Dear Mr. Bourbaki,

Heil Dubya!

You act as if the fascist rulers of the U. S. A. were reasonable humans who
cared "one whit" about other United Statesians. (Apparently, you don't agree
with me that they planned and saw to the execution of the attacks on the Twin
Towers and the Pentagon, of 11 september 2001. I won't even bother to try to
convince you, except to point out that the rulers of the U. S. A. are notorious
for "EXPERIMENTING" ON THEIR OWN CITIZENS -- noxious gasses in the New York
subway system and A-Bomb "experiments" within radiation and shock wave distance
of U. S. soldiers are common knowledge.) With the historical record of
indifference to human life, by the rulers of the U. S. A. -- both current and
past -- with the IMMEDIATE spate of propaganda emitted by the U. S. rulers
almost before the Twin Towers collapsed, and with Hemlock Sholme's (wasn't that
his name?) admonition that the most likely explanation usually is the correct
explanation, my first thought on 11 September 2001, after hearing the
accusations against El (Al) Qaeda (Qaida) -- whatever the "news organizations's
name for that CREATION OF THE U. S. A. -- was, "Who gains most from these
attacks?" Of course, my second thought was, "The rulers of the U. S. A."
Ergo, my third thought SHOULD HAVE BEEN, "Was this Kristalnacht (the beginning
of the active wars of genocide against the Jews -- peoples of the East of the
Arab World) -- or the date of the Reichstag fire (the excuse for
Reichchancellor -- Dubya -- to be handed over the "legal" powers of a fascist
state by von Hindenburg -- the U. S. Congress)?" Unfortunately, I was not that
poetic. So I merely thought, "It's begun. I hope I and mine live through it."

I did not have a fourth thought. However, when the U. S. invaded Iraq, I
started asking, "Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht?" because I had seen the
genocide in Afghanistan and was witnessing the genocide in Iraq. Happily,
Larry Parr, a former -- and, possibly, future -- political antagonist, sent me
email, suggesting that the Reichstag fire was a better analogy, for my
purposes. I thank him for the idea and, as you know, have incorporated it into
my usual closing.

Thus, I do not believe that your "pragmatic argument" holds water, as it were.
If the rulers of the Uited States experiment on their own citizens with noxious
gases and thermonuclear weapons, if they murder 2,000+ innocents so that they
can invade the East of the Arab World and strengthen the fascist "legality" of
their governmental apparatus, NO thoughts of the comfort and/or safety of their
"citizen-soldiers" will curtail their murder and torture of "enemy soldiers" OR
civilians.

(Jerome Bibuld) wrote in
message ...
I have a son and a former friend (former stepson) who were around the
"Twin Towers" on 11 September 2001. The son actually worked in one of
the buildings. However, his daily routine may have saved his life.
(snipped)
I wonder about others directly or "nearly" directly involved. The assholes
who scream for blood -- aside from the official and unofficial members of
government -- may merely be what Larry Parr calls "gutter patriots" and
"TV peasants".

Dear Mr. Bibuld,

Shortly after the tragic events of 11 September 2001, I took part in an
informal discussion with several visiting university students of Arab
heritage.
Every one of them condemned the attacks with evident sincerity; every one of
them took pains to emphasise that the attackers, if they all were supposed to
be Muslims, did not represent their views on how a good Muslim should act.

At one point, our discussion went like this:

A: Do you know what's most amazing about all that's happened lately?
B: What do you think?
A: Today, the United States suddenly has gained the private sympathies,
if not the public support, of nearly the whole world.
B: Yes, and the Americans did nothing on their own to deserve it.
I: I can understand what you mean. If the United States's foreign and
military
policies were very bad on 10 September 2001, then--without changing--how
could they have suddenly become very good on 12 September 2001?
C: I am afraid that the Americans are obsessed with pursuing revenge now, and
they will not be content until they have killed at least thousands of our
people, whether or not they had any responsibilities for what happened.
The Americans will not feel any better until they have enough bloodshed.
A: I am afraid that you are right. How long will it be before the Americans
lose the sympathies of nearly the whole world?
B: God knows, but it will happen.
C: And perhaps much sooner than you (I) might think.
I: I would hardly be surprised by that.

