This is the POLIBLOG of JMBzine and is dedicated to political links and commentary by JMB. If you wish to go to the MAINBLOG of JMBzine click here.
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Thoughts from the closing days of Gulf War II
This will probably be my last Poliblog post. I actually did not intend to post any more here (as I phased out my political writing to OK-IMC but due to reader comments, I felt like I needed to make a final statement of sorts on the war so my silence would not be misconstrued.
I have held off on posting these thoughts for the last week because I have been pretty swamped time-wise, but also because frankly I wanted to give the thoughts some time to simmer.
My perspective on war is different from many out there, because I am absolutely opposed to war for religious/moral reasons. (I derive these beliefs from both the teachings of Jesus and my own conscience and heart.) Therefore, pragmatic arguments either for or against war, while instructive are not probative to me. At best, I believe a war might be the lesser of two evils... but it is still evil and is never a good thing.
However, accepting the fact that most of my readers will approach this war (either pro or con) from a pragmatic basis, let me move to that kind of analysis...
I'll begin with the positives. Compared to Gulf War I (hereafter abbreviated "GWI"), this war has been conducted in a far more humane fashion than the previous war. While there is no such thing as a "humane war," it does appear (as far as we can tell so far) that civilian casualities are much lower than the previous war (current numbers are around 1,800 civilian dead in GWII compared to about 30,000 in GWI) and that the allies have done a much better job of avoiding civilian targets. There were also lower numbers of Allied military casualties than one might have expected in a war of "regime change" (but no estimates yet of Iraqi military personnell casulalties).
However, even at reduced numbers, the casualty counts are still appalling. To know that at least 1,800 innocent civilians were killed (and probably 5-10 times that many maimed and otherwise injured) is a fearful thing. These people didn't ask for this, they didn't deserve it, yet they have and will suffer none the less. This coupled, with our own Allied troops who were killed, captured or injured, says that this war was costly beyond what we can comprehend.
If this war has cost us so much, we need to ask what was it for?
This is where it gets difficult. Wars are always justified in lots of ways but often those justifications don't meet with the reality of the real reason behind the war.
What did we fight for?
The Bush Administration says it was to liberate Iraq, and prevent Saddam from supporting terrorism or using WMD's.
Others say it is about oil.
I think neither viewpoint is the whole truth.
If this war is about liberation, then why are we following a different policy than we did in Afghanistan. We did NOT liberate Afghanistan. Things might be less oppressive in the major cities, but in most rural areas things are as bad or worse than they were before the war there. As far as the needed aid, Bush's proposed budget dedicated. . . ZERO DOLLARS to Afghan relief. If there is that little commitment to nation building in Afghanistan, then why would that be a priority in Iraq? I frankly do not believe the US intends to plant democracy in Iraq, but would settle for a more friendly dictatorial regime. (I hope and pray though that the people of Iraq themselves will stand up for their own rights and demand a government that is OF, BY, and FOR their people.)
As to the question of state-sponsored terrorism and WMD's, these claims by Bush have NOT been proven. No serious connection has been made between Iraq and Bin Laden, and thus far the allies have not found any WMD's in Iraq. Maybe we'll still find it, but maybe not. Unless the US has really horrible intelligence, I can't believe that this is the reason for this war. It certainly appears that this is just an excuse and not the real reason.
Next, let's examine oil. Oil is certainly part of that but is not the whole picture. There are too many other sources of cheap oil besides Iraq. Certainly the US and others want Iraq's oil but I don't think that is not the only reason this war took place. (it would have been much easier to invade Venezuela than Iraq, if oil was the sole reason for this war)
What does that leave us with . . .
EMPIRE
It remains to be seen if the Bush Administration is committed to a a policy of global corporate imperialism, but it sure looks like Iraq might be the first stepping stone in this quest. Now with the threats towards Syria being broadcast, one can't help but wonder.
I hope I am wrong about this because I don't think imperialism was worth the lives of the Americans who died in this war, and it wasn't worth the lives of the Iraqi people.
The founding fathers did not intend to create an empire. It's high time that our current leaders realize that the dream of those great men of old will perish if America pursues the course of global domination.
The second thing is my life is furiously crazy busy at the present moment... law school finals are fast approaching (in about a month), sermons still gotta be preached every sunday, and there is so much to be done with the Peace movement here in Oklahoma.
So in light of all of this, I'm going to stop posting new stuff to the POLIblog starting today through the end of finals (and possibly for good). Some of the stuff that I would normally post to the POLIblog will go on OKIMC though, so check there especially on the Newswire and Other Press sections.
I will keep the MAINBlog running though, but it'll talk focus all of the stuff that is too personal to put on OKIMC or just is about random stuff in life.
Finally the last thing is that I have decided I'm going to start working on some longer length essays on social justice concepts. Probably will wait until the summer for those, but once they're done I'll post them over at JMBzine Nonblog content index.
I received a very passionate response (via email) to some of my recent JMBzine bloggings from my friend Summer. She gave me permission to post it here. (her remarks are in red typeface, my comments in response are in black)
Feel free to publish this as a comment if you wish. I just decided to email because I don't like the little black comment box. It reminds me of a jail cell.
Because I love ya, Because I know how much you like it when people respond to your blog, And because after going a while without directing my browser to JMBzine for fear of high blood pressure at a young age, I finally decided to review it, And because I'm feeling frisky tonight, I write you this note.
hehehe, maybe I should put a warning label on this blog. "WARNING: READING THIS COULD CAUSE HIGH BLOOD PREASURE!"
If you do get too bored with law school, I've decided that perhaps the al-Jazeera might be in need of your assistance -- because the propagandistic nature of that Apr. 1st blog sent me to the floor. The fact that one man, in a quote of a quote of a quote source (yep, think about it a sec) said something positively brutish in NO WAY reflects upon United States or any Coalition military training.
