Noam Chomsky has recently started a blog: http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/

Snip from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Chomsky has written strong refutations of deconstructionist and postmodern criticisms of science.

I have spent a lot of my life working on questions such as these, using the only methods I know of — those condemned here as "science," "rationality," "logic," and so on. I therefore read the papers with some hope that they would help me "transcend" these limitations, or perhaps suggest an entirely different course. I'm afraid I was disappointed. Admittedly, that may be my own limitation. Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed."

Chomsky is one of the most well-known figures of the American left.

"I have always supported a Jewish ethnic homeland in Palestine. That is different from a Jewish state. There's a strong case to be made for an ethnic homeland, but as to whether there should be a Jewish state, or a Muslim state, or a Christian state, or a white state — that's entirely another matter."

Overall, Professor Chomsky is not fond of traditional political titles and categories and prefers to let his views speak for themselves. He also has a large group of critics, both conservative and liberal, as well as some anarchists, who, although they normally agree with his political analysis, consider his aforementioned support of electoral politics to go against their principles.

For Chomsky, terrorism is objective, not relative. He states in his book 9-11, page 76:

Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism.

On the efficacy of terrorism:

One is the fact that terrorism works. It doesn't fail. It works. Violence usually works. That's world history. Secondly, it's a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Like other means of violence, it's primarily a weapon of the strong, overwhelmingly, in fact. It is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems and their terror doesn't count as terror. Now that's close to universal. I can't think of a historical exception, even the worst mass murderers view the world that way. So pick the Nazis. They weren't carrying out terror in occupied Europe. They were protecting the local population from the terrorisms of the partisans. And like other resistance movements, there was terrorism. The Nazis were carrying out counter terror.

Quotes regarding Chomsky

• "In all American history, no one's writings are more unsettling...Chomsky is among our greatest dissenters." — James Peck
• "One of the great voices of reason of our times" — New York Daily News
• "Arguably the most important intellectual alive...[with a] body of political writings, accessible to any literate person but often maddeningly simple-minded." — The New York Times,

Full Wikipedia overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Thanks, Jacek, for bringing some of Chomsky's words to TC. He is, by far, my favorite author in IR. ¡Viva Chomsky!

Saludos,

Atenea

Jacek,

I didn't read the link yet, but I noticed something in your message I've always thought but never seen anybody express it.

I think all peace efforts for Israel/Palestine have been going the wrong way. If there is a chance for peace in the region, it would be in a multi-ethnic non-religious state. I don't think there will ever be peace if Jews and Arabs don't learn to really live together.

It is very sad that in the 1990s in Bosnia we have created another similar situation.

JP

(PS: Atenea, what is IR?)

I cannot wrap my head around such situations.  Only my heart, with sadness.

Maxi

I would be curious to know what Chomsky relies on to make that affirmation. Hitler proudly used terrorist tactics, he used the word many times, always in a laudatory way. He felt but contempt for the security of populations and clearly said so.

And, though most post-war regimes have tried to exaggerate the importance of partisan movements, they had a very minor impact in the Great Reich, and most people did not know of their existence before 1944.

I don't know, Maxi, I understand Chomsky's point as follows:

1. States do use terrorism
2. When states, including the Nazis, use terrorism, they call it counter-terrorism.

In my opinion, 1. is true and 2. is false as far as Nazis are concerned. And by using the false fact that Nazis presented themselves as counter-terrorists, Chomsky acknowledges that the rhetorics of the state using terrorist tactics is relevant.

I admit that in the period 1934-1938 the Nazi propaganda shortly shifted to something more state-like, but it can't be what Chomsky is talking about, because during that period there was neither German occupation of other countries nor partisan movements.

I agree with JP, that a multiethnical Israeli-Palestian should be the solution, and to put that solution into practice is on the hands of laicist or moderate Israelis and Palestinians. Nevertheless, so far, any peace process implays an ethnical solution... and Bosnia peace process is the clear example. Those provoming ethinic cleaning won, since the situation was acepted as it was left in 1995 and there were no attempts to force the people comming back to their regions. Even before that, you have the Beneš agreements in Czechoslovakia and the deportation of ethnic Germans all around central Europe.

Summing up, so far peace has meant ethnical cleanising. Has a peace process created so far a multiethnical state that we could consider stable? I guess is a big political problem: multiculturalism is not understood as peace and vice versa.

Jairo

I disagree on this. The Nazis, as any other fascist movement in the 30's in Europe, presented themselves as saviours, as protectors agains some threat: Franco's ideal was based on his heavenly origin to protect Spain agains the 'red, masson, jewish plot'. By the way, from 1936 to 1939 the Nazis did play an important role in Spanish Civil War. So you could leave the afirmation from 1934 to july 1936....

So any action -not necesarely taking over a country, but even reducing civil rights- taken by them to defend their 'Motherland' agains threats could well be seen as counterrorism against the red terror or whatever paranoia they presented.