There are legal, moral, and pragmatic reasons for the United States to treat
its "detainees" at Guantanamo more humanely than it evidently has been doing.
As too many Americans might not respect any legal or moral arguments for more
humane treatment there, I have emphasised only the pragmatic argument: The
more
humane treatment of "detainees" at Guantanamo could encourage the more humane

treatment of American prisoners-of-war or hostages in the future.

'And the intensest form of hatred is that rooted in fear, which compels to
silence and drives vehemence into a constructive vindictiveness, an imaginary
annihilation of the detested object, something like the hidden rites of
vengeance with which the persecuted have made a dark vent for their rage,
and soothed their suffering into dumbness.'
--George Eliot (Daniel Deronda)

--Nick


Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Moregen die ganze Welt!

UIhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

"Jerome Bibuld" wrote in message
...

SNIP

While I currently am participating (civilly) in an email tournament game
with a
person whose address is ", he gets the respect of an email
chess
opponent ONLY. When he leaves the U. S. Army -- for whatever reason -- he
deserves the respect of a decent human being.

And Jerry wonders why people (especially Armed Forces Servicemembers, like
me) can't communicate with him in a civil manner. He shoots off at the
mouth all day talking about the despicable prejudice African Americans are
subject to, and then turns around and says that someone with a *.mil email
account doesn't deserve the respect of a decent human being. What an
amazing contradiction.

You certainly are a piece of work, old man.

MN

Mercenary Murderer Nemmers,

Heil Dubya!

Firstly, I do not wonder -- nor care in the least -- why you or any other
mercenary murder "can't communicate with ... (me) ... in a civil manner",
except that you or another mercenary murderer may be in a position to murder me
or "mine".

Secondly, you'll never learn, but for others who might wish to learn, I do not
use the term, "African-American", except in quotation marks. I -- and others,
with whom I am in agreement in considering the oppresion of Afro-America by the
United States national, rather than racial -- prefer the pro-nationalist word,
"Afro-American".

Thirdly, I implied that those with a *.U. S. MILITARY email account don't
deserve the respect of decent human beings. Members of other military
institutions should be judged by the same standards, depending on whether they
volunteered or were impressed and on the danger they represent to any part of
the rest of the human species.

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Not fraternally in the least,

MR. Bibuld to you, Murderer

"Jerome Bibuld" wrote in message
...
Mercenary Murderer Nemmers,

Heil Dubya!

Firstly, I do not wonder -- nor care in the least -- why you or any other
mercenary murder "can't communicate with ... (me) ... in a civil manner",
except that you or another mercenary murderer may be in a position to
murder me
or "mine".

Yep, you're right, Jerry. That's absolutely true. The United States Navy
murders people. Yep. Especially Americans. Sometimes we even eat them.
Tastes like chicken. Messes up the galley something awful though.

And although I've never killed anyone personally, I have read a few
obituaries with pleasure. I imagine I'll be reading another one in a few
more years.....

Secondly, you'll never learn, but for others who might wish to learn, I do
not
use the term, "African-American", except in quotation marks. I -- and
others,
with whom I am in agreement in considering the oppresion of Afro-America
by the
United States national, rather than racial -- prefer the pro-nationalist
word,
"Afro-American".

Oh, is that what black people want to be called now? "Afro-Americans?" I
had no idea. I'll have to write that down for future reference. I seem to
be behind the power-curve with the politically correct vocabulary.

Thirdly, I implied that those with a *.U. S. MILITARY email account don't
deserve the respect of decent human beings. Members of other military
institutions should be judged by the same standards, depending on whether
they
volunteered or were impressed and on the danger they represent to any part
of
the rest of the human species.

So what the hell do you think a *.mil email account means, Jerry? Anyone
with a *.mil email address has some affiliation with the U.S. Department of
Defense. They might be civilians or they might be in uniform, but either
way, they're working for the government that you seem to think is "out to
get you."