You have a good point here on quoting a third hand quote. I was lazy that day and didn't want to hunt down the original NY Times story. Here it is: NY Times: Either Take a Shot or Take a Chance. Reading this story in context, I would say that Sergeant Schumpf is a much more complex person than that quote might indicate. Reading between the lines, I think he is someone who is very troubled. My earlier remarks on saying he had in effect a "morally bankruptcy soul" may have gone too far. Probably anyone in his shoes would eventually behave in that way.
However, I stand by my statement on the harm of military training. Certainly most soldiers do not internalize the hate that is taught to them to the extent that this man did, but some do. I have known several veterans over the years who were veterans of the 1991 Gulf War, and they have all said that it was standard opperating procedure to use derrogoratory terms to refer to the nationality of the enemy (which in effect dehumanizes the enemy, so that you won't feel guilty when you kill them.). These terms include: "sand n-----r, dune coon, raghead, and towelhead" Certainly the top brass wouldn't use such terms (at least not in front of reporters), but the intermediate and lower chains of command (low level officers, NCO's, etc.) regularly tolerate and/or encourage the use of this kind of language.
One veteran I met (during the time of the Afghan war) told me that he thought that the US should kill all the "sand n----rs." I asked him why all Arabs, when most had nothing to do with 9-11. He said they all were the same and we should kill them all.
I know some who come out unscathed, but I know many others who do not. Maybe these nuts were already messed up in the head before they enlisted, but at the very least I would argue that military training did not help their mental situation.
You know, speaking of propaganda, what's with the pictures of the "Iraqi civilians" (can't be so sure about that 3rd guy) harmed in the war. So now we some how know for a fact that those photos are actual representations and not some sort of sick product of pro-peace attempts to convince all the world that we are the "bad guy"? And really, how much more compassionate is it for a blogger to RE-EXPLOIT pictures of sick children to somehow get his own ideas across and thereby continue disruption of the unity of one of the only nations trying to help these poor Iraqi civilians out?
Let me quote from Dear_Raed , a blog written in Baghdad (assuming the author is still alive) ... "Do support democracy in Iraq. But don’t equate it with war. What will happen is something that could/should have been avoided. Don’t expect me to wear a [I heart bush] t-shirt. Support democracy in Iraq not by bombing us to hell and then trying to build it up again (well that is going to happen any way) not by sending human shields (let’s be real the war is going to happen and Saddam will use you as hostages), but by keeping an eye on what will happen after the war."
How did a desire by many of the Iraqi people turn into bombing them into oblivion? --- Since I do not believe this war is about liberation, therefore I do hope to disrupt the "unity" for war.
As to linking to the pictures, that was a very difficult call for me. Many peace activists would not agree with the decision I made, but I feel that is important to publish those images to counter-balance the many images of "successful" warfare in the media. Most Americans are completely unaware of what war looks like on the ground. They think it is like a video game where everything is clean and neat. That is not reality.
Here's an example of the lies the American people buy. Yesterday I heard a Pentagon press conference on the radio. In this press conference, the speaker (I don't remember off hand who it was, but it was a military spokesman) said that the US had the capability to destroy a tank that is under a bridge without damaging the bridge.
That is simply NOT TRUE. I have cited many links lately that talk about the "accuracy" of the so-called smart bombs. I don't doubt that they are far more accurate than weapons used in the past, but they are also not nearly as accurate as the military is telling the American people.
I wish there was a way for Americans to see the true cost of the war without showing those pictures, but I don't know how.
Civilians, may God protect them, do not ask for the dangers of war any more than they asked for Saddam's evil regime. Yes, war does not ever come free of casualties. Of course, neither did their old way of life. But at least now their posterity might be able to live in a land that is much less oppressive. Thank God for the the Coaltion and for the Bush administration's ability to resist the selfishness of the U.N.
Are we going to liberate them like we did Afghanistan?
Sheesh... then they'll be in worse shape than they were in before. Afghanistan (except for Kabul and few other cities) is still ran by thugs. In some places we removed the old ones and put in new ones, in other places we left the old thugs in power.
BTW, Bush's new budget provided ZERO DOLLARS for Afghan relief in the coming year. Thankfully, the Republican congress acted out of character and insist on funding in the new budget.
I hope and pray we do a better job in Iraq than Afghanistan but I doubt it.
Second, are you really still in a little tizzy about FoxNews? I mean, you've got all the other stations and periodicals, possibly excluding MSNBC. At least Fox is trying to be fair. Can't you just watch any of the main 3 Liberal Television News stations and leave the fair and balanced guys alone?
Who are you refering to as "fair and balanced"? If you mean Fox... sheesh...
In all reality, ALL media has a bias. Fox has a conservative tilt. Not as much as say the Daily Oklahoman or the local OKC network affiliates, but it is still very conservative. The other networks to me are "moderate" (MSNBC being on the conservative side of moderate, CNN being on the liberal side). There is no truly liberal News network on cable or broadcast television. Ideally media outlets should aim to be accurate with the facts no matter what, and not let their bias seep into straight news, but the line between straight news and op-ed is mighty hard to draw sometimes.
You are right to a point though. I shouldn't contest Fox's right to exist (or even right to lie if they so choose). I guess my frustration of them lately has been over their various obvious partisan bias, when there is no liberal counter-balance.
I'll attack Fox on individual stories when they deserve it (opinion is one thing, mistating facts is another), but I don't mean to say that conservatives shouldn't have their voice as well.
The FoxNews report that you quoted in your blog on 3-20 is not by any means "trash journalism". First of all, Fox draws the emphasis toward violent protesting, which surely you do not condone, as a pacifist. Second, the segment merely stated that the violent protests and threats are nothing but a distraction, which is true. They do no good. Bush WILL NOT look out the window of the White House, see a peace rally, and cancel the war. It has begun. Protestors had their chance and it didn't work. There is nothing left to do than UNPATRIOTICLY exercise first amendment rights. What else? Aid is going to the people of Iraq and they are excited about it. Civilian harm is low and the harm that does occur is certainly added to by the "human shield" regimes of the Republican Guard, the militia forces, and the "civilian dress up" game that Iraq is using. I can see point for protest, but not when there is nothing left to protest.