Jairo

Just a thought....there IS a solution to all the troubles that abound in the world, wars in particular.  Very simple solution.  Ban all religion.  All.  There isn't and hasn't ever been a war that wasn't waged for some reason involving religion.  The Jews and the Moslems, the Catholics and Protestants...the list goes on and on.   Life for some seems to revolve around trying to eradicate the fellows who don't believe in the same God as they do. 

 Get rid of the religions, and the mental midgets they have always produced and we will have peace.  There wouldn't be a reason to have wars. John Lennon had the right idea.  All forms of religion involve a type of brainwashing that we can all do without.  Churches and Mosques and Synagogs are beautiful buildings, better put to other uses.

Now I am sure I will receive a slew of comments on this.......Have a happy Easter!  Andrew

Banning religion has been tried in communist Albania. It's a solution that's much worse than the problem.

Saying that religion is the cause of all wars really ignores World War I and World War II, which is about as big as wars get.

Jairo, I don't think that you can find a lot of similarities between Nazi and Franco dictatorships. Though Germany understandably was on Franco's side (he couldn't be with the socialists), he cared little about the Spanish nationalists and the support was rather half-hearted.

But the deep difference was that Franco was a conservative and Hitler a revolutionary. Whatever conclusions you can draw from Spanish history are in my opinion of limited use in the German and Central European context.

If Beneš is to be a model for anything, it is a very sad world we live in.

I'm a citizen of two countries (Canada and Switzerland) that have succeeded to make different nations peacefully coexist after bitter wars. Unfortunately, I can't come up with a recent example. I hope it doesn't mean that people all over the world have become less tolerant in the last century.

I don't know, what do you think, Jairo, wasn't Tito's Yugoslavia an example of an alternate solution to ethnic cleansing?

I must say that the Dayton agreement is about as unjust a peace as I can imagine. I can't believe it is the best solution. I don't think that Beneš's final solution was the only one either.

Hi again, all,

Sorry, Jean-Pierre, it took me a while to get back to this thread. IR stands for International Relations. I have a degree in IR and this is a field where Chomsky's works are highly regarded. I personally find him as the most interesting IR author, and part of it is that he's not much of a theorist as an analyst. He's very sharp, lucid and full of stamina. His style is indeed quite ironic, so I think it's best to read larger excerpts to fully grasp his thoughts.

One of the issues he's thoroughly worked on is State terrorism, i.e., the deliberate use of State violence against civilians with a political or religious purpose, resorting to coertion and fear. Interestingly enough, the origin of "State terrorism" as a concept can be dated back to the Terror Regime in France (18th century), since one of its mottos was "terror is the best way to defend freedom." Actually, if you really think about it, this is the discourse behind today's Patriot Act and other initiatives inflicted on one State's people to "defend their freedom."

As for counterterrorism, the king of this political discourse strategic was Reagan without a doubt: he was the mind behind the slaughter of thousands of Central American civilians in the 80s while he tried to "save them from socialism"... "guerra de baja intensidad" he called it, when it was just pure terrorism. And don't forget the Iran-contras episode. And the CIA, well, that's just the body incharge of implementing "unofficial" US policies, i.e., the arm of State terrorism.

Regarding the Israel/Palestine issue, the only way it could have been solved is if the world had actually enforced the UN resolution to found a Palestinean State as well. And if the world had not just watched as Israel keeps ignoring each and every UN resolution in this regard.

And on a final note, hust the thought of Nazi Germany using the Spanish Civil War and Franco's Spain as a laboratory to test their weapons should make us think twice about the obscure links between these regimes.

Cheers,

Atenea

Just wanted to add that the number one reason behind every war is economic profit. Religion and/or ideology is what those who actually fight the war and those who suffer the worst casualties are told by their governments (usually colluded with the big business and industry) in order to bear the pain.

A.

Though Atenea's posting is indeed very interesting, I agree with Maxi that most wars are fought primarily for ideological reasons. This is not to say that there cannot be other accessory reasons.

I do not think that the "Gott mit uns" thing proves that the causes of the World War II were religious, though I sure wish temporal powers left religion alone. In times of war, states will use anything to raise the level of fanatism and support for the war.

Looking back at the many wars of the last century, I find it hard to believe that the primary reason of most wars is anything else than patriotism and nationalism.

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on April 10, 2004 7:33 PM Out of curiosity. Were the crusades, as ill-guided as they might have been in a simpler time, also subject to political i.e. "beneficial to someone for some reason" considerations? Oh, and p.d. means? Maxi

Hi, Maxi,

Sorry, "p.d." is a lapsus... it's p.s. in Spanish.

One of the key reasons for the Crusades was to get back control over trade in the Mediterranean Sea, lost to the Arabs after the fall of the Roman Empire. This was the area of the world where most commodities would be traded. And as history proves it, political decisions are very much driven by economic interests. Do you really think those were simpler times?

Atenea

I think I changed my mind since my last posting.