I don't give a rat's ass what you call me, Jerry, and I wouldn't **** on you
if you were on fire. I'll tell you this though: I pity whomever actually
listens to your deranged "arguments" about the U.S. military/government and
lends a shred of credibility to your exceptionally paranoid conspiracy
theories.

Jesus, Jerry. I'd say "grow up," but you're almost dead so I guess it
really doesn't matter anyway.

MN

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:rk%bb.561155$uu5.92663@sccrnsc04...
"Jerome Bibuld" wrote in message
...
Dear Mr. Bourbaki,
Why grant asshole (enlistee in Uncle Samuel's murderous armed forces) his
lies? We can't settle such a wager -- because that would be in the control
of the most vicious anti-human government in the history of the human
species -- BUT I'm willing to bet that NONE of the victims of the U. S. A.
currently being held prisoner ar Guantanamo is a "terrorist" in the meaning
of the word PUBLICY assigned by Dubya, Nemmers and their ilk.
(Incidentally, Nemmers either lies or is ignorant when he says, "These
people come over here to help destroy our country ... " They were
KIDNAPPED (by REAL TERRORISTS) and transported to Guantanamo, AT THE VERY
LEAST, in contravention of the Geneva conventions concerning treatment of
prisoners of war.

Any discussion with asshole Nemmers is a waste of time, although, I admit,
its lies and stupidly parroted MISinformation should be countered. Of
course you are an adult and should (will, I know) make your own choices
of disputants.

Hahaha!! "....lies and stupidly parroted MISinformation should be
countered." This is exactly why I speak up when Ol' Jerry spews his
conspiracy theories on this forum. His latest is that 9/11 was planned,
prepared, and executed by the United States Government. Good one, Jer.

Dear Mr. Nemmers:

Jerome Bibuld's hypothesis about the true cause(s) of the attacks of
11 September 2001 has not yet been supported by nearly enough evidence
to convince me that it's a plausible explanation to consider.

Call me what you want, but I don't buy into the kind of ideology that
Ol' Jerry does.

I already have expressed my differences with some of Mr. Bibuld's evident
political and historical beliefs.

He's certainly entitled to his opinion (however ridiculous it may seem) that
the government and her supporters are guilty until proven innocent, while
suspected terrorists should have the benefit of the doubt

The significant term is "suspected". As far as I know, a few "detainees" at
at Guantanamo may already have been permitted to go home because they were
able to prove their innocence conclusively. Some other "detainees" might well
be innocent persons ("in the wrong place at the wrong time") who simply were
caught up in the sweeping round-up of "suspected terrorists". When those
former "detainees" have returned home, what might they say about how well
"American justice" has treated them?

(and probably, a red carpet rolled out for them while they dine on caviar
and Dom Perignon), but that line of bull**** is just too big and lumpy for
me to let slide, let alone swallow.

As far as I know, there has been no mention of "caviar and Dom Perignon".
My modest proposal is that the United States should respect the international
law and conventions about the humane treatment of prisoners, which could be
monitored by an independent observer such as the International Red Cross.
I hope that if the United States were to treat its prisoners more humanely,
then that practice could encourage the more humane treatment of American
prisoners-of-war and hostages in the future.

Ol' Jerry's a thinker, to be sure, but his mind is too far gone to be swayed
by facts and logical thinking. Age is doing its damage and time is having
her way with him, so I never expect anything of real substance to fall out
of his mouth when it comes to politics other than that of chess. And I
don't suspect his neurons will resume firing long enough for him to realize
the error of his ways before he passes on to the Great Beyond, but in the
meantime he certainly does serve as interesting entertainment.

Although sometimes I have expressed my differences with both Mr. Bibuld's
views and yours, I still think rather more highly of each of you than he
and you seem to think of each other.

You may not agree with my stance on these issues, Nick, but I certainly hope
you're not deluded enough to agree with Ol' Jerry's take on them. I believe
you're an intelligent individual and I respect your opinions, but we're just
going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

'A true patriot will lament the necessity of war.'
--Francis Gentlemen (A Trip to the Moon)

In the thread, "Getting Messy" (24 March 2003), Jerome Bibuld wrote to you:
"I was in Uncle Samuel's armed forces, on active duty, for three years,
three weeks, and five days. When I enlisted, in 1944, I thought I was going
to fight against fascism and, thus, serve my country....There are those who
think I have served my country, but I'm sure Herr Haas and you would disagree
with them. I would rather be known as having served humankind than the U.S.A."