I stand by my my 3-20-03 post about FoxNews. I felt like they were trying to inflame a situation. Most protests across this country have been non-violent. FoxNews was trying to put non-violent direct actions of civil disobedience in the same category as violent actions that a very few took.
Also, I do hear your point on the futility of protest at this time (have been told that "it was ok to protest before the war started, but not ok now" by several folks lately), and from a purely pragmatic point of view you are probably right. There is very little chance that Bush will change his heart (he reminds me of the hardened heart of Pharoh in the Bible).
However, I do think there is hope that maybe there would not be a repeat of this horrible war. Many in the peace movement are not only opposed to this war, but to war in general. We are protesting not only for this cessation of these hostilities but also that we as a culture and society might change, to be less military & war oriented, and committed more and more each day to the principles of social justice as articulated by scripture and other ethical teachings.
Bear in mind too though that most who are now protesting are the idealists. Those who were of a more pragmatic anti-Iraq war persuasion are now gone. I can't speak as much about what happens in other cities (and frankly from what I've heard lately about San Francisco, I can't say that I would support much of what they do there in protesting... it seems to be so hateful and angry) but here in Oklahoma, most folks opposed to war do so because of either religious or ethical reasons. Especially for those of us who are opposed to war because of our faith, we must protest if we are to be obedient to God.
Furthermore, as Americans we have not only a right, but also a DUTY to speak out against evil done by our nation. It is because I am a patriotic American who is committed to the cause of democracy, that I must speak out against the war.
Speaking of first amendment rights, "JMBzine.com is a free and independent media outlet protected by the Bill of Rights, First Amendment." Ok, the 1st Amendment is from the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, right? The Constitution would have never been formed were it not for the....United States, right? And the United States were established because Britain used DIPLOMACY and let the protestors come over and form their own separate, competitive nation, right? Wrong. Diplomacy wouldn't have worked there any better than it has for the past 12 years with Saddam. We had to pay for rights with blood. There is blood splattered all over your blog and running freely beneath every war protest that goes on today. Lucky Americans. There is unfortunately only one way freedom can be bought in this world, and we have to pay interest every now and then.
I agree that blood must often be shed as the cost of freedom, BUT I don't think it should be shed by those seeking liberation. The people of India (and Black Americans to some extent in our own country -- thanks to MLK) were liberated, not through violence but through soulforce, by standing up for their rights through non-violent direct action. Some of those who stood up for freedom were beaten, jailed, and even killed. Yet they refused to respond to violence through violence, and by doing so were freed. Blood was shed by the oppressors but not by the oppressed.
I'm glad my ancestors stood up for their rights almost 226 years ago (one of my ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War --- As a side note I also have one ancestor who fought in the War of 1812, four who fought in the American Civil War (3 fought for the South, 1 fought for the North), but I wish they had a better understanding of how liberation can and should take place. I believe America could have been liberated without an army, IF American patriots had committed themselves to non-violent resistance. The British could not have continued to rule over a people who would not cooperate with their oppressors, who would buy their products, who would not trade with them. In time, the British would have had to give in.
Pardon my "note" that is starting to look like a novel. I needed to get it out of my system. Thanks for being my target.
I would like to close on this quote from a speech by a man trained in the military, Lt. Col. Tim Collins, commander of the First Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment, delivered at Fort Blair Mayne in northern Kuwait, before the battalion left for Iraq.
"...Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there. You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous, and upright people than the Iraquis. You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing. Don't treat them as refugees, for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor. In years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you. If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day. Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves..."
Consider that the the very heart song of the Coalition.
Throw Sergeant Schumpf aside as a grumpy underling. He deserves not to wear the raiment of an innocent Iraqi.
I appreciate Lt. Col. Collins remarks. I hope and pray that there are many more like him. Men and women with his attitude could do much to bring some light and hope to what I believe is otherwise a dark situation.
From TomPaine.com quoting the March29, 2003 edition of the NY Times:
At the base camp of the Fifth Marine Regiment here, two sharpshooters, Sgt. Eric Schrumpf, 28, and Cpl. Mikael McIntosh, 20, sat on a sand berm and swapped combat tales. The marines said they had little trouble dispatching their foes, most of whom they characterized as ill-trained and cowardly. "We had a great day," Sergeant Schrumpf said. "We killed a lot of people.... We dropped a few civilians," Sergeant Schrumpf said, "but what do you do?" [In one incident], he recalled watching one of the women standing near the Iraqi soldier go down. "I'm sorry," the sergeant said. "But the chick was in the way."
Sergeant Schrumpf's statement is exhibit A in the case to show the effects of military training/brainwashing. How in the world can one say that kiling "a lot of people" is a "great day"? How can one soul become so bankrupt?
What is most disturbing is that we all have contributed to this moral depravity. Our tax dollars paid for Schrumpf to have the belief that some lives aren't worth anything and our tax dollars paid for his gun and the bullets that killed that woman.
Extract from a letter by J.R.R. Tolkien to his son Christopher:
10 April 1944
I sometimes feel appalled at the thought of the sum total of human misery all over the world at the present moment: the millions parted, fretting, wasting in unprofitable days - quite apart from torture, pain, death, bereavement, injustice. If anguish were visible, almost the whole of this benighted planet would be enveloped in a dense dark vapor, shrouded from the amazed vision of the heavens! And the products of it all will be mainly evil - historically considered. But the historic version is, of course, not the only one. All things and all deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their "causes" and "effects." No man can estimate what is really happening sub specie aeternitatis. All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labors with vast power and perpetual success - in vain: preparing always the soil for unexpected good to sprout in.
