they were isolationists. The want us to pull out of the world and live behind a steel wall.

If that is his stance, I promise you wont like ANYTHING this guy stands for.

Now, onto the rest of the rants. I read about half of it, then stopped, just too much during my lunch.

Our nation needs someone who is willing to step away from the Party lines. The real problem that I see are parties and candidates that are beholden to small lobbiest groups that do not care for the wellbeing of the majority, but have a narrow agenda.

For example: Phishy likes the green party, I am assuming because of its extremely environmentally friendly stance. However, I equate that to economic lunacy. Our nation is great because of capitalism, and while localized eco-laws are good within reason, the very gas crisis we are in right now is thanks to those policies that would be enforced in even greater ammounts if they were in power. Now, they have their purpose. Without them, even the localized eco-protections would not be enforced, but to run things their way would bring us back eventually to the pre-industrial age.

Dion seesm to think that the GOP is supported and run by "greedy" people. The other claim I wont get into it with, but this one I will.

Greed is usally defined by "wanting more than one needs." To this effect, all of the industrialized nations are greedy. Every citizen is greedy. Even Dion, is greedy. Dion doesnt need a computer, TV, Car, education, or any of the other "luxuries" we enjoy. We "NEED" food, water, and shelter.

Now, the "Greed" that Dion speaks of is when he uses his own value system to self impose a limit on what someone else "needs".

That person Dion call greedy most certainly disagrees with what Dion thinks they need. Therefore we end up with a very relative definition to "Greedy."

Once we allow others or even the "majority" to set and define the "needs" of people, and we let the "majority" define other's need (and what they dont need), we gravitate twoards socialism.

Now, on the surface, its sounds good right? Here is the catch. If you want a new sports car, and it costs more than the average sedan, how do you buy it? You save up money, you work hard to make more money, and your extra effort allows you to get the sports car. Under the socialistic model though, that extra money you save... you dont need that, so we will give it away to someone else who does.... see where we are going? We've lost our motivation to work harder for anything, becuase the majority may decide that you dont "need" it.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 01, 2005 6:03 pm  

_H_, if you want what's best for your country, vote right. That, of course, implies that I believe that conservatives are better businessmen at running the government and are fiscally more reponsible. (BTW, I liked Margaret Thatcher.) But, if you want someone who represents your philosophy best on a variety of issues, particularly social ones, vote left. I rarely see where it is worthwhile to vote for someone based on one issue.

But, I realize that there are some issues that are so important that a voter can reject a candidate based upon his views for that one. An example might be someone who is opposed to abortion might not vote for a candidate because of his position on that one thing--even if he's conservative otherwise. I would vote against a candidate who wanted to declare war on Great Britain. I have to draw the line somewhere, and I wouldn't want to get bogged down there--unless the government cut off the North Sea oil supply.

Explain something to me about your system. I watch C-Span on cable over here and they show what I think is the House of Lords in session with the Prime Minister. He's holding some book and they ask him loaded questions, and they have a game of wits with apparently no substance or meaning to the whole session. Then, when the PM is trying to answer, the bunch of loonies around him are interrupting, laughing, moaning, and just being rude in every way possible short of spitting on him. If I were the PM, I'd tell them that I would come back after they have grown up.

Here's my question. What is all of that about!?

By Anonymous Woody, at September 01, 2005 9:32 pm  

_h_, one other thing, though it is off-topic. The U.S. is having a severe problem with the results of that hurricane. New Orleans, a very large city, is under water and it will take a year and billions of dollars to get the city operating again. In the meantime, there are several hundred thousand people who cannot go home and whose jobs are gone. Other cities were also devastated. Whenever there is a problem like that in other places, like with the tsunami, many countries immediately pledge support and send help. Most of the world has been silent on this with us. Frankly, that bothers me. This is not going to be easy. One person told me that "rich nations" don't need help. (He was French.) Well, he's wrong. What's your take on this--if you don't mind me changing the topic slightly? Thanks.

By Anonymous Woody, at September 01, 2005 9:39 pm  

woody , your two posts i will deal with as two asnwers , this is in response to the first

erm your view of maggie thatcher ( trying to be tactful here) her image as a world wide states err women was very high , she was respected in many countries and became very close to ronald R , so i can see why you see what you do

however , about half the population over here feel disgust for that women , the colapse of our transport network due to the failure of privitisation , the first steps away from the national health system we have by allowing the rich to have operations private in 2 weeks that the rest of the people may have to wait years for , the attack on the rights of the unions , i wont go on but lets just say that the "right" loved her and the "left" spit whenever they even hear the name .. i am a spitter ! :-)

what you are actually watching is the main commons building , the house of parliment

the "house of lords" is full of very old , some what senile ex politicians etc , for them to get lively and start shouting "here here ! etc would probably be the death of them

watching the house of lords is a laugh , it is not far short of watching your elderly relatives eating christmas dinner , they struggle to keep there teeth in , they forget what they are saying half way through a sentence , they are very entertaining but a long way short of the politicians in the main chamber

on the main point of the idiotic behaviour of the politicians is one i agree with you on , so i will not try to defend it , but i will try to explain it

it may seem very disorginised but in fact the rules are very very strict , new politicians have a nightmare of a time trying to work out the rules

(1) if you sit in the wrong place , you will be ignored , if you are not in the right chair and you stand up to speak , the politicians will act like you dont exist

(2) you can not actually speak to another MP directly , every point is adressed to the speaker of the house , if the conservate leader tried to speak to tony blair , he would be removed from the building

they must say something like

" Mr speaker , I think that the right honourable member for Cheshire east is mistaken in his view on chickens"

to call someone a liar is just not allowed ,

the basic princible is similiar to the queensbury rules for boxing (if you know what i mean)

when parliment first started , it was a way to stop the constant fighting between the different groups , your sword had to be left outside the chamber , and the rules date from that time

so to stop civil wars , the idea was that everyone is honourable , nobody is a liar , and nobody gets to speak to anyone direct

the house is divided , as you go through the door , the government MP's are on the left , and the oposition members are on the right , so all packed together like a mob in suits , the mob culture takes over , but still the rules are all kept

i agree that it is stupid , it looks silly , but they keep it as it has been in place for hundreds of years , and so it has become tradition ,

it is a chamber to argue in , but it is wrong to think that real laws etc are decided that way , they are not ,

but it is a way to get every view exspresed and every view debated , before the government ignores them all anyway , if you get my drift

By Blogger _H_, at September 01, 2005 10:07 pm  

Woody (answer 2)


the horror in the gulf coast

I have been posting alot on other sites about what must be hell for the people suffering there

you view on the acts of the international community are not quite right

so far cananda / the united kingdom and france have offered economic aid to assist and all three have been politely turned down , why .. i dont know , you tell me ?