I vow to thee, my country,
All earthly things above,
Entire and whole and perfect,
The service of my love:
The love that asks no question,
The love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar
The dearest and the best;
The love that never falters,
The love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted
The final sacrifice.

And there's another country,
I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her,
Most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies.
We may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart,
Her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently
Her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness
And all her paths are peace.

--Cecil Spring-Rice (1918, 'I Vow to Thee, My Country')

--Nick

While I currently am participating (civilly) in an email tournament
game
with a
person whose address is ", he gets the respect of an email
chess
opponent ONLY. When he leaves the U. S. Army -- for whatever reason --
he
deserves the respect of a decent human being.

Should he be using this government-furnished email address for recreational
use?

ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in
message ...
Thanks for the leads to valuable information and opinion.
It certainly is good to know that many in both the United States and
the United Kingdom object to our invasions of the East of the Arab World.

Dear Mr. Bibuld,

My impression is that the British people tend to be less blindly trusting of
the United Kingdom's government than the American people have been of the
United States's government with regard to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Here are links to some related articles:

"Dreamers and Idiots: Britain and the US did everything to avoid a
peaceful solution in Iraq and Afghanistan" by George Monbiot in
'The Guardian' (11 November 2003):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...082250,00.html

"So those of us who called for peace before the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan
were mocked as effeminate dreamers....But, as many of us suspected at the time,
we were lied to. Most of the lies are now familiar: there appear to have been
no weapons of mass destruction and no evidence to suggest that, as President
Bush claimed in March, Saddam had 'trained and financed...al-Qaida'. Bush and
Blair, as their courtship of the president of Uzbekistan reveals, appear to
possess no genuine concern for the human rights of foreigners.

But a further, and even graver, set of lies is only now beginning come to light.
Even if all the claims Bush and Blair made about their enemies and their motives
had been true, and all their objectives had been legal and just, there may still
have been no need to go to war. For, as we discovered last week, Saddam proposed
to give Bush and Blair almost everything they wanted before a shot was fired.
Our governments appear both to have withheld this information from the public
and to have lied to us about the possibilities for diplomacy....

None of this matters to the enthusiasts for war. That these conflicts were
unjust and illegal, that they killed or maimed tens of thousands of civilians,
is irrelevant as long as their aims were met."

--George Monbiot (11 November 2003)

"Resistance is the First Step towards Iraqi Independence" by Tariq Ali in
'The Guardian' (3 November 2003):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...076480,00.html

"At least the Pentagon understands that the resistance in Iraq is following
a familiar anti-colonial pattern. In the movie ('The Battle of Algiers'),
they would have seen acts carried out by the Algerian maquis almost half a
century ago, which could have been filmed in Fallujah of Baghdad last week.
Then, as now, the occupying power described all such activities as 'terrorist'.
....
Even under the best of circumstances, an occupied Iraq would become an oligarchy
of crony capitalism, the new cosmopolitanism of Bechtel and Halliburton.
It is the combination of all this that fuels the resistance and encourages many
young men to fight. Few are prepared to betray those who are fighting. This
is crucially important, because without the tacit support of the population,
a sustained resistance is virtually impossible....

Even the bien pensants who opposed the war but support the occupation and
denounce the resistance know that without it they would have been confronted
with a triumphalist chorus from the warmongers. Most important, the disaster
in Iraq has indefinitely delayed further adventures in Iran and Syria....

Most Iraqis see the occupation armies as the real 'foreign terrorists'. Why?
Because once you occupy a country, you have to behave in a colonial fashion....
Where there is resistance, as in Iraq, the only model on offer is a mixture
of Gaza and Guantanamo."

--Tariq Ali (3 November 2003)

"Spoils of War: US plans to sell off Iraqi businesses are simply the modern
equivalent of pillage" by Brian Whitaker in 'The Guardian' (13 October 2003):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/...062049,00.html

"We leave the pillaging to men in suits, and we don't call it pillaging any
more. We call it economic development....