I often post updates from the CPTnet, but this one is probably one of the most moving I have read. Please read it. It speaks volumes about the kind love of the civilian population of Iraq and horrible attrocity of the US/UK war against that people...
CPTNET Welcome at Rutba Mar. 30 2003 by Doug Hostetter
(The author of this piece is a 15 year adviser and friend of CPT who is currently supporting peace work in Amman, Jordan. He is Peace Pastor, Evanston Mennonite Church (Evanston IL), and Senior Middle East Correspondent for American Friends Service Committee.)
Amman Jordan - A three vehicles convoy started out early Saturday morning (3/29/03) heading for the Amman Jordan on the road that runs through the Western Iraqi desert from Baghdad to the Jordanian border. The group included Iraqi drivers for each vehicle, 8 Americans and an Irishman from Christian Peacemakers Teams and Voices in the Wilderness, two Japanese reporters and a Korean peace activist. As the group headed west in the early morning light, there was ample evidence of the effects of US/British bombing. There were the downed bridges, the destroyed gas stations, and the blackened shells of destroyed military and civilian vehicles by the side of the road. US and British planes could be seen in the skies, and were actively engaged in bombing near the road so the drivers decided spread their vehicles apart and travel at maximum speed so as to minimize the likelihood of their becoming "collateral damage" in this war. The last of the vehicles carried three Christian Peacemaker Team Members: Weldon Nisly, Seattle Washington, Kara Speltz, Oakland, CA and, Cliff Kindy of CPT staff in Ohio, along with Shane Claiborne, Philadelphia, PA who was in Iraq with the Voices in the Wilderness Iraqi Peace Team. They were a few hours from the Jordanian border traveling at about 80 miles per hour when a tire blew, causing the diver to lose control. The vehicle left the road and landed on its side at the bottom of a 10 foot ditch. The driver thought that the wheel had been shot by a nearby Allied plane, but the team thinks it was just as likely that the tire was destroyed by shrapnel or debris on the road from earlier Allied strikes.
They were able to open the doors on the top side of the vehicle and eventually were able to pull everyone out. Everyone was bruised, badly shaken, but all were conscious though it was clear that Weldon was badly injured, and Cliff was bleeding badly from a large gash in his head. The car was totaled, and the other two cars in the convoy were well out of sight down the road toward the Jordanian border and no one in the delegation had a satellite phone. Because of to the intensive US/British bombing, with very good reason, there were very few vehicles on the road between Baghdad and the Jordanian. The group was just beginning to panic, when an Iraqi civilian car approached, pulled over and asked if he could help. Without a second thought, the driver packed the 5 additional passengers into his car and drove to the closest Iraqi town, Rutba, about 6 km from the site of the accident. Rutba is a city of about 20,000 people located 140 km east of the Jordanian Border. The group was astounded to see that this civilian town, with no apparent military structures had been devastated by US/British bombing three days earlier. Much of the town was destroyed including the children's hospital in which two children were killed in the bombing. The group was taken to the only remaining functioning medical facility in town, a 20-foot X 20-foot four-bed clinic. The people of the town quickly gathered to inspect their uninvited foreign guests. The group hastily offered everyone a copy the CPT hand-out, a description of the Christian Peacemakers Team's mission and work in Iraq, with English on one side of the page and Arabic on the other. Introduction in hand, the people of Rutba warmly welcomed the wounded stranded American refugees, just three days after their town had been destroyed by American/British Aircraft. The next morning, Shane asked, "How do you think Americans would respond to Iraqi civilians accidentally stranded in their community three days after Iraqi aircraft had destroyed their town?"
When the doctor arrived, the group was in for an even bigger surprise. In this town of 20,000 in the middle of the Iraqi desert, the doctor who would treat them spoke perfect English, and without delay, he started his examinations. Everyone in the vehicle was badly bruised, but Weldon Nisly had a broken thumb, several broken ribs and other possible fractures, while Ciff Kindy had a very bad gash in his head. The doctor was professionally embarrassed. Because of the embargo, and the Allied attack on their primary hospital three days earlier, many medications were unavailable. Some painkillers were on hand, but Cliff Kindy would have to get the 10 stitches he needed to close the gash in his head without anesthesia. Under normal circumstances, the doctor explained, they would gladly have offered to take the wounded of group by ambulance to Jordan. But, he could not make that offer in the current situation. As was obvious from the bombed out ambulance not far down the road, it appears that even ambulances are at times considered legitimate targets of American/British bombing. By the time everyone in the group had been treated, about two hours after they had arrived, the two other cars in the convoy had returned and found them. The group warmly thanked the people of Rutba for their hospitality, and tried unsuccessfully to pay the clinic and doctor for their services. "We treat everyone in our clinic: Muslim, Christian, Iraqi or American. We all are part of the same family you know," the doctor said.
Christian Peacemakers Team
Weldon Nisly, Mennonite Pastor from Seattle, WA Jonathan & Leah Wilson-Hartgrone, Philadelphia, PA Kara Speltz of Oakland, CA Betty Scholten, Mt. Rainier, MD Peggy Gish, Athens, OH CPT staff Cliff Kindy, Indiana CPT staff
Voices in the Wilderness Iraq Peace Team Michael Birmingham, Ireland Shane Claiborne, Philadelphia
Christian Peacemaker Teams is a program of Brethren, Quaker and Mennonite Churches. CPT P. O. Box 6508 Chicago, IL 60680 tel. 773-277-0253; Fax: 773-277-0291, E-Mail cpt@igc.org WEB www.prairienet.org/cpt
LA IMC has a lot of good coverage on Los Angelinos who are speaking out, both in large rallies and in local neighborhood protests! From what I've read so far, I think they might be more effective than the more talked about San Francisco protest actions.
