(no subject)
Mar. 24th, 2003 10:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
taratemimaI've been reading too much about the news. After a while, after all the reading, all the cut and pasting, all the typing, it sounds way too incoherant. Meanwhile, even though I am tired, I am up, writing this, originally was planning research. I get so easily distracted and I am not sure. My passion is for this: hopping from link to link, finding connections. It's not for filling out forms and forms, although they are connected to a name, a medicial history, a need. It doesn't mean I can keep my eyes open.
Yet, I can't find a job like what I do too late into the night. I don't know how.
An action adventure story about Iraqis hiding from bombings and fighting against the Republican Guard.
For what? Maybe this?
BOMBING THE CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION
A Clueless Pentagon; An Irresponsible eBay
In today's Philadelphia Inquirer there is a fascinating article about the risks the U.S. war on Iraq holds for that country's treasure trove of antiquities. In "Treasures in Peril," reporter Faye Flam outlines the country's long and rich history, and provides the reader with a clear and alarming delineation of just what is at risk, going deep underground beyond the obvious at-risk sites such as museums and mosques.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/magazine/daily/5466406.htm
The U.S. on Sunday, March 23, complained that Russia has not adequately dealt with its concerns about arms sales to Iraq by Russian firms which it said threatened the safety of U.S., British and Australian troops now invading Baghdad, adding that Russian technicians are helping Iraq jam satellite signals that currently guide bombs and military aircraft.
http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=3455
Quaker scholar, Gerald Bullett:
"All that is said and written about God reveals to us, not God, but only, for good or ill, the minds and hearts of men. By their gods ye shall know them."
More on perception and the question of protesting despots *as opposed to wanna-be despots*
http://stoller.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_stoller_archive.html#91286307
Reminds me alot of researching some stories.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3910/holocaust_museum_cashier.html
Jesse from Pandagon sez "Does anyone else find it ironic that warbloggers don't seem to recognize basic facts about war, such as if you send a heavily armed force up against another heavily armed force, they will likely shoot at each other, and people will die?
If Saddam is the brutal, murdering tyrant that we know he is, and he has weapons, and you're attacking him, the blatantly obvious result would be that he would use his weapons against those who are attacking him.
But, then again, that's just me, and I'm just paying attention."
I think they were used to hearing about joyful surrenders and greetings (although apparently some have made rude gestures to the soliders after leaving).
Someone else sez about military casualities: "In fact, history has shown Americans to be perfectly willing to accept [miltary] casualties in wars they believe to be just (e.g. WWII, where high casualties did not lead to a major anti-war movement). What Americans do not accept are unnecessary casualties, which includes any casualties in an unnecessary war. The administration is scared of casualties because it knows that however broad support for the war, it is an inch deep, and as soon as there are casualties, the weakness of support for the war will be exposed. This wouldn't be the case if Bush had convinced the American people of the need for a war. It's not the anti-war movement's fault that Saddam is using any and all tactics to increase U.S. casualties, it's Bush's for getting into a war without having a reason for it (at least not one he could tell the public).
Of course, as someone pointed out yesterday, America gained its independence through not dissimilar tactics. The British didn't lose the Revolutionary War militarily. They lost it because the British public stopped supporting it."
Oh and civilian deaths. I don't think the administration sets out intending to do that (if only because it's just bad publicity), but I do believe in watching closely. I suspect bombs aren't as smart as we think they are, and the administration would rather we switch our empathy on and off.
POW treatment--I hope it is what some people say and those wounds are from battle and not execution. "God, the newspeople keep repeating that line now - how horrible Iraq is for violating the Geneva Convention, as their own news bureaus were doing it last night." Someone on LJ said, 'why is the us the only ones that treats our POWs right?' I bit back a snark of "We call the people we really dislike 'enemy combantants' and ship them off to countries that allow torture. People we call POWs, yeah, we do treat them right, but it is all a matter of name." Maybe it is inaccurate. I was never a good debater.
"this administration citing the geneva convention is just like bush calling for the iraqi leadership to be tried for war crimes, as his administration refuses to recognize the international court that logically would handle such cases.
or like going to war in iraq to enforce security council resolutions even if it means going against the security council to do it. "
"Consider the start of this campaign. The air campaign wasn't supposed to start 90 minutes after the deadline. The ground units weren't scheduled to invade for at least 48 hours later. But smirk and his handlers ordered the bombing as the clock was winding down."