His (Paul Bremer's) order 39 is also, almost certainly, *illegal*. The Hague
regulations of 1907 spell out the obligations of an occupying power under
international law....Mr. Bremer, therefore, appears to have no right to sell
off nationalised industries....

The prevailing view in Washington was set out with astonishing bluntness four
years ago by John Bolton, now chief hawk at the State Department, when he said:
'It is a big mistake for us (the United States) to grant any validity to
international law, even when it might seem in our short-term interest to do
so--because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international
law really means anything are those who want to constrict the US.'
....
The US, however, has made no bones about its intentions, regardless of what
the Hague regulations say, to make as many structural changes in Iraq while
it has the chance. Its hope, of course, is that these will have gone too far
to be undone once a proper Iraqi government takes over."

--Brian Whitaker (13 October 2003)

"Iraq is not America's to Sell: International Law is unequivocal--Paul Bremer's
economic reforms are illegal" by Naomi Klein in 'The Guardian' (7 November 2003)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...079575,00.html

"But the 'troops out' debate overlooks an important fact. If every last soldier
pulled out of the Gulf tomorrow and a sovereign government came to power, Iraq
would *still be occupied*: by laws written in the interest of another country
(the United States); by foreign corporations controlling its essential services;
by 70% unemployment sparked by public sector layoffs. Any movement serious
about Iraqi self-determination must call not only for an end to Iraq's military
occupation, but to its economic colonisation as well....

The only way out for the (United States) administration is to make sure that
Iraq's next government is *anything but sovereign*. It must be pliant enough
to ratify the CPA's illegal laws, which will then be celebrated as the happy
marriage of free markets and free people. Once that happens, it will be too
late: the contracts will be locked in, the deals done, and the occupation of
Iraq permanent....

It's too late to stop the war, but it's not too late to deny Iraq's invaders
the myriad economic prizes they went to war to collect in the first place."

--Naomi Klein (7 November 2003)

In my view at this time, the United States's model for Iraq's future may
resemble that for Cuba after the United States had 'liberated' Cuba from
Spanish rule in 1898. (The United States's military occupation of Cuba, apart
from Guantanamo, lasted until 1909.) On 20 May 1902, the United States did
grant Cuba its nominal 'independence', which was severely constrained by the
Platt Amendment (2 March 1901), which gave the United States complete power
over Cuba's foreign and military policies and decisive power over Cuba's
domestic policies. In effect, Cuba became 'independent' only in name. Then
Cuba became governed by corrupt client dictators (surrogates for Washington),
who allowed Cuba's economy to be fully dominated by American corporations.
The United States took advantage of its 'right' (specifically authorised by
the Platt Amendment) to intervene militarily in Cuba in order to crush any
popular uprisings against its client dictators, the agents of United States
imperialism. In short, while nominally an independent state, Cuba remained
a de facto protectorate and economic colony of the United States until 1959.

Concerning your respect for " ... my friends who have served in the United
States Armed Forces ... " and your statement that " ... their records of
service tend not to influence our personal relationships ... " I disagree
strongly.

Given that you know nothing about "*my* friends who have served in the United
States Armed Forces" and nothing about "*our* personal relationships", I don't
understand how you could be in any appopriate position to "disagree strongly".

In my view, the character and conscience of an individual person may not
necessarily be determined by whatever military uniform one has once worn.
(I also respect some persons who have fought against the United States.)
"My friends who have served in the United States Armed Forces" tend to
acknowledge that the United States's foreign and military policies often
have been wrong and that Americans, whether or not acting on behalf of orders,
have committed many terrible crimes against civilians and prisoners-of-war
(though its honest discussion tends to remain censored in the United States),
particularly during its wars in Asia. In short, if those of "my friends"
were among the evidently too many Americans who would deny or even approve of
(and I have met some of those Americans too), for instance, the United States
Army's massacre of several hundred Vietnamese civilians at My Lai in 1968,
then they could not be among "my friends".