but the offers have been coming in , i assure you of that

I also know of a few countries that have offered to send experts to help in the rescue , i can not tell you if this was accepted or not

this is one of those issues where i have to blink to check that this actually is america ! ,

i feel the early effort to help was wrong , they knew it was going to happen and not enough was done to help the poor who could not leave by there own steam

looters

i have two views ,

firstly those that are getting food,water and diapers etc should not be attacked , they have not eaten for 3 days , and nobody is able to help them , i would help myself too

the other looters , armed in packs , stealing TV's (odd , where will they plug them in ?) etc are disgusting , and need to be stopped ,

but the distinction needs to be made betwen the two

i really feel that the reaction in the first 24 hours was apalling , and many people could suffer extra hardship due to this

but after the first 24 hours , the rescue effort has been amazing , and deserves much praise ,

one thought is the lack of communication

i am seeing thousands of people turning up at certain places to find no food , no medics , no water , and they still (after 3 days) dont know where to go

where are the loud speakers from helicopters , they dont have TV's the need to be told what to do and where to go , and i am not seing that

my general feel as you might expect is one of sorrow , i feel for those people , and collections have already started being made over here to send what we can

my thoughts are with the living and the dead

By Blogger _H_, at September 01, 2005 10:22 pm  

your question on the help being offered made me check my facts , i was wrong it is not 3 countries it is dozens , i have posted on it

By Blogger _H_, at September 02, 2005 1:28 am  

_H_, thanks for your explanations. I wonder what would happen if Blair said "to hell with it" and didn't show up? It sounds a little bit like a political blog with the comment threads, but with commenting rules enforced. I loved the part about pretending that someone is not there if he is in the wrong seat. The members must be cracking up inside in those situations.

Thanks for the update on foreign aid to the U.S. hurricane victims. I'll travel over to that post.

By Anonymous Woody, at September 02, 2005 3:31 pm  

600 Dead after stampede in Baghdad

More than 600 people have been killed in a stampede of Shia pilgrims in northern Baghdad, Iraqi officials say.
The incident happened on a bridge over the Tigris River as about one million Shias marched to a shrine for an annual religious festival.
Witnesses said panic spread because of rumours that suicide bombers were in the crowd. Many victims were crushed to death or fell in the river and drowned.

Health officials said the death toll could go as high as 1,000.

Earlier, mortar rounds had been fired into the crowd, killing 16 people.

Full story Here ....

Things need to change H. I am getting in a slump. I have faith in myself and my family, but we need something good to come soon. The world is beginning to spiral. I think there is a huge moral dump in the US at least. It is most evident by the immediate finger pointing (as people are dying) over the hurricane. The left is saying "gobal warming" and "Bush's budget/war took money away".

The right is saying "environmentalists have killed our ability to produce gas, and this hurricane proves it"

10 years ago, this would have happened, but no the day after. They would have waited for the dead to cool before it.

This news about the Shia just adds more the plate of negative news and depression.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at August 31, 2005 5:41 pm  

things are really not good right now i agree , and someone needs to be able to step above the anger (from any side) and unify the american people

outside looking in , it looks even worse then i am sure it does inside


I am not just being a scare monger G when i say that polorization like this leads to civil wars (eventually)

what is needed is a cool head , a lot of wisdom and the understanding of the american people ,

i look around right now and the right has bush and the left is not organised enough to make there case as well as they should be

is there anybody in american politics that can really lead the people and bring back civilized conduct

and i mean anyone from the moderate left or moderate right ?

as for the events in baghdad , they are tragic

updates i have picked up since posting have put the death toll upto a 1000 now

most of the dead are women and children (not strong enough to survive in the crush)

3 suicide bombers are believed to have been in the crowd but were captured (this is single sourced so i am waiting to confirm it)

dangerous times G , dangerous times

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 6:14 pm  

Well this is why I feel a two party system is not fair to the people. How come during the presidential debates no independents or greens or any other party for that matter are allowed to participate? Just Dems and Repubs. If you listen real close. It seems these to groups say the same freakin thing, just in a different context. They are so polarized yet they are the same. It seems the other party's out side of dem rep are always delegitimized. The two party system is failing our country. How can more differing opinions and ideas and plans and thoughts and hopes all coming from outside the box be bad. I mean if I argue with someone over something, I don't just listen too myself, I hear the other side as well. Sometimes by hearing out the other side, you may just see a better way, or an easier way, or it may show you the errors of your ways. What I am trying to say is that I feel more differing opinions can be beneficial. There is more common ground in between ten thoughts then there is between two. Does that make sense?

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at August 31, 2005 7:21 pm  

does this maker sense ?



yes , yes ,yes and yes , and you have also put your finger on the problems in my country to.


proportional representation has its problems i admit , but it is a much much much fairer system of democracy , and the price of the odd nutter getting a tiny amount of power is balanced by the fact that the true feelings of the people are represented

to claim a country is a democracy in a two party system has never made sense to me

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 7:30 pm  

I agree with you phish on a two party system restricting the flow of ideas, and leading to less representation of the people, and more dictating TO the people.

The division is no where near civil war, but politically, we are at a bad spot. The left is throwing out destructive remarks and aqusations about the right to try and win back majority support. While I understand their urgency in feeling they need to stop the Rights power tour, they have lost all reguard for the ramifications of their actions.

There was a time when the Abu Gharab (spelling) or Gitmo issues would have been handled quietly behind closed doors. The same "justice" would still have been served, but we wouldnt have pulled our own pants down for the world to see.

Now, power hungery politicians will eagerly display the stains and mistakes of our nation in the hopes of taking votes away from the current party in power. The problem with this is that they fuel existing annimosity, and create new annimosity for the nation.

This hurricane is another example. To try and tear down Bush, they are trying to pin any and everything they can onto Bush. Bush didnt sign Kyoto, he cut the funding the Corps of Engineers, he ignored the calls for improved levees, he's flying around on speechs, and the list goes on.

THe problem: While his speach from the Rose garden wasnt spectacular, he was where he should be. Kyoto wouldnt have stopped a hurricane, and it wouldnt have saved a single life. In fact, its best case senario hope was to reduce global warming by approx 13% over 100 years. The levees had been ignored for decades, and cutting the budget is hindsight. The engineers THOUGHT they had done a good enough job that didnt need improving when a cost/benifit ration was done. Guess in retrospect they were all wrong, but it wasnt just Bush.

All this gives the people in the south less hope and more animosity. It does not give them added courage to rebuild. It does not help them pay for anything. MoveOn.org isnt launching a huge group down there to help rebuild and clean up. But they sure could orginize for Crawford.

This is all politics to them. The very day of the hurricane, the extreme left in this nation was trying to pin blame onto their political opponents. This is the same with Iraq, and 9/11.

You see, I need someone who doesnt just want power. I want to hear from a party that actually has a vision, not just a mission to get Bush out.

Democrats right now are lost for a vision or plan. They only have a mission to get Bush out... news flash, HE CANT RUN AGAIN! Quit campaigning against him.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at September 01, 2005 6:16 pm  

Ten years of American right wing terrorism

Ten years after the Oklahoma City bombing left 168 people dead, the guardians of American national security seem to have decided that the domestic radical right does not pose a substantial threat to U.S. citizens.