The media ain't so much conservative or liberal, but condescending and wimpy.
http://www.freep.com/sports/albom/mitch23_20030323.htm
One thing I was afraid of:
Lisa at ruminatethis.com points out, correctly, that this chemical plant discovery is from the same administration that "lied about those falsified Niger documents, the same administration that spied on UN Security Council members, and the same administration that relied on the plagiarized 12-year old thesis (belonging to some very surprised graduated student) as evidence of Iraqi non-compliance. And that's only American foul play from the last several weeks."
http://www.ruminatethis.com/archives/001060.html
Plus, the UPI via Moonie Times report, ""There is a predominant belief in the intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq will cause more terrorism than it will prevent. There is also a tremendous amount of embarrassment by intelligence professionals that there have been so many lies out of the administration -- by the president, (Vice President Dick) Cheney and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell -- over Iraq."
Usually, when something with obvious bias reports something that might interfere with them, it's true.
It is weird that I don't argue with people I am acquainted with. Soferet introduced me to some couple she knows, and the war came up. "yeah, the iraqis fighting with
german tanks and russian guns . . ." And American chemical weapons not found by the UN because the administration would not tell them where, god forbid, I add silently. I didn't. Maybe I should have.
Someone suggested the hypothetical (please let it be) plant might have a Union Carbide logo.
Or maybe it was known 12 or so years ago, according to Buzzflash.
Here's what Fox News says about the chemcial weapons plant, "U.S. Central Command said in a statement that troops were examining "sites of interest," but did not elaborate. The statement said reports describing the discovery as a chemical weapons factory were "premature."
Usually, when something with obvious bias etc.
I hope so. Then again, the administration may not be all that interested in finding weapons . . .shit.
To look at
www.newamericancentury.org (What I mean by cracked-out neo-cons) and an article about it.
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/ (Is it real? Is it not? It's interesting, however)
National Review Online
February 22, 2002
The Theology's the Thing
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-donnelly022002.shtml
Salon.com
February 19, 2002
"The Muslim Martin Luther?" an interview with Tariq Ramadan http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2002/02/15/ramadan/index.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-6047-617596,00.html
Speech that I like, may use as inspiration for some characters
I suspect![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
atalanta will be amused. Or not
"al-jazeera is referred to as the "arab cnn"
finish your drink if cnn is referred to as the "american al-jazeera"
http://www.gulfwardrinkinggame.com/
Someone talked about Purim and the announcement of war. Funny thing, I was reminded of questions of what just war is when I read the aftermath of the Jewish citizens of Persia defending themselves against people ordered by Haman to kill them. Esther said honestly what they were up against, the king authorized them to kill women and children as well as men, and to conficate whatever property groups have. The deaths afterwards, however, were men only and no property was taken.
Yet, I can't find a job like what I do too late into the night. I don't know how.
An action adventure story about Iraqis hiding from bombings and fighting against the Republican Guard.
For what? Maybe this?
BOMBING THE CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION
A Clueless Pentagon; An Irresponsible eBay
In today's Philadelphia Inquirer there is a fascinating article about the risks the U.S. war on Iraq holds for that country's treasure trove of antiquities. In "Treasures in Peril," reporter Faye Flam outlines the country's long and rich history, and provides the reader with a clear and alarming delineation of just what is at risk, going deep underground beyond the obvious at-risk sites such as museums and mosques.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/magazine/daily/5466406.htm
The U.S. on Sunday, March 23, complained that Russia has not adequately dealt with its concerns about arms sales to Iraq by Russian firms which it said threatened the safety of U.S., British and Australian troops now invading Baghdad, adding that Russian technicians are helping Iraq jam satellite signals that currently guide bombs and military aircraft.
http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=3455
Quaker scholar, Gerald Bullett:
"All that is said and written about God reveals to us, not God, but only, for good or ill, the minds and hearts of men. By their gods ye shall know them."
More on perception and the question of protesting despots *as opposed to wanna-be despots*
http://stoller.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_stoller_archive.html#91286307
Reminds me alot of researching some stories.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3910/holocaust_museum_cashier.html
Jesse from Pandagon sez "Does anyone else find it ironic that warbloggers don't seem to recognize basic facts about war, such as if you send a heavily armed force up against another heavily armed force, they will likely shoot at each other, and people will die?
If Saddam is the brutal, murdering tyrant that we know he is, and he has weapons, and you're attacking him, the blatantly obvious result would be that he would use his weapons against those who are attacking him.
But, then again, that's just me, and I'm just paying attention."
I think they were used to hearing about joyful surrenders and greetings (although apparently some have made rude gestures to the soliders after leaving).