"The war in Korea has almost destroyed that nation. I have never seen such
devastation. I have seen, I guess, as much blood and disaster as any living
man, and it just curdled my stomach the last time I was there. After I looked
at that wreckage and those thousands of women and children and everything, I
vomited...If you go on indefinitely, you are perpetuating a slaughter such as
I have never heard of in the history of mankind."
--General Douglas MacArthur (1951, speech to the United States Congress)

What General MacArthur had observed was not even in the most devastated area
of Korea, and the devastation became even worse after his departure from Korea.
After the Chinese entered the war and the Americans began retreating in North
Korea, the Americans practised ruthless "scorched earth" tactics, the deliberate
destruction of anything of perceived value, on a scale evidently comparable to
what the Germans had done while retreating in the Soviet Union. On account of
their "crimes against humanity", some Germans were condemned as war criminals
and executed; as far as I can tell, the Americans who practised comparable
tactics of devastation in North Korea tend to be regarded as heroes in the
United States today.

"The tension between the barbarity of My Lai and the national myths has
been resolved in favor of the myths."
--Michael Bolton and Kevin Sim (Four Hours in My Lai, p. 378)

I, one of my children and one of my grandchildren have " ... served in the
United States Armed Forces ... " The first two were criminals, even though
I was a member of those armed forces during the Second Great European War of
the 20th Century

Is not your term, the "Second Great European War of the 20th Century", an
unwarrantedly Eurocentric name for an international conflict in the 1930s-40s
that killed millions of non-Europeans? Would the families of the millions of
Chinese who had been killed by the invading Japanese *before* Germany invaded
Poland (1 September 1939) have remembered their loved ones only as the victims
of the "Second Great *European* War of the 20th Century"?

and my son never fired a shot, or was fired at, in anger. The second is a
criminal, although, having "served his time" in the invasion of Iraq, he now
is back home (still in that execrable uniform). I do not hate myself for my
youthful mistake and consider myself lucky to have learned from it.

One (chess-playing) American friend of mine volunteered to join the United
States Armed Forces when he was "young, patriotic, and too naive" (his words).
As his military career continued (in a branch of "military intelligence"), he
gradually became aware that the United States government would lie to the
ignorant American public about "national security" issues and that the United
States Armed Forces would lie to its own ordinary members (e.g. supposedly,
the M-16 rifle had no problems with jamming), even if they were in combat.
Like some other Allied veterans of the (first) Gulf War of my acquaintance,
he also suspects that his government might be lying to him about the 'Gulf War
syndrome' that evidently has afflicted (and even disabled) some such veterans.
He says that he would strongly advise his son never to believe all the promises
of a military recruiter (a "professional liar", in his words).

While I currently am participating (civilly) in an email tournament game with
a person whose address is ", he gets the respect of an email
chess opponent ONLY. When he leaves the U. S. Army -- for whatever reason --
he deserves the respect of a decent human being.

Cyrano: I carry my adornments on my soul.
--Edmond Rostand (Cyrano de Bergerac, translated by Brian Hooker)

Would it make any difference to you if you knew that your chess opponent were,
for instance, a conscientious objector in a United States Army medical unit?

Although he was (and is) a dedicated pacifist, one American friend of mine was
conscripted during the Vietnam War and compelled to go through basic training
for combat. He did not belong to a formal religious body that had been
officially recognised as pacifist, so his claimed status as a conscientious
objector was dismissed by the United States Armed Forces. If he had been
assigned to a combat role, however, then he would have preferred to face a
United States Army court-martial rather than violate his moral principles.

In my view, someone's uniform of the day does not necessarily predetermine
the character of the man or the woman who's wearing it.

"I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions."
--Lillian Hellman (1952, to the House Committee on Un-American Activities)

--Nick

Nick wrote:

ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in
message ...
Thanks for the leads to valuable information and opinion.
It certainly is good to know that many in both the United States and
the United Kingdom object to our invasions of the East of the Arab World.