In the 10 years since the April 19, 1995, bombing in Oklahoma City, in fact, the radical right has produced some 60 terrorist plots. These have included plans to bomb or burn government buildings, banks, refineries, utilities, clinics, synagogues, mosques, memorials and bridges; to assassinate police officers, judges, politicians, civil rights figures and others; to rob banks, armored cars and other criminals; and to amass illegal machine guns, missiles, explosives, and biological and chemical weapons.

What follows is a list of key right-wing plots of the last 10 years

have a read Here

They aren't from the right. They are just plain nuts--just like the Uni-bomber, a nut from the other side.

By Anonymous Woody, at August 31, 2005 3:15 am  

oh the world is full of nuts , i agree , to be honest , i dont really think of these people as "right wing" anymore then i think of groups like al-qaeda as representing "islam" the point of the post is to highlight extremism is not purely a left wing problem but one the right has to contain as well

but those that think that Osama and co are a "true" representation of islam , are the very same people who would probably not even notice that the "far" right has its own terrorism to address , so this post is to them

i get asked all the time "tell me when the right ever try to comit terrorist acts" well here is the answer

moderate center/rights like yourself can see that these exremists are there on both sides

but some people are SO extreme they only ever see the enemy coming from one side

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 3:22 am  

they are on the extreme right, the left has them too (ELF, World Liberation Front, etc...)

The difference H, and why they dont have the coverage you seem to ellude to is because the FBI is very dilligent, sometimes too dilligent (Waco TX, under Janet Reno).

These guys get rounded up and prosecuted very quickly the minute they step outside the comfort of the First Amendement.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at August 31, 2005 3:29 am  

of course G , i agree , and the same as woody , i dont feel there is anything in this post that someone like you would learn

it is basic stuff bud , and you do not need this lesson , but some much futher right then you , dont see this stuff , they just see then enemy to the US as being left , they dont notice that the threat also comes from the right

i know , i know , but some people are that dumb , i have met them,

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 3:38 am  

G, you are absolutely right about ELF. However I feel it is important to say that ELF has never went after humans, just SUV's and country clubs and I think condo developments. I think to consider them terrorists is a wee bit extreme. They are more like the merry pranksters.

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at August 31, 2005 4:59 pm  

unless of course you own a hummer dealership. then they might be terrorists.

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at August 31, 2005 5:01 pm  

Merry pranksters dont destroy someone lively hood over their personal beliefs.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at August 31, 2005 5:37 pm  

Agreed, merry pranksters was a bad comparison on my part. But terrorists? Thugs maybe, Hooligans probably, Trouble makers definitely, but not terrorists not even by definition.

And I realize G, that you did not call this group "terrorists"
but used them as an example of Fanatics, which actually best sums them up. My bad, sometimes I skim when I read and miss important info. Oh well, just ignore these rants 'o mine.

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at August 31, 2005 7:05 pm  

i am hearing you loud and clear phishy

what is a terrorist is somewhere the debate has been many times

but i would call people who damage property activists , it is still a crime of course to do such a thing

but it really should not be used in the same sentence as some of those mentioned in the 60 cases above ,

trying to aquire chemical weapons to murder your own people , does not belong with , spraying paint on someones factory

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 7:11 pm  

H,
"those that think that Osama and co are a "true" representation of islam , are the very same people who would probably not even notice that the "far" right has its own terrorism to address , so this post is to them"

Not all on the far right--not by a long shot.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 31, 2005 8:42 pm  

oh i accept that anonymous , dont worry , my view is not as blanket as it seems ,


i assume you might view yourself as far right

i assume you would not view any of the above groups as part of your group

therefore your existence in itself prooves your point

for anyone who thinks this post does not apply to them , be assured , it does not

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 9:30 pm  

Sunni's make democratic plans to bring down constitution

Saleh Mutlak, a member of the panel that drafted the constitution, said its members had gathered Monday to discuss having the National Assembly declared illegitimate, because the repeated extensions of the deadline for finishing the constitution violated transitional law.
Other prominent Sunnis added their voices to calls for a defeat of the constitution in October.
"We will educate the citizens - Sunni, Shiite, Arab and Kurd - to reject this constitution when the process of voting starts," said Adnan Muhammad Salman al-Dulaimi, the spokesman of the General Conference of Ahal al-Sunna, a Sunni alliance.
Mr. Dulaimi cited the two issues that have ignited the most anger: a provision that could lead to a division of Iraq into largely autonomous regions, and the document's failure to assert that Iraq is part of the Arab world. But he said defeating the document would be far from easy.
"We know it will be difficult for Iraqis to reach the voting centers in Sunni areas," where guerrilla violence has been worst, he said.

Although Shiites and Kurds are likely to vote overwhelmingly for the constitution, one wild card has been Moktada al-Sadr, a rebellious Shiite cleric who has a large following and led two uprisings against American forces last year.
Mr. Sadr has led demonstrations against the constitution's provision to create autonomous regions in Iraq, and it is not clear whether he will mobilize his followers in Baghdad's vast Shiite district, Sadr City, during the referendum.
Mr. Mutlak said Sunnis who oppose the document expected to meet with Mr. Sadr, though no date has been set.
But some Sunni leaders said they were not sure they could rely on Mr. Sadr, a notoriously mercurial figure who differs sharply with the Sunni panel members on other issues. Mr. Sadr has always been hostile to the Baath Party of Mr. Hussein, for instance, while many Sunnis angrily opposed provisions in the constitution banning remnants of the party.

Mr. Sadr may also be subject to pressure from senior Shiite religious figures who favor the constitution. On Monday evening, he met in Najaf for half an hour with a son of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most powerful cleric.

But for some Iraqis, the debate is as much about identity as politics. By threatening to divide the country and publicly denying that it is a part of the Arab world, some Sunnis say, the constitution is dissolving the thin cultural glue that holds Iraq together.
"This is our crisis: Iraqi national identity is diminishing more and more," Sheik Yawar said. "This constitution is not helping."
As the political debate dragged on, violence continued.

US bombs western Iraq in anti-terror strikes

US forces said they had killed a known al-Qaeda militant in western Iraq overnight in air strikes which a hospital official said had killed 47 people.US warplanes launched three waves of strikes near the town of Qaim, on the Syrian border, in a remote area Washington has long said is a route into Iraq for foreign Islamist fighters allied to the insurgency among Iraq's Sunni Arab minority.
"Intelligence leads Coalition forces to believe that Abu Islam and several of his associates were killed in the air strike," a US military spokeswoman said in Baghdad.
A hospital official in Qaim, Mohammed al-Aani, said 35 people had died in a strike on one house and another 12 in a second house.
It was not immediately clear how many of the 47 might have been militants

Boo-Yaa!

Bout time we hit the borders and got some of the root cause

By Blogger G_in_AL, at August 31, 2005 3:30 am  

you know me G , if it has killed extremists , then ok , with ya , if it has killed innocents , then , hmmm

it depends on the "facts" , so i will wait and see , and praise what should be praised and condem what should be condemed

it is too early to tell

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 3:40 am  

Ah, nice.