Someone else sez about military casualities: "In fact, history has shown Americans to be perfectly willing to accept [miltary] casualties in wars they believe to be just (e.g. WWII, where high casualties did not lead to a major anti-war movement). What Americans do not accept are unnecessary casualties, which includes any casualties in an unnecessary war. The administration is scared of casualties because it knows that however broad support for the war, it is an inch deep, and as soon as there are casualties, the weakness of support for the war will be exposed. This wouldn't be the case if Bush had convinced the American people of the need for a war. It's not the anti-war movement's fault that Saddam is using any and all tactics to increase U.S. casualties, it's Bush's for getting into a war without having a reason for it (at least not one he could tell the public).
Of course, as someone pointed out yesterday, America gained its independence through not dissimilar tactics. The British didn't lose the Revolutionary War militarily. They lost it because the British public stopped supporting it."
Oh and civilian deaths. I don't think the administration sets out intending to do that (if only because it's just bad publicity), but I do believe in watching closely. I suspect bombs aren't as smart as we think they are, and the administration would rather we switch our empathy on and off.
POW treatment--I hope it is what some people say and those wounds are from battle and not execution. "God, the newspeople keep repeating that line now - how horrible Iraq is for violating the Geneva Convention, as their own news bureaus were doing it last night." Someone on LJ said, 'why is the us the only ones that treats our POWs right?' I bit back a snark of "We call the people we really dislike 'enemy combantants' and ship them off to countries that allow torture. People we call POWs, yeah, we do treat them right, but it is all a matter of name." Maybe it is inaccurate. I was never a good debater.
"this administration citing the geneva convention is just like bush calling for the iraqi leadership to be tried for war crimes, as his administration refuses to recognize the international court that logically would handle such cases.
or like going to war in iraq to enforce security council resolutions even if it means going against the security council to do it. "
"Consider the start of this campaign. The air campaign wasn't supposed to start 90 minutes after the deadline. The ground units weren't scheduled to invade for at least 48 hours later. But smirk and his handlers ordered the bombing as the clock was winding down."
The media ain't so much conservative or liberal, but condescending and wimpy.
http://www.freep.com/sports/albom/mitch23_20030323.htm
One thing I was afraid of:
Lisa at ruminatethis.com points out, correctly, that this chemical plant discovery is from the same administration that "lied about those falsified Niger documents, the same administration that spied on UN Security Council members, and the same administration that relied on the plagiarized 12-year old thesis (belonging to some very surprised graduated student) as evidence of Iraqi non-compliance. And that's only American foul play from the last several weeks."
http://www.ruminatethis.com/archives/001060.html
Plus, the UPI via Moonie Times report, ""There is a predominant belief in the intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq will cause more terrorism than it will prevent. There is also a tremendous amount of embarrassment by intelligence professionals that there have been so many lies out of the administration -- by the president, (Vice President Dick) Cheney and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell -- over Iraq."
Usually, when something with obvious bias reports something that might interfere with them, it's true.
It is weird that I don't argue with people I am acquainted with. Soferet introduced me to some couple she knows, and the war came up. "yeah, the iraqis fighting with
german tanks and russian guns . . ." And American chemical weapons not found by the UN because the administration would not tell them where, god forbid, I add silently. I didn't. Maybe I should have.
Someone suggested the hypothetical (please let it be) plant might have a Union Carbide logo.
Or maybe it was known 12 or so years ago, according to Buzzflash.
Here's what Fox News says about the chemcial weapons plant, "U.S. Central Command said in a statement that troops were examining "sites of interest," but did not elaborate. The statement said reports describing the discovery as a chemical weapons factory were "premature."
Usually, when something with obvious bias etc.
I hope so. Then again, the administration may not be all that interested in finding weapons . . .shit.
To look at
www.newamericancentury.org (What I mean by cracked-out neo-cons) and an article about it.
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/ (Is it real? Is it not? It's interesting, however)
National Review Online
February 22, 2002
The Theology's the Thing
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-donnelly022002.shtml
Salon.com
February 19, 2002
"The Muslim Martin Luther?" an interview with Tariq Ramadan http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2002/02/15/ramadan/index.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-6047-617596,00.html
Speech that I like, may use as inspiration for some characters
I suspect
atalanta will be amused. Or not"al-jazeera is referred to as the "arab cnn"
finish your drink if cnn is referred to as the "american al-jazeera"
http://www.gulfwardrinkinggame.com/
Someone talked about Purim and the announcement of war. Funny thing, I was reminded of questions of what just war is when I read the aftermath of the Jewish citizens of Persia defending themselves against people ordered by Haman to kill them. Esther said honestly what they were up against, the king authorized them to kill women and children as well as men, and to conficate whatever property groups have. The deaths afterwards, however, were men only and no property was taken.