Dear Mr. Bibuld,

My impression is that the British people tend to be less blindly trusting of
the United Kingdom's government than the American people have been of the
United States's government with regard to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Here are links to some related articles:

"Dreamers and Idiots: Britain and the US did everything to avoid a
peaceful solution in Iraq and Afghanistan" by George Monbiot in
'The Guardian' (11 November 2003):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...082250,00.html

snip

Years ago & for good reason, I cured myself of my weekly 'fix' of the
then _Manchester Guardian_ graduating with some joy to another quality
British publication, - The Spectator - After a period of about 4yrs. it
was time to change again & 'The Weekly Telegraph' (or Torygraph) as wit
'Billy' would have it, became the preferred 'organ'. It may just be me,
but somehow or other, being repeatedly cajoled to go visit an already
thoroughly comprehended media-platform, is at best tedious. (I won't
bore you with my view on 'worst'). - HTCTU..

unsnip


In my view at this time, the United States's model for Iraq's future may
resemble that for Cuba after the United States had 'liberated' Cuba from
Spanish rule in 1898. (The United States's military occupation of Cuba, apart
from Guantanamo, lasted until 1909.) On 20 May 1902, the United States did
grant Cuba its nominal 'independence', which was severely constrained by the
Platt Amendment (2 March 1901), which gave the United States complete power
over Cuba's foreign and military policies and decisive power over Cuba's
domestic policies. In effect, Cuba became 'independent' only in name. Then
Cuba became governed by corrupt client dictators (surrogates for Washington),
who allowed Cuba's economy to be fully dominated by American corporations.
The United States took advantage of its 'right' (specifically authorised by
the Platt Amendment) to intervene militarily in Cuba in order to crush any
popular uprisings against its client dictators, the agents of United States
imperialism. In short, while nominally an independent state, Cuba remained
a de facto protectorate and economic colony of the United States until 1959.

Concerning your respect for " ... my friends who have served in the United
States Armed Forces ... " and your statement that " ... their records of
service tend not to influence our personal relationships ... " I disagree
strongly.

Given that you know nothing about "*my* friends who have served in the United
States Armed Forces" and nothing about "*our* personal relationships", I don't
understand how you could be in any appopriate position to "disagree strongly".

In my view, the character and conscience of an individual person may not
necessarily be determined by whatever military uniform one has once worn.
(I also respect some persons who have fought against the United States.)
"My friends who have served in the United States Armed Forces" tend to
acknowledge that the United States's foreign and military policies often
have been wrong and that Americans, whether or not acting on behalf of orders,
have committed many terrible crimes against civilians and prisoners-of-war
(though its honest discussion tends to remain censored in the United States),
particularly during its wars in Asia. In short, if those of "my friends"
were among the evidently too many Americans who would deny or even approve of
(and I have met some of those Americans too), for instance, the United States
Army's massacre of several hundred Vietnamese civilians at My Lai in 1968,
then they could not be among "my friends".

"The war in Korea has almost destroyed that nation. I have never seen such
devastation. I have seen, I guess, as much blood and disaster as any living
man, and it just curdled my stomach the last time I was there. After I looked
at that wreckage and those thousands of women and children and everything, I
vomited...If you go on indefinitely, you are perpetuating a slaughter such as
I have never heard of in the history of mankind."
--General Douglas MacArthur (1951, speech to the United States Congress)

What General MacArthur had observed was not even in the most devastated area
of Korea, and the devastation became even worse after his departure from Korea.
After the Chinese entered the war and the Americans began retreating in North
Korea, the Americans practised ruthless "scorched earth" tactics, the deliberate
destruction of anything of perceived value, on a scale evidently comparable to
what the Germans had done while retreating in the Soviet Union. On account of
their "crimes against humanity", some Germans were condemned as war criminals
and executed; as far as I can tell, the Americans who practised comparable
tactics of devastation in North Korea tend to be regarded as heroes in the
United States today.