By Anonymous Clayton Engels, at December 08, 2005 7:20 pm  

Weapons Sales Worldwide Rise to Highest Level Since 2000

WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 - The value of military weapons sales worldwide jumped in 2004 to the highest level since 2000, driven by arms deals with developing nations, especially India, Saudi Arabia and China, according to a new Congressional study.
The total of arms sales and weapons transfer agreements to both industrialized and developing nations was nearly $37 billion in 2004, according to the study.
That total was the largest since 2000, when global arms sales reached $42.1 billion, and was far above the 2003 figure of $28.5 billion.
The United States once again dominated global weapons sales, signing deals worth $12.4 billion in 2004, or 33.5 percent of all contracts worldwide. But that was down from $15.1 billion in 2003.
The share of American arms contracts specifically with developing nations was $6.9 billion in 2004, or 31.6 percent of all such deals, up slightly from $6.5 billion in 2003.
Russia was second in global arms sales, with $6.1 billion in agreements, or 16.5 percent of all such contracts, a notable increase from its $4.4 billion in sales in 2003. In 2004, Russia signed arms transfer deals worth $5.9 billion with the developing world, 27.1 percent of the global total, up from $4.3 billion in 2003.
Britain was third in arms transfer agreements to the developing world in 2004, signing contracts worth $3.2 billion, while Israel ranked fourth, with deals worth $1.2 billion. France followed with $1 billion.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Quick note to readers

Sorry this site has not been updated today , (sob) I have been so busy , I will post again tomorrow and try to not to miss any stories from today that have passed by

It's okay this time, but don't let it happen again.

By Anonymous Woody, at August 31, 2005 3:16 am  

hehehehe .. erm i was just waiting for you all to leave

(just kidding )

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 3:23 am  

Monday, August 29, 2005

MORE JOURNALISTS KILLED IN IRAQ THAN VIETNAM

PARIS, Aug 28 (Reuters) - More journalists have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003 than during the 20 years of conflict in Vietnam, media rights group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said on Sunday.
Since U.S. forces and its allies launched their campaign in Iraq on March 20, 2003, 66 journalists and their assistants have been killed, RSF said.
The latest casualty was a Reuters Television soundman who was shot dead in Baghdad on Sunday while a cameraman with him was wounded and then detained by U.S. soldiers.
The death toll in Iraq compares with a total of 63 journalists in Vietnam, but which was over a period of 20 years from 1955 to 1975, the Paris-based organisation that campaigns to protect journalists said on its Web site.
During the fighting in the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 1995, 49 journalists were killed doing their job, while 57 journalists and 20 media assistants were killed during a civil war in Algeria from 1993 to 1996.
RSF listed Iraq as the world's most dangerous place for journalists. In addition to those killed, 22 have been kidnapped. All but one was released. Italian journalist Enzo Baldoni was executed by his captors.
The media was targeted from the first days of the fighting, when cameraman Paul Moran, of the Australian TV network ABC, was killed by a car bomb on March 22, 2003, it added.
Two other journalists have been missing since March 2003 and August 2004.

Journalism is a dangerous job for those willing to get out of the safe zones and into areas of conflict. In Vietnam, there were a number of journalists who were IN the service and killed in the line of duty, I don't think those numbers are included in the total, though I may be wrong.

In Iraq, as in Vietnam, too many journalists get their stories from sitting in bars and re-writing dispatches it would seem. Those that venture out are the ones in danger. I don't believe that many (any?) were kidnapped in Vietnam, though as you say, a hefty number have been kidnapped in Iraq.

Good report.

By Anonymous GM Roper, at August 29, 2005 5:28 am  

I was trying to determine the point, for which I can only assume that the wars cited and the related approaches to reporting each are different. Who's to blame or is anyone supposed to be blamed?

The killings in Iraq are done by the terrorists, so perhaps that's an additional difference worth a mention. (Sorry, no reference. Just take my word.)

I'm not sure why you would mention that a wounded cameraman was detained by U.S. soldiers, unless you were making a point. What was it? U.S. soldiers aren't out to harm journalists and any detention would likely be to verify the camerman's identification (i.e., he is not an enemy with a camera-bomb) and to treat him.

One lesson from this, someone should not be a war-time journalist until he understands the risks and is willing to accept that he could become a casualty himself.

I hate it for everyone involved.

By Anonymous Woody, at August 29, 2005 4:06 pm  

I hate to see journalists getting killed. But its mainly because we are dealing with fanatics instead of an orginized formal military force. So if they find a journalist, they do not recognize that status as anything other than another infidel.

On the bright side of the casualties numbers is that troop death rates for the Iraq war are only 14% of those in Vietnam. While I hate seeing any troops die, at least its not lambs to the slaughter like so many wars before.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at August 29, 2005 5:30 pm  

depends who you view as the lambs G :-)

woody

i dont make sweeping generalisations , however the US forces have at times made a choice to attack journalists , i think of the fortunes of al-jazeera reporters in many countries , not just iraq

where do you draw the line ? i would not want any US solider to die , in any conflict , i have no dislike for them , they are human just like me

but where do statistics become a concern

take a school that has children AND insurgents in it

HOW many US lives are worth risking to try and reduce the deaths of the children

1 soldier = 10 children ?
1 soldier = 100 chidlren ?

you have to make a choice , and it seems the US always make the choice of self preservation

so they drop a bomb on the school and everyone dies , instead of storming the building and 3 soldiers die but 50 children live


that is a VERY american style of battle in the modern age , my country (the UK) would not do that , we would storm the buidling , and people would die of course

but i ask you the question

what is the value of the life of

a US soldier
a US citizen
a iraqi child
a christian
a muslim
a american
a iraqi

if you can sit here and tell me that the value of all is the same , then i would question your morality

sayinh that , thanks for popping by and you are of course welcome , anytime

By Blogger _H_, at August 29, 2005 6:07 pm  

_H_, please clarify something for me. When you said that you would question my morality if I said that all life was equally valued--well, I just don't understand that.

Not knowing your point, I would say that all life cannot be valued. In a way, that makes them equal. In commerce, such as auto safety, there are trade-offs in safety for dollars, so someone is placing a dollar value on life there. But, in war the decisions are different--especially in a war of attrition.

For instance, in WWII, all the lives of the Japanese killed by the atomic bomb did not have as much value as the lives of the American soldiers whose lives would have been taken to defeat that city. It seems crude, but I think that is a valid conclusion-- if you're the one who has a choice between dropping the bomb and being killed yourself.