(Bold typeface emphasis was added by me in the quote below...
. . . With attention thus deflected, the administration and its allies in Congress have come up with one proposal after another to weaken programs that were designed to help struggling Americans.
In his budget last month the president offered a plan to make it more difficult for low-income families to obtain government benefits, including tax credits and school lunch assistance. This month, as The Times' Robert Pear reported, the administration proposed changes in the Medicare program that would make it more difficult for elderly people, many of them frail, to appeal the denial of benefits like home health care and skilled nursing care.
The extent to which the most vulnerable Americans are being targeted is appalling. Billions of dollars in cuts have been proposed for food stamp and child nutrition programs, and for health care for the poor.
Collectively, these are the largest proposed cuts in history. Even cuts for veterans' programs are on the table — in the midst of a war!
The administration is actually fighting two wars — one against Iraq and another against the very idea of a humane and responsive government here at home.
At some point, hopefully sooner rather than later, the war against Iraq will end. Americans will then have the opportunity to look around and be stunned by the fix we'll be in. We'll look at the enormous costs of the postwar occupation in Iraq, and at the social and economic dislocation that's occurring here. And we'll look at the disaster that the federal budget has become. We'll be broke, and we'll ask ourselves, again and again, "What have we done
I say call Congress and ask them if they really support the troops or not. I'm sick and tired of the way we lie to those who serve our country. I've had too many friends who are veterans who have been screwed by Uncle Sam. This war is bad enough, but to CUT VETERAN'S BENEFITS during the war is crazy whack!
By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.
Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry — with close links to the Bush administration.
The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.
US attacks residential neighborhood with 2 cruise missles
NPR this morning and MSNBC are both reporting that at least 14 Iraqi civilians were killed in a residential neighborhood, with death counts likely rising.
Folks on the ground report that there were NO military or government targets nearby. Either this is a horrible mistake or the US/UK coalition is changing strategies.
From: Credit Union Journal, March 24, 2003, Vol. 7; No. 12; Pg. 6
Wrestling With A Pig; 10 Questions Every Credit Union Should Ask Itself Before Supporting The Bankruptcy Reform Bill
By Jim Blaine
Haven't heard of Chapter 2 bankruptcy? Bet you skipped on over to Chapters 7 and 13 which have all the "steamy stuff," didn't ya? Well, the newly, reintroduced Bankruptcy Reform Act is much like one of those wicked romance novels-there sure are some saucy parts that will definitely make those old toes "curl"!! Might want to back up and read "the whole book" from cover to cover, if you want to better understand "the plot."
Now that the 2003 version of the Bankruptcy Bill has been regurgitated without revision, it's pretty obvious that the credit union trade associations have chosen, once again, to disregard the facts and to favor, instead, their spin doctors and opinion pollmeisters-which often passes for thinking "inside the wasteline." (Um, maybe that should be waistline, or is it beltway?) Anyway, here are 10 questions that I suspect you'd like to understand before you cast your credit union pearl before this hoggish Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Fiasco ("BARF" for short). Remember how surprised you were with "the subsequent revelations" (and major disastrous problems) which arose from HR 1151? Well, as old Ron used to say: "Here they go again!"
Were you aware that BARF included these credit union "political victories"?
Ten Questions You Should Ask About Bankruptcy Reform
1) The new bankruptcy bill encourages the use of Chapter 13 bankruptcy in lieu of Chapter 7.
Currently, two-thirds of Chapter 13 filers do not finish these bankruptcy repayment plans. There is no apparent reason to feel the new law will improve the ratio.
In Chapter 13 filings under current bankruptcy law, unsecured creditors are rarely repaid. There is no reason to anticipate that credit union losses will improve.
Has your trade association given you an honest estimate of how much you'll "save" in loan losses? If not, why not?
2) Do credit unions truly wish to agree to mandatory debt-management plan (DMP) participation (with resultant rate reductions) dictated by consumer counseling groups? Did you know the new bankruptcy bill "encourages" this?
3) Do credit unions really think members will benefit by giving manufactured home financing companies a higher priority in bankruptcy? The new bankruptcy bill enhances mobile home dealers standing in comparison to credit unions. Do you really want this?
4) Do credit unions truly believe members will benefit by giving "used car salesmen" greater protection and priority under the new bankruptcy act? Used car dealers (your "Fast Eddie type") gain an advantage over credit unions in the new bankruptcy bill. You endorse this- right?
5) Do credit unions really feel that credit card companies should have a greater ability to collect from college students who were given numerous cards in college when the students had no income?
Credit card companies gain financial advantage over credit unions in the new bankruptcy bill. We're spending our political capital to promote this?
6) Do credit unions endorse all lending practices by all creditors? Is there any differentiation that should be made based on rate, terms, lending practices, fees, due diligence, ethics? The bankruptcy bill gives equal standing to all unsecured lenders regardless of their lending ethics. The ethical, "white hat" lenders get trashed under the new bill. You agree this is fair?
7) Do credit unions really support permitting the affluent to keep their "multi-million-dollar mansions" (if they've owned the house for 40 months)? Despite what you've heard, the bill penalizes the poor. Your credit union endorses letting the wealthy keep the estate while sending the poor to the wall?
8) Why do credit unions support eliminating "judicial discretion" in the bankruptcy process? Does "no mercy," no individual variance truly reflect real life? Are all individual cases of bankruptcy exactly the same? Is all bankruptcy unjustified and abusive? Do you really want a legal system that can't use judgment?
9) For bankruptcy repayment standards, do credit unions really support letting the IRS fix the "living standard" criteria for all members? Does "one size fits all" really make sense in evaluating the financial needs of individuals? All members have the same basic financial needs, right?