"The tension between the barbarity of My Lai and the national myths has
been resolved in favor of the myths."
--Michael Bolton and Kevin Sim (Four Hours in My Lai, p. 378)

I, one of my children and one of my grandchildren have " ... served in the
United States Armed Forces ... " The first two were criminals, even though
I was a member of those armed forces during the Second Great European War of
the 20th Century

Is not your term, the "Second Great European War of the 20th Century", an
unwarrantedly Eurocentric name for an international conflict in the 1930s-40s
that killed millions of non-Europeans? Would the families of the millions of
Chinese who had been killed by the invading Japanese *before* Germany invaded
Poland (1 September 1939) have remembered their loved ones only as the victims
of the "Second Great *European* War of the 20th Century"?

and my son never fired a shot, or was fired at, in anger. The second is a
criminal, although, having "served his time" in the invasion of Iraq, he now
is back home (still in that execrable uniform). I do not hate myself for my
youthful mistake and consider myself lucky to have learned from it.

One (chess-playing) American friend of mine volunteered to join the United
States Armed Forces when he was "young, patriotic, and too naive" (his words).
As his military career continued (in a branch of "military intelligence"), he
gradually became aware that the United States government would lie to the
ignorant American public about "national security" issues and that the United
States Armed Forces would lie to its own ordinary members (e.g. supposedly,
the M-16 rifle had no problems with jamming), even if they were in combat.
Like some other Allied veterans of the (first) Gulf War of my acquaintance,
he also suspects that his government might be lying to him about the 'Gulf War
syndrome' that evidently has afflicted (and even disabled) some such veterans.
He says that he would strongly advise his son never to believe all the promises
of a military recruiter (a "professional liar", in his words).

While I currently am participating (civilly) in an email tournament game with
a person whose address is ", he gets the respect of an email
chess opponent ONLY. When he leaves the U. S. Army -- for whatever reason --
he deserves the respect of a decent human being.

Cyrano: I carry my adornments on my soul.
--Edmond Rostand (Cyrano de Bergerac, translated by Brian Hooker)

Would it make any difference to you if you knew that your chess opponent were,
for instance, a conscientious objector in a United States Army medical unit?

Although he was (and is) a dedicated pacifist, one American friend of mine was
conscripted during the Vietnam War and compelled to go through basic training
for combat. He did not belong to a formal religious body that had been
officially recognised as pacifist, so his claimed status as a conscientious
objector was dismissed by the United States Armed Forces. If he had been
assigned to a combat role, however, then he would have preferred to face a
United States Army court-martial rather than violate his moral principles.

In my view, someone's uniform of the day does not necessarily predetermine
the character of the man or the woman who's wearing it.

"I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions."
--Lillian Hellman (1952, to the House Committee on Un-American Activities)

--Nick

You are a really ignorant asshole just find me the lawyers who

(without getting paid [lawyers are whore/prostitutes that would have sex
with Dolly the Cloned Sheep for money and payment)

would present such a stupid argument in any competant court to prove me
wrong
and I'd show you and attorney that is having a bad hair day and who doesn't
give a damn
(not serious lawyer would prsent such arguments only in a cop's imagination
could you find this
[still have your secret squirrel badge])...!!!!.

"ahlahan" wrote in message
ink.net...
Nah , they just dont have cable telephone nor AC which in the USA jail
their lawyers would be demanding

AND what the fu... do you wish for those SOB , former combatants and
ennemies of not only Democracy but also of their own countrymen and
SPECIALLY THEIR COUNTRYWOMEN....

That in all wars, the captured prisoners are under military discretion and
at their disposal or Military Courts, is well known fact.
I don*t think those *******s should be given the least of the cahnces...as
they would not give you or me or any of the allies the slightest one.

So **** them all allllllllllllllllllll the way thruuuuuuuuuuuu !


"AZ A1 yahoo.co.uk" andrew_zitore@move wrote in message
...
You are a really ignorant asshole just find me the lawyers who

(without getting paid [lawyers are whore/prostitutes that would have sex
with Dolly the Cloned Sheep for money and payment)

would present such a stupid argument in any competant court to prove me
wrong
and I'd show you and attorney that is having a bad hair day and who
doesn't
give a damn
(not serious lawyer would prsent such arguments only in a cop's
imagination
could you find this
[still have your secret squirrel badge])...!!!!.

"ahlahan" wrote in message
ink.net...
Nah , they just dont have cable telephone nor AC which in the USA jail
their lawyers would be demanding





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/2003