By Anonymous Woody, at August 29, 2005 7:39 pm  

woody said "_H_, please clarify something for me. When you said that you would question my morality if I said that all life was equally valued--well, I just don't understand that"


of course , that was a typo , i type to quick and often do that ,

my point is if you claimed all life "is NOT" equally valid

you see this is were we differ woody , i do not connect dollars to life ,

and it is amazing how many people hold your view and genuinly believe that they are a good christian

i differ from your view on how long japan would have kept fighting and how many american lives it would have cost , but to be fair , i am not american so easier for me to do

i do not feel it was valid for the UK to give america it's nuclear project (due to thinking the nazi's would invade)

and i do not support the targeting of civilians (though i accept of course that the japs and the germans did so we had to in return)

war is a nasty thing and morality can become twisted in the light of battle , but my hinsight says america was wrong to use the atomic bomb , yours would state that it was right

but with an issue so far back in history and so many issues today to debate , i will just say that i respect your ideology on that , i dont by defintion debate your princible of saving US lives

but my moral guidance comes from a different perspective and we should agree to differ

as for the value of an iraqi child etc , now that i have clarified i would love to here your thoughts

By Blogger _H_, at August 29, 2005 7:54 pm  

_H_, I actually didn't realize that it was a typo. Now, I did not say that life has a dollar value. I only gave an example as to where there are such choices--made by industry, insurance companies, and juries. To me, life cannot be valued. It is too great.

Now, the "value" of an Iraqi child vs. a U.S. soldier... Shouldn't that question be posed to the terrorists, since it is they who are making that choice by using schools as an attack base? Any children killed in cross-fire between the troops and terrorists hiding in schools has to be on the heads of the terrorists. It is they who cause the deaths, just as they do with bombs on civilians. The U.S. has the moral high ground here.

The only way that I can answer your last question directly is to put myself in the place of the soldier. I can't really do that, but this is what I might imagine how I would act. (I am going to except collateral deaths which are not intended. This might happen in taking a town in battle.)

A soldier has to obey orders---so the decision goes higher up and I may not have a choice. But, if there is no guidance from higher up, I have to consider options. If I have discretion, I would treat that like any hostage situation and try to preserve all life. If it became a situation in which I would have to storm a school, then my first priority is to keep myself alive. It doesn't help the kids if the people who are trying to free them get killed. Nothing, of course, is that simple and the dynamics of a situation can cause one to change his mind every second.

What would you do?

By Anonymous Woody, at August 29, 2005 8:31 pm  

H,

i differ from your view on how long japan would have kept fighting and how many american lives it would have cost , but to be fair , i am not american so easier for me to do

Every indication, including the way the killed themelseves when we landed on Okinawa would say they would have fought until the bitter end? What would give you any other indication?

By Blogger G_in_AL, at August 29, 2005 9:44 pm  

mayybe a little background information might help here woody


I won't go into details as to what i do , but i have over the years spent time working with US forces in a kind of civilian capacity

as for US soldiers in general , i would NEVER blame them for their actions as individuals , they are human just like me , and as you say , they were probably ordered to do whatever it is they do

now when it comes to the basic run of the mill US soldier , i really can not find a way to say this tactfully , so i will just say it ,

they are the best equiped force on the planet
but they are very poorly trained

they are trained that self preservation is the ultimate rule and being american you may not release that this is not the way the british or thr french are trained , i mean no offence and i am sure most will take issue with me here , american soldiers are damn fine human beings

but the command structure and training lacks certain basic ethics


an example

when the issue of moving forces around the country takes place , the americans all pile into their vehicles and zoom off at 60 miles an hour

and the other countries would set off at 5 mph with two teams of soldiers about half a mile each side of the road , walking along , preventing any insurgent attacks on the main force

this example is a little mute for the US forces have adjusted and no longer do this

but the princible is , who is it that thought such a tactic was wise in the first place !

many american soliders have lost their lives due to poor planning , poor tactics and poor training

from what i have seen , there is a trigger happy nature about the training

example,

groups of US forces with "welcome to the jungle" blaring at volume ten from mp3 players storming into mosques and ending up with many innocents dead , when a more patient aproach is better

that being said , and i don't doubt my views will be warped by many when it comes to US special forces , the whole thing changes

which prooves to me that it is about training and not people

US special forces are in my view THE BEST in the world , without doubt

they are profesional , they are intelligent , they have common sense , they know how to aproach an issue with a pause and a thought and not just an F15 and a missile , they are flexible , they are VERY VERY understanding of the ethnic balance in the areas they fight

so often US special forces find themselves in countries , alone , with no support , and to survive you HAVE to befriend the locals , you have to blend in , and you have to SHOW RESPECT to get any in return

if my life was in danger , i would hope to god it was a US special forces unit that saved me

the difference is stunning


now on your point of "that question be posed to the terrorists"
this is were a HUGE area of difference will come in


my view is (in a vedry simplified form)

saddam hussien was a bad man
but he was no worse then the leaders of saudi arabia ,syria,iran,kuiwat,eygpt etc and we send them military contracts not to war

saddam did not have usual WMD

saddam was not a threat to us

saddam was not a threat to his neigbours (as they have said)

saddam was not in bed with al-qaeda (some will argue that he is in bed with terrorists and he sent 25 million to families of hamas etc , i will reply that the CIA spends 250 million every year proping up dicators like saddam and that we just sound hypocritical)

iraq had many problems (like many countries) but it did not have a divided nation and the creation of a whole new pseudo nation crossing between iran and iraq due to the power we have givin the shia

and most important of all , IRAQ DID NOT HAVE AN INSURGANCY

it does now

as colin powell said , you break it , you own it

and yes it is a harsh world

but it there was no reason to attack iraq then , at that exact time , for these all ficitious reasons

he made the choice , thats his job
he has teams of people and computers to work out every possibilty

you can not expect other people and other countries to lie down and just accept US foreign policy

but you should expect bush and the pentagon to have planned for this

we by our actions have created an insurgancy that did not exist before

so each and every time one of those sick twisted people blows himself up , i do not blame the insurgants . i blamed badly planned and poorly carried out foreign policy

i am certain you will disagree with me on most of this , and that is your right

however , to win / or at least regain credibilty in this the US has to look at why people are so angry

and why the Middlie east is so angry

to someone like me , what i hear is " we have just broken a window , but if you get cut on the glass then its not our fault"

sorry , it is your fault . you broke it

know please understand something before you respond

i do not blame the american people
i do not blame the american forces
i DO blame the Neocons

and i see them with all this blood on their hands

sorry if my answer is long

By Blogger _H_, at August 29, 2005 10:09 pm  

and full of typos , hope you can read it

By Blogger _H_, at August 29, 2005 10:14 pm  

neocon is way overused. Neo Con means nothing but New Conservative. It just mean the next generation of conservatives. Too many use it like its some sect.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at August 29, 2005 10:18 pm  

true G i accept that , and it really does not apply

my concern is that a government and a country should sway one way then the other of the middle

a bit left
a bit right

a bit regean
a bit clinton

but bush is an extremist , he is a danger to us all , the white house is no place for exremists and reaction headed people ,

once the balance , either left or right returns , you wont see me for dust , i have said many times , i dont care for republicans or democrats

those parties do not exist in my country

i do care for extremists , and i will do all i can (which is nothing really hehehe) to get the white house back in the hands of the real republicans or the real democrats

By Blogger _H_, at August 29, 2005 10:25 pm  

_H_, some quick comments:

A recent survey of something like 40-45 Democrats who voted for the Iraq invasion indicated that all but two would vote the same way, even with what they know today.