10) Many credit unions have moved to risk-based pricing on loans. In theory, risk-based lenders take greater credit risk and should expect greater credit losses. Credit union risk-based lenders charge higher rates to compensate (actually to gouge!) for the extra risk. So quit whining! You've already been "paid" for those bankruptcy losses! Or is risk-based lending a little less scientific than claimed? Are credit union managers pointing the finger at "bankruptcy abuse" to avoid acknowledging their poor lending practices?
*BONUS QUESTION*
Which group of credit union members, volunteers and professional staff has thoroughly reviewed the provisions of this bankruptcy bill? Who were they? When did they meet? As democratic cooperatives, how did the vote come out?
You ought to get a wee bit nervous if those trade folks won't give you some straight answers to these questions. Why don't you give 'em a call and ask...
Finally, about this Bankruptcy Bill (BARF), just remember what my Mama used to say about siding up with unseemly associates: "You should never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty and the pig likes it!"
Jim Blaine is CEO of State Employees Credit Union, Raleigh, N.C. Mr. Blaine can be reached at P.O. Box 27665, Raleigh, NC, 27611.
Copyright 2003 American Banker-Bond Buyer a division of Thomson Publishing Corporation
This op-ed piece is thought-provoking and alarming. While I do not think the parallels are exact, they are still uncanny. (Before jumping to conclusions on this piece, be sure to read the last few paragraphs.)
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History by Thom Hartmann February 27, 2003
The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.
It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world.
His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.
Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)
Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.
Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.
His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.
Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader. He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.
His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at our disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.
To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.
But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.
With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.
It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.
In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."
To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.
Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.
A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.
As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.
February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."
Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.
We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.
Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power "fascism (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.
Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced antitrust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.
To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.
Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached. ### (c) Copyrighted 1997-2003
Remember this war is NOT about Iraqi (or Kurdish) freedom. If it was, the US would go to the UN to demand that a peacekeeping force be sent to Northern Iraq to keep the Turks out and establish a DMZ.
Look what was the top press release on the US State Department's website: State.gov: Secretary Powell on Fox News --- It looks to me like those Austin protestors were dead on right in protesting at the Fox News office.
Today I heard that one of my favorite Austin restaurants, Rudy's is hosting a "Go America" rally, and as part of it, people who bring a bottle of French wine and pour it out on the ground will receive a free bottle of Rudy's BBQ sauce. If you'd like to call the corporate office and share your thoughts, here's the number: 512-418-0444.
CPTnet March 25, 2003 IRAQ: Letter from Peggy Gish Monday, March 24, 2003
[Note: This letter has been edited for length.]
Right now as I write this there have been two bombs exploding in the background. . .In most directions we see plumes of black smoke coming up from buildings burning.Yesterday there was a lot of black smoke from burning oil that was hard on me physically. . .
Some cars are still on the streets and we have been able to get around in taxis. Yesterday many of us went to a hospital where wounded people are being taken and were able to go into the wards and see and talk with the patients and their families: one 5 year old girl who had major spinal chord injuries from shelling, a 12 year old boy who had a large cut in his abdomen from shrapnel, and his intestines were coming out. He and 11 other members of his family were injured by shrapnel while in their home two days ago and were hospitalized. Many others were awaiting or just coming out of surgery for removing shrapnel. . .
For the last three nights I have slept out in one of two tents out at the Al Wathba water treatmentplant which is next to a large hospital complex. We could not get approval to put the tents on hospital grounds. Most of the bombing has been more distant from our camp, but a couple have sounded about one fourth or one half mile from us. There is a shelter building near our tents that we could go into if we felt we were in danger. . . .
I have been experiencing a mixture of fear, anger, but mostly grief about what is happening. There is no good reason for this assault on this society and these innocent people. I am impressed by their strength and courage and their continued openness and graciousness to us who are from countries who are bombing them.
. . .
We don't know from day to day what we will be able to do. Our "minders" have just started wanting to know where everyone is during the day, and not having us go out on the streets around the hotels unaccompanied, but we have been able to go to most of the places we have wanted to go. So far we haven't had to go [anywhere] or do anything we have not chosen and which we feel is not meaningful or useful. But our situations could change anytime. We are discussing how we would deal with these possibilities. . .
We pray that the countries of the world are still able to stop what is happening here. We continue to need your prayers for us in all this. I feel that we have been carried by God's love and strength, and your love, prayers, and support. We are very much encouraged when we hear about massive protests and arrests for [civil disobedience] all around. Much strength to all of you in the good work you are doing. Thank you so much.
I love you all very much.
Peggy
Christian Peacemaker Teams is an initiative among Mennonite and Church of the Brethren congregations and Friends Meetings that supports violence reduction efforts around the world. Contact CPT, POB 6508, Chicago, IL 60680; Telephone: 773-277-0253, Fax: 773-277-0291, tp://www.prairienet.org/cpt/
half an hour ago the oil filled trenches were put on fire. First watching Al-jazeera they said that these were the places that got hit by bombs from an air raid a few miniutes earlier bit when I went up to the roof to take a look I saw that there were too many of them, we heard only three explosions. I took pictures of the nearest. My cousine came and told me he saw police cars standing by one and setting it on fire. Now you can see the columns of smoke all over the city.
Todat the third in the war, we had quite a number of attacks during daytime. Some without air-raid sirens. They probably just gave up on being able to be on time to sound the sirens. Last night, after waves after waves of attacks, they would sound the all-clear siren only to start another raid siren 30 minutes later. The images we saw on TV last night (not Iraqi, jazeera-BBC-Arabiya) were terrible. The whole city looked as if it were on fire. The only thing I could think of was “why does this have to happen to Baghdad”. As one of the buildings I really love went up in a huge explosion I was close to tears.
today my father and brother went out to see what happening in the city, they say that it does look that the hits were very precise but when the missiles and bombs explode they wreck havoc in the neighborhood where they fall. Houses near al-salam palace(where the minister Sahaf took journalist) have had all their windows broke, doors blown in and in one case a roof has caved in. I guess that is what is called “collateral damage” and that makes it OK? We worry about daytime bombing and the next round of attacks tonight with the added extra of the smoke screen in our skies.