I heard about another survey of the Iraqi people in which they have a positive view of their future and believe that, long-term, they will be much better off than under Hussein.

The U.S. troops on the ground see progress and are optimistic. This is in stark contrast to press reports.

(I don't have the references for these statements but heard them on the news.)

If critics of the occupation (the Democrats) would still support the invasion today, if the Iraqi people have new and better hopes for the future, and if the troops are optimistic: then, maybe the reality of the situation is better than that presented by the press who would mislead the general public over political bias.

Regarding "blame," terrorism and murder of innocent civilians cannot be excused on the actions of a country or its foreign policy. It is due to the barbaric nature of terrorists--and, they can't pass that off as someone else's fault. That's like a murderer blaming his environment. It just won't work.

By Anonymous Woody, at August 30, 2005 3:50 am  

woody

a quick reply

a survey in eurpoe carried out by time magazine with normal western folks in 2004 has some shocking numbers

doubt you will remember but ‘time’ magazine did a survey , 706,842 people took part (wow thats alot)

the question

what country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003

the answer

north korea 6.7%

iraq 6.3%

USA 86.9%


now it would be foolist to tell nearly a million people that they are just simply wrong , so maybe they have a point

as for the internal american debate of dem v rep , yes i am left wing , yes i do not hide that , but i am not american , so telling me what the dems (or reps) do is water of a ducks back to me

as i say my problem is not with dems or reps , my debate is with the FAR right extremists currently in the white house , once they get out , i wont have a thing to say

as to regarding blaim it really depends how far you want to look into the issues

i do not yet know your understanding of middle east history and politics so i am unable to assess your thoughts

but i will try another angle

if i came into your house and broke its structure so the foundation (although not good) of yesterday was ripped apart and the outside walls of your house were open and un protected , the rules of your house (although not nice before) are now destroyed by my actions ,

then the twisted nutters came in through the void in your structure , they rape your wife , they torture you children they kill your brother

wouldnt you want to have a word with me about what i did ?

blaiming the insurgents for your mess is a bit of a non plus issue

you made the country that way , you should fix it

By Blogger _H_, at August 30, 2005 4:10 am  

correction (typo alert) the survey was asked in 2003 not 04 , obviously

By Blogger _H_, at August 30, 2005 4:12 am  

-H_, I don't have time to do this justice, but the "survey" is phony. A scientific survey has a much smaller sample base, but a well defined one to be truly representative. This so-called survey is nothing more than a referendum by the magazine's readers about their feelings toward the U.S. If Europeans truly believe that the U.S. is a greater danger to world peace than Iraq and North Korea combined by almost a 7 to 1 ratio, then they are even dumber than I can imagine. Rather, I think a better survey and different analysis is more in order.

By Anonymous Woody, at August 31, 2005 3:27 am  

have you thought that maybe they are not so dumb ?

nobody is claiming that the american people are the danger

or american moderate reps or dems are the danger

but i am one of those people that views George bush n co a greater danger to the world then extremist islam , (and thats quite a claim)

so respect to you , i will allow you to include me in with those you view as dumb :-)

i have no problem with that , but i stand by my belief that american neocons are the biggest threat that the world currently has

of course , once the neo-cons are out , i would no longer put the US inside the top hundred threats , it is not a place i am used to putting america top of

but right now i do

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 3:34 am  

Sorry, but I believe that your analogy is not valid. The country was held hostage by a tyrant. If you eliminate one and another one takes his place, then you keep eliminating them they get the message and are gone. Maybe a decent analogy is cutting a cancer out, and you keep cutting and treating the patient until you get it all. Otherwise, he will never get well.

Think seriously about this. Countries cannot modify foreign policy simply because terrorists threaten them. If they do, then it concedes that all foreign policy decisions will be made by terrorists rather than elected representatives.

There was a period long ago in our country when the Barbary pirates kept storming our ships and demanding ransom. This country made a decision to spend millions in defense but not one dollar on bounty. I prefer that policy, because other pirates will learn to leave us alone--or they will get killed.

I have to go, but I'll try to check your response later.

By Anonymous Woody, at August 31, 2005 3:40 am  

I'm sorry, but I just saw your last response. I didn't mean for my comment to appear to call you dumb and should have worded it better. I respect your fears, but I see it differently and believe that the U.S. insures world peace when other nations sit on their thumbs. I'm confident of the nobel intentions of the U.S. I don't know what has to be done to convince the rest of the world of them. Okay, I'm really out now.

By Anonymous Woody, at August 31, 2005 3:47 am  

woody the country was held hostage by a tryrant

true , so is eygpt ,so us saudi arabia so is uzbekistan so is syria ,and some say so is the US :-)

the cancer you speak of was not there woody , it was a secular country that had MAJOR problems yes , but i do hope you dont by into this 9/11 link and such or the osama link , that stuff is just so un educated it is scary but i am happy to debate it


you say "Think seriously about this. Countries cannot modify foreign policy simply because terrorists threaten them"

neither can you install demcoracy by the barrel of a gun , trust me , my country has tried erm (cough) many times

all of the questions made by the right seem mute to me

yes he was bad (but there are many worse who we still fund and supprt)

no he didnt have WMD ,(he used to yes , but i agree with hans blix and the IAEA that saddam destroyed his stockpiles in 1991)

no he did not do deals/make friends with al-qaeda (this subject is the biggest joke of all ,for anyone thay knows middle east history)

yes he did fund terrorists at times (who doesnt , the worst culprit in the world is the CIA)

so it is simple , it was the invasion of a soverign nation with out foundation ,

as for the cancer , our doing i am afraid ,

saddam was a twisted SOB , but he did a damn fine job of keeping al-qaeda out of his country

if only we could do the same

i feel that without question america had to look at itself after 9/11 ,

the attacks on the al-qaeda bases in afghanistan for example i fully support

but this new rule (that we will all follow now) that it is ok to attack a country that has NOT attacked or even planned to attack you is a nice way of talking about domination

G has said to me on ocasions that he thinks most of the reasons were for america's own reasons

such as oil , military presense in the middle east , control etc

though i dont like those ideas , i respect the honesty at least

but some idea that we are performing some kind of moral good in the middle east ,is so orwellien that it makes me laugh

bush is a danger to us all

and his actions even if we accept they are all accidents has already killed ten times what died on the horror of 9/11


that is one dangerous guy , and i wish no offence of course , but if you really want me to , i will go into much much more detail

but many people mistake my absolute disgust at the neocons to a dislike for america , that is wrong wrong wrong and wrong

nobody with a brain , including the CIA the NSA MI5 or MI6 thought that saddam was a threat

it is clear (get ready for the quote) that "the facts were being fixed around the policy"

so if you ask me (and feel free to call me dumb hehehehe)

is that bush is a bigger threat then sadda, ever was
and that bush is a bigger threat then osama ever could be

i do not buy thise "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists" sorry .. i am not

i HATE the terrorists , i dont defend them

but they still would have to go some to match the twisted mind i see inside george bush

please dont see this as political

it isnt

i dont even live in the US

if the moderates left or right get control of the US i amhappy either way

but , and here comes another (H is dumb thought maybe) but i have no doubt that bush is and all those other idiots in power from the "project for a new american century" are borderline fascists

feel free to call me on it , i will justify my words , but accept that i am unlikely to convince you of what i see ,and you would find it impossible top convince me that bush is not the MAJOR world issue that needs looking at FIRST

so agree to disagree os probably best

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 4:02 am  

woody , no offence taken , you are intelligent person with developed views that i just happen to disagree with , this is what demcoracy is .

if you wish to call me dumb i am not so shallow to take offence ,


i know we debated trolls , but nothing you could say to me would define you as a troll in my book

it is those that have insults without content that i laugh at ,

the odd "dumb" etc to proove your point just adds emotion , that is healthy

feel free to call me what you wish ,i rip into people who bring nothing more than rhetoric and party politics and lack of maturity
to a debate

you have already shown you thoughts are worth responding too , so please , put your feet up , make yourself at home

i dont offend easy

think about it , i go round calling bush a "terrorist" how many "far right wing" "over patriotic" erm , erm .. people (hehehe) have come here to show me how mature they are

my views push the boundries (if you are american and reading this if you are europeen then those that dont think bush is the problem are the minority)

as long as you dont fall into the trap of thinking i am attacking american people , or even the nation of america then we can't go far wrong

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 4:13 am  

Thanks for your kind remarks and insight, _H_. Now on to the current post.

By Anonymous Woody, at September 01, 2005 9:08 pm  

Egypt To Continue Nuclear testing until Israel gives up the bomb

AP) Egypt's foreign minister on Saturday turned down a request from the world's nuclear watchdog to sign a treaty banning the testing of nuclear weapons, saying Israel should first join a separate agreement calling for a halt to the spread of atomic bombs. The refusal by Israel, which is believed to possess hundreds of nuclear warheads, to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has also made the Middle East more insecure, Ahmed Aboul Gheit said, according to Egypt's semiofficial Middle East News Agency. Aboul Gheit's comments came in a letter to Tibor Toth, the new executive secretary of the commission that oversees the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. "Egypt's ratification of the (test ban) treaty is linked to the extent of developments that may occur in regional and international circumstances, including the possibility that Israel may join the NPT," MENA quoted the minister as saying. All Middle Eastern counties except Israel are signatories to the NPT. Israel is believed to have commenced its nuclear program in the 1950s, but has never denied nor confirmed the widely held view that it possesses atomic bombs. Arab states have demanded the international community do more to force Israel to relinquish its nuclear arms.

well,well it is not just Iran , the double standards are finally coming home , if you allow one country to do as it pleases then others will follow .

and you dont have a moral leg to stand on unless you judge ALL with the same rules.

Israel will keep bombing its neighbors until they give up the nuclear programs.

They cant afford to have any of those guys go nuclear. And H, before you go off on another "fair" tirade, just remember that Israel hasnt offensive attacked any of them (with conquest ambitions) in modern history. They have all tried to attack Israel.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at August 29, 2005 5:32 pm  

flip side G

all of these countries will accept israel when they get out of palastine not just gaza but all the ocupied lands


all of these countries have said they will give up any aims of a nuclear weapon as soon as israel signs the NPT and gives up its own

you have a very funny double standard you put across G

you think israel has more rights then eygypt

you are wrong , there rights are the same

By Blogger _H_, at August 29, 2005 6:12 pm  

get the facts straight! 1)israel started the wars except for the Yom Kippur war. Thier leading General (Moshe Daylan) even admitted to provoking the Syrians. In 1973, Syria actually gained one third of the Golan Heights back. 2)The majority of arab weapon are for defensive puposes. any offensive weapons will be blocked by the Hypocritical USA. 3) israel is creating an arms race. everyone thinks israel is superior than the arabs. but they are not. the playing field is balanced towards israel for one reason only...and that's DIMONA! israel was either given the technology or they stole it. Unlike the arabs who are hard workers are figuring it out on their own, will have the balance of power on an even foot, and then what will israel do? you betcha, they would use it first, for they have no sympathy for human life.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 31, 2005 2:51 am  

i would disagree with you on your last fews points anonymous , but with the first few i dont have a problem

i am trying to address the balance somewhat with the work i do on this site ,

but i am not anti israel or anti arab

i do feel that the israel point of view is given far to much air time and the arab one far to little

if it comes right down to it

then most leaders have very little sympathy for human life , so in that point i agree with you , but i think it is a two way street

neither side is perfect , ant the list of crimes that both sides 'claim' is horrific

but balance is my key

(1) a right for the palastinains to live in peace without any interference from israel in any way , and the land divided as per the 1947 Un agreement

(2) the right for the nation of israel to exist in peace without fear from attacks

call me an old hippy if you want , but peace is brought about by compromise

i thank you for you comments

By Blogger _H_, at August 31, 2005 3:02 am  

Sunday, August 28, 2005

UK government received warning of 'Iraq extremism link'

The British government was warned over a year ago by its most senior Foreign Office official that the Iraq war was fuelling UK Muslim extremism, it has emerged

Foreign Office Permanent Secretary Michael Jay issued the warning in a May 2004 letter, leaked to the Observer.

The letter to Cabinet Secretary Sir Andrew Turnbull said British foreign policy was a "key driver" behind recruitment by extremist Muslim groups.

The Foreign Office said it did not comment on leaked documents.

The letter said a "recurring theme" among the underlying causes of extremism in the Muslim community was "the issue of British foreign policy, especially in the context of the middle east peace process and Iraq".

It added: "British foreign policy and the perception of its negative effect on Muslims globally plays a significant role in creating a feeling of anger and impotence among

Shadow foreign secretary Liam Fox told BBC News the government's handling of the problem had been "inept from start to finish".
"What I find suprising is that the government denies there is any link when most people, with common sense, would say there is some link that makes it easier to recruit extremists from the Muslim community," he said

Everything you need to know about US foreign policy in two paragraphs

Before the invasion of Iraq , George W bush argued that you could not have a situation where the "world's worst leaders were in charge of the world's most powerfull weapons" .

Since the end of the second world war , The Americans have spent US$19 trillion on what they call defense . That means that if you were to spend US$26 million every day since the birth of Christ ,you'd still have spent less then the americans have spent on defense since the end of the second world war . Put another way , if you had funded a small military invasion (helicopters , small arms , infantry support) each and every day for the last 2000 years (thats 750,000 wars) you still would not have matched what the US has spent on defense in the last fifty !

and there is a good possibility that you have the freedom to write this dribble as a direct result of that spending. we welcome how appreciative you are.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 28, 2005 5:49 pm  

hahahaha .. erm what freedom ?

please do tell me

what exactly have 'I' gained for this 19 trillion ?

that could not have been achieved with 1 trillion ?

of course i can always ask the people of vietnam or iraq or somalia etc etc how they feel

maybe they dont appreciate it too

hmmm

By Blogger _H_, at August 28, 2005 6:03 pm  

You need to edit your comments so that you don't get those advertisers. It's easy just go into comment section of dashboard, all you're doing is making a commentor retype some random words,and it will block that garbage. About your post, it is mind-boggling that we (US) are the only ones allowed to haveWMD and we patrol and condemn others who want them.