This might sound silly, but I think they should give Salam and Raed a Pullitzer prize for journalism if they live through this war. This is the best reporting I've heard from the ground is a whole lot better than those silly imbedded reporters who only give one side of the story.
Several things stand out in this story. First, I commend the Austin folks for targeting their protests on folks who actually have a tie to this war... The Federal Government, military contractors, and Fox News (who are the worst warmongers in the corporate media right now).
That said, I think the protestors did wrong by how they dealt with the police. If you intend to do C.D., don't get a parade permit and then break off and do something else. Don't make the cops' job harder than it needs to be. Either tell them nothing and get no permits, or tell them everything. Playing games with the cops just makes it harder for other activists to do lawful protests. Certainly some want to do C.D. and that is great. I commend you if you do it right. Other do not, but still want to speak out and protest. There's no reason to purposely antagonize the cops without reason.
Another thing in the Statesman story is at the end where it discusses what happend in San Marcos last night:
In San Marcos, about a dozen protesters descended on a City Council meeting to speak out against a proposed resolution supporting President Bush, as well as Mayor Robert Habingreither's characterization of an anti-war demonstration on the town square Thursday as "disgusting."
The meeting was temporarily halted after shouting matches erupted among the crowd and protesters balked at putting down their signs inside the council chambers.
"I'm going to hold this sign up!" Lamar Hankins, whose son-in-law is serving in Iraq, told the council. "If you want to have me arrested, have me arrested."
After a 10-minute break, Habingreither agreed to let protesters hold their signs. The council then voted unanimously to support the resolution, which also included a clause saying, "The people of San Marcos, Texas include both citizens who support a war with Iraq and citizens who seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict."
Before voting, Habingreither told the crowd he made a poor choice of words in describing the protesters last week but said he was concerned that current troops would face the same ill feeling that their Vietnam-era predecessors did.
After the council voted, a protester yelled, "You lost a lot of votes tonight."
I got agree with the San Marocs folks. Habingreither needs to go. His pseudo-apology was an insult to peace activists. I don't know ANY peace activists who would disrespect indidivual soldiers or treat them badly. This war is not the GI's fault. The war is the Administration's fault. There is a tremendous amount of anger (and even hatred to some extent) right now for the Bush and Blair administrations, and for the military top brass. But, again I have heard no one disrespect individual GI's. I myself would be very, very disappointed if that every occured.
Mayor Habingreither should know better than to say stupid things like this.
The B-2 bomber carries sixteen 2'000 lb. JDAM bombs. If all goes 100% as planned (the bomb does not fall outside of its specified margin of error of 13 meters, and the GPS guidance system is not foiled by a $50 radio jammer kit, easily purchased), then here is what one such bomb does:
* everyone within a 120 meter radius is killed;
* to be safe from serious shrapnel damage, a person must be at least 365 meters away;
* to be really safe from all effects of fragmentation, a person must be 1000 meters away, according to Admiral Stufflebeem.
The B-2s will be used upon targets within Baghdad. -Prof Marc W. Herold, IBC Project Consultant
For my American readers, remember a meter is a bit more than a yard... so, what this means is that everyone with a football field's length from ground zero is killed, and to be safe from serious shrapnel damage you would have to be almost a quarter mile away!
If they are dropping these kinds of bombs in Baghdad, then I think the civilian casualty counts thus far reported are far less than the truth.
I was extremely disturbed to find this appalling email message in my box today from the "AustinforJesus" listserve. Once upon a time, the AFJ list was a worthwhile ecunemical listserve (created after several special ecunemical worship gatherings in Austin in 2000) but lately has gone to Wackyland. Daniel Geraci, the listserve operator started by first posting a bunch of things that had a right-wing political perspective. I complained to him about this and asked to be removed from the list but was not (probably an honest mistake on his part, I think I had changed email addresses and may not have given him the right one.)
Anyway, fast foward to today's message. The author (who I assume is a Messianic Jew by her spelling of "G-d")claims that God told her to pray for the troops in Northern Iraq because they will be facing incredible dangers there and some kind of trickery. She goes on to encourage her readers to not only pray for the safety of American & British troops (which I whole-heartedly agree with) but forgets to encourage her readers to pray for the safety of the Iraqi people, particularly the civilian population. (I guess they don't count.)
From there she then proceeds to encourage folks to:
Pray that Israel and America will embrace a solid steadfast alliance with each other as true friends and allies, and that American administrations will only APPEAR to be wanting to implement the "road map", yet put so many obstacles in the way so that it won't ever be implemented by the United States.
Is she smoking crack? Does she read the same Bible that I read?
I am aghast that she actually is praying that there would not be peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.
I am disturbed beyond belief by this. I cannot believe that someone who claims to be a follower of Christ would say such a hateful awful thing.
I read a compelling blog post at Letters from the Little Girl Inside. In this post she talks about her longing for her beloved who is in the service in the war in in Iraq. It is so, so sad to read.
She also said something else that got me thinking...
the thing that really pisses me off about this war is the protesters... i mean, f*CK! do you really think protesting and wasting our tax money on gettin your *sses arrested by cops we finance will help? is that really going to stop the war? you want to be heard? go write a f*cking book! write an editorial for a newspaper, for goddsakes! dont cause drama for your mama on the damn streets and waste people's time trying to stop you... its not accompishing anything but even making it worse... its not bringing the troops back... its not going to make this war end sooner... its not going to ease the sleep of the families and loved ones that are out there fighting for bush's stupid cause... yeah, i dont agree on the war either... i think its stupid... but do i go parading the streets trying to show off? NO! i mean, i want the war to stop... i didnt even want it to start in the first place... who does? i want chuckie to come home... i want everyone in the military to be able to go back to where they belong- which is here... i want a whole lot of things... but the whole protesting thing is just giving us another war to fight in our very own backyard...
Reading this makes me wonder if she is right. I've talked to several people these last few days who are really turned off by the confrontational protests in San Francisco and other places. Yet, at the same time it doesn't seem right to be silent either.
If you don't believe in the war, to me it is complicity to not speak out. At the same time, is it counterproductive to speak out if it just pisses people off?
I don't know.
I do know this. I think the civil disobedience actions of some protestors right now are backfiring bigtime. Maybe if the protests were better planned (with participants who were truly committed to non-violent methods... you can't protest for peace and at the same time attack or insult the cops) it would be different. As it is right now, I think peace activists would be better served by seeking as much as possible to protest through legal and peaceful means. If there is a time for C.D. actions, then you need to do it right. Focus it on military interests. Don't shut down the streets of San Francisco. If you want to do something that will help things, do a sit-in at a military recruiting office. That would be worthwhile because it would be focused on the problem at hand. Street shutodwns and the like are not focused and tend to hurt the people who have nothing to do with this stupid war (poor folks driving to work for instance).
One last thing which is also from the blog I quoted above. This line is priceless...
fighting for peace is like f*****g for virginity
So true. I think it's time for all peace activists to start acting like PEACE activists.
AlJazeera.net: Photographs of American dead and P.O.W.s (WARNING: These pictures are extremely disturbing. --- This link is provided to remind us of the true cost of war and is NOT intended to any way cheapen the values of these men's lives. They died (or are held captive) because they were doing what they believed in. They deserve the highest measure of respect and honor for their commitment. It is not the soldier's fault for the horrors of this war. I respect the soldiers 100%.
But, at the same time I do mean disrespect to those who sent them there. I don't think the administration took this risk seriously enough (especially since Bush thinks right is an A-OK time for him to vacation at Camp David.). I think the administration and the top military brass bear part of the blame for their deaths/captures.
I shudder to think that the coalition forces haven't even reach Baghdad.
Mother Jones: Words of War --- Unsure how to support the Bush administration at this critical juncture? Now, you can strike a blow against our enemies by simply reworking your vocabulary.
"When about two dozen anti-war protestors descended on the square Thursday, waving signs and changing, not everyone was pleased tos ee them. Eating lunch in a restaurant across the street, San Marcos Mayor Robert Habingreither called the protestors an unappetizing sight.
"I'm disappointed we don't have unamimous support in this country for this president," he said. "It's disgusting to me."
It looks to me that it is time for San Marcos votes to boot Habingreither from office. From recent reports I've read from the community, I am "disgusted" by Mayor Habingreither's lack of respect for free speech and free thought.
Al Jazeera.net: Photographs of civilians killed in the war (WARNING: Extremely disturbing images are found on this link.) --- I hestitate to post these images as I do not want to cheapen the lives (and deaths) of these people, but at the same time I think some of the callous folks I've spoken to lately about this war need to see with their own eyes the horrible cost of it, both for Iraqis and Americans.
The Coalition of the "Willing" (or more likely the bribed)
Here is the list (posted on okgreens@yahoogroups.com recently, and was supposed to be derived from an American Forces Press Service report - list current as of March 19th) of the 30 countries that asked to be publicly identified. (Supposedly there are now more but the others supposedly want to be anonymous.)
Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom
North Africa:
Eriterea, Ethiopia
Here are some interesting phenomenea in this scenario...
1. Only 3 countries in Latin America support this war. Each of those countries have substantial histories of prior American meddling (and sometimes outright forced changes of governments.) Currently Columbia in particular is the recepient of massive amounts of military aid, and will likely be the location of America's next war.
2. Substantial support for the war is found in Eastern Europe and in former soviet republics in central Asia, most likely due to an aversion to supporting Russian policy and also out of a desire for future American aid.
3. There is NO support for the war in Subsaharan Africa, and in fact the only African support is from two warring countries (Ethiopia and Eriterea) who are likely vying for American support of their side in thir war.
4. There are no majority Islamic nations that are giving public support to this war. (but certainly Kuwait and Qatar are obvious supporters.)
5. Generally there is little support for this war from the Southern Hemisphere (only Australia, Columbia, Eritera, and Ethiopia).
6. There is no support for this war in the world's two most populous countries: China and India.
7. Western European support is spotty at best. The only country actually willing to back up their war position with troops is the UK.
(from an email forward, supposedly derived from a New Hampshire Gazette story)
*President George W. Bush - a comfortable slot near home in the Texas Air National Guard, engineered by Dad. Dubya was also "missing" for an entire year from his Alabama duty station - AWOL - a news story not covered by the media.
*Vice President Dick Cheney - no military service.
*Defense Secretary. Don Rumsfeld - no military service.
*Chief Pentagon hawks Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz - no military service.
*Grand Inquisitor Attorney General John Ashcroft - no military service.
*Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott - no military service.
Neo-Conservative media figures baying for war against Iraq: Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Bill Reilly, George Will, Ken Adelman .... - no known military service during Vietnam.
The only senior member of the Bush Administration with an honorable military record appears to be General Colin Powell, and he was least of all in favor of the Iraqi war.
Reuters has released a photo of the American soldiers who were killed by Iraqi forces yesterday. I can't say that I recommend you view them. It is a horrible horrible sight to see your fellow Americans killed like this. I know that war is hell and that the cost of it is always death and injury, but still to see these images is such a haunting horrible thing.
I want to see the troops brought home now, brought back to their families, to their wives and husbands and children, their parents and grandparents, their friends and their lovers. These soldiers did not deserve to be treated like this, to die in such awful fashion.
about/contact
JMBzine.com is a free and independent media outlet protected by the
Bill of Rights, First Amendment.
Unless otherwise noted, JMBzine.com content is (c)2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995 J.M.B.
US Newsmedia
UK Newsmedia