By Blogger pansyjoan, at August 28, 2005 6:40 pm  

I have a feeling that 19 Trillion could have bought world peace. But how can one make world peace into a lucrative business? Sad, there is more money for the industrial military complex to make on war then there is on peace.
Capitalism at it's finest!

By Anonymous somethingsphishy, at August 28, 2005 7:12 pm  

Thankyou dor your comments , the advertising bot's have got alot worse in the last three days and i am no longer enjoying the 'pleasure of deleting them' so i have taken up the advice and added verification to the comments section


as for how much 19 trillion could have achieved , one thing i am sure of is that if we had used the money to address issues such as

wiping out 3rd world debt
helping africa step out of poverty
solving the israel/palastinian issue

an many others , the the world would not be feeling the kind of anger and hypocracy that feel about what the US government is doing and the world would today be a much much safer place then it is for all that military spending

look at Iraq , the mis match in technology is awsome , the equipment being used by the US is the best in the world

but for all that , a couple of thousand lightly armed 'insurgents' can trap the american forces in the country and hold back an army that spends more on itself then the next seven countries combined

so what was the point ?

i am no pacifist and i understand the need for the military and accept the need for 'certain' conflicts but these numbers are obsene , and that level of spending has been a complete waste of american money that could have been used in many ways to make american's safer and happier then they are today

By Blogger _H_, at August 28, 2005 9:53 pm  

Elected leaders, with regular debate, decided that the defense money spent was necessary to protect the citizens and secure the interests of the United States. That's an easy concept. They also did it with U.S. tax money and are, thus, accountable to U.S. citizens--not those in foreign lands.

Criticisms of spending decisions in the past but made today by people at this and other sites is "monday morning quarterbacking" and is likely made with incomplete information. I'll trust the decisions of my Presidents and representatives over that.

Also, don't forget that a strong military is to deter wars before winning them. I think that the rest of the world should be glad that it is the U.S. that is strong rather than communist countries and that the U.S. is willing to stand up for freedom. You could do a lot worse.

By Anonymous Woody, at August 29, 2005 4:21 pm  

H, you have the freedom not pick up the little red book that USSR overlords would have forced on you.

And, to me, if nothing else, look at how much money we spent... aint Capitalism grand? We can blow that much money, and STILL have more.

Russia went bankrupt, China was until the opened up their economy to something akin to Capitalism, and N. Korea cant feed its own...

By Blogger G_in_AL, at August 29, 2005 5:35 pm  

G , we didnt need you at all , thankyou very much

the UK and France already had enough nuclear missiles to put rusisia back to the stone age

so tell me , at what point would russia had said , invasion of britain is worth losing 3/4 of our cities

it is a mute point

you have an over inflated view of your world contribution there buddy

By Blogger _H_, at August 29, 2005 6:15 pm  

_H_, in G's defense, there are a lot of defenseless countries that place hope on the U.S. to stay free from the USSR or other enemies. Certainly the U.K. can take care of itself if it chooses. Closer to home and not one so defenseless is Canada, for which I don't see them worried about spending money for a big defense because we're providing it for them.

By Anonymous Woody, at August 29, 2005 7:45 pm  

again woody , it may suprise you but our views are not that different really

i do NOT dispute that america has to spend on its military

i do NOT dispute that america needs to spend alot of dollars to do this

i DO dispute that america feels that it is ok to spend more then the next 7 countries combined , especially now the soviet threat has diminished (a little)

when a country has that kind of spending levels (as the nazi's did leading to world war 2) then it is right of the world to question you , and say .. hang on ? are you sure ..

you dont need to spend THAT much to defend your interests and project your foreign policy

unless .. your foreign policy is world domination , and if it is , then we are right to call you on it

By Blogger _H_, at August 29, 2005 8:00 pm  

We've enabled our soldiers to fight a smarter war with fewer men and more technology..Whats wrong with that? In ww2 we had 16 million men under arms and swapped soldiers lives for lack of technology..There was no such thing as a million dollar bomb or rocket until the end of the war with the a-bomb. You haven't seen anything yet..In the pretty near future the US will be able to fight a war with very little manpower exposure and I will gladly say amen to that..If you want to pick up your old hunting rifle and your old hound dog and go getum, Have at it..

By Blogger Howard, at August 29, 2005 8:42 pm  

The U.S. learned lessons after WWI that it is not a good idea to disarm yourself. It sure put us in a bad position at the start of WWII.

Regarding the cost of the military, there are some factors totally independent of force size.

One is technology. That is growing at a high rate over the normal build-up or maintenance of our forces. Technology costs a lot of money, but that saves lives. Stealth bombers, laser guided bombs, cruise missles, and military satellites aren't cheap--but they are very effective and also reduce civilian casualties.

Another factor is that much of the defense is tied to politics. We're going through base closings now. My congressman consistently votes to take money from defense and use it for social programs. However, he started howling when the base commission closed two major facilities in his district. Other bases that should be closed will not be. There is a lot of waste unrelated to our defense, but for which defense gets unfairly charged.

Another thing is that we have to keep defense contractors going, even when there is peace, because it takes too long to ramp-up during war. A good example is our aircraft industry, for which we spend money in peace just to keep them open.

Also, we have a volunteer army. That comes at a price higher than an army that forces you to serve and doesn't have to pay much.

Well, this could go on-and-on, but suffice it to say that the cost of maintaining OUR military goes far beyond what the dollar numbers indicate and does not have anything to do with world domination. Heck, I wish that other countries would pitch in more and let us back off in the efforts to maintain what peace and stability there is in the world.

By Anonymous Woody, at August 29, 2005 8:52 pm  

howard said "We've enabled our soldiers to fight a smarter war with fewer men and more technology"

sorry howard , nice words , but i don't buy the white house line here and sadly i dont watch fox

even if you are kind , 30,000 iraqi citizens have been killed , that is NOT terrorists or soldiers or insurgents but everyday folk like you and me

now we can debate about how they dont target civilians etc but so what ?

the people are still dead

and the us forces , without the help of any terrorists have killed by accident more people then the terrorist can do on purpose

3000 people died on spet 11th and they ment to do that

look at the numbers of dead innocents in response

tell me bush is not a terrorist to
?

woody :in response to you , i really dont actually doubt anything you say

this is a moral issue , and the end of the day , taking everything you say into account i still think the budget is at least 4 times bigger then it needed to be to do the same thing

and i think that using that money in more 'liberal' ways would have done more to bring about world peace then spending it all as we did

By Blogger _H_, at August 29, 2005 10:21 pm