It is probably true that many words are mostly motivated by economic or geopolitical reasons. That was probably the case for most of the wars in Central America, for instance, and the current Iraq situation. But I don't think it applies to many other cases, of which WWII, Rwanda, Bosnia and Croatia, where the main cause was nationalism, as well as downright insanity.

Good Morning everyone!

  Knew I'd get a few comments....and some very good ones indeed!  So now we have most of the reasons for war listed.  Money.  Power.  Land.  Ideology. Trade. Insanity. Nationalism. Pride.  I'm sure a few more are also there, which I forgot to mention but  are also noteworthy.

  What, though, binds all these things together and makes some poor son of a gun fight in a war?  There is only one sure-fire way to get some peasant to put on a uniform, or a couple kilos of TNT and rush out to kill someone else.  The average "soldier" doesn't know about the reasons stated above, he couldn't care less....riches and power aren't a factor for him.  He couldn't be convinced to go into battle just to fill some Polititians pockets with gold.  But if the state/church tells him to do it, and uses some propaganda which convivces him that the other side is evil and bad because they don't "respect" his God........off he will go, to teach those naughty unbelievers a lesson.  The state has and will continue to use religion to control it's people and get them to die so the state can enrich itself.  Religion is the tool which will get the people to die for thier country. 

What we are seeing in the news, in not only Iraq and Israel is a good example of this.  There is only one reason why all these people are blowing themselves up and killing innocents.  The leaders of the various religious groups are struggling for power, they all want to be in charge and want the riches that go with it.  They are using thier followers as tools, convincing them that they need to kill those who don't believe as they do.  Strange how all the ones that are blowing themselves up are the little ones.  We won't ever see one of the top dogs strap a kilo or two on and go into a Disco.  The leaders are too smart for that and they don't believe the BS they themselves are using to control and direct the rabble. Besides, if they did that....someone else would get the power and riches.  These guys aren't dumb...but their followers are.

  So....back to my original theory.  If we had no organized state religion, and the average Joe wasn't convinced that only "his" God is the right one, no country would be able to run a war and no terrorist would be willing to blow himself up. Too bad it will never happen.

In essence I agree with you, Edward.  However, I wouldn't confine myself to religion, which is why I used the word ideology.  Any ideology, religion, catchword such as democracy, freedom, Christianity, Islam, can play that role.   The "God" to be respected can be outside of the religious paradigm.  The point is that the actual and real ideals that these things contain in their true form are the drawing card to your soldier and the families that provide the cannon fodder out of their midst that one day, if they survive, return to them often damaged and altered.

Maxi

Succinctly put, Arthur.  Your last sentence does a wonderful counterbalance to the whole greedy mess.

Maxi

Soldiers who have been drafted have little choice.  There are however professional, volunteer soldiers who obviously do not have much of a choice either, except for the fact that they had made a consious decision to become soldiers with all of the consequences of such a decision.

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on April 10, 2004 1:52 PM I thought the quote was sarcastic rather than literal. Isn't Chomsky saying that large, "legitimate" regimes, i.e. the "strong" call the terrorism the actions of the weak, when in fact their own actions are acts of terrorism? IMHO, he is saying exactly that - that Hitler was using terrorist tactics - and then probably extrapolating from there into recent times.

That was also my understanding after a first cursory reading of that passage.

Jacek

How about only discouraging its interference in public, especially international, life?

Jacek

Not in the Balkans/Middle East, but what about the United States, isn't that an example of a stable multiethnical state, a promised land rallying people around the beacon of economic opportunity, like moths around a lamp?

Jacek

How about only discouraging its interference in public, especially international, life?

Difficult to do....you would get no government to do this willingly and certainly no church.  The both of them seem to have a history of collaborating and getting control over the people and using them to get power/riches.  They just seem to have the same goals in mind, and work very well together to that purpose.  Doesn't matter which state and which church.  I personally have no problem with people having beliefs, "whatever gets you through the night" (John Lennon). The problem I have, is with the fact that the two of them, State and church, seem to be constantly up to no good and won't leave us in peace.  They have taken a perfectly wonderful idea and turned it to their own advantage.  Ask any TV Evangelist...they know how to do it too.  So asking the two of them politely to keep out of our hair won't work, the spoils of war are too valuable and since the state and church are always the ones that will benefit, they will always be there, brainwashing the "volk" to fight thier wars for them.  The sad part of it is......the dopes (volk)  will always willing to do it, as long as they believe that by doing what the church and state tell them to do they will go to heaven.

  Heaven must be one heck of a place....I, for one though, can wait to see.  I don't need to assist my, or anyone's entry into it, with a couple of pounds of TNT.

 And, I bet there is a little old fact the church and state neglected to tell the ones they sent off to do this.   Bet it sent them to  Hell, not heaven.

There is something more insiduous about idealistic systems, including religion, being used to manipulated an entire people.  Those few people who wish to argue against the evils of violence end up being perceived as arguing against the good things that the purported ideals are supposed to represent.  What people say they believe, and what they do believe, in such situations may be very different things - because few would dare to speak up.   Less of the Volk is willing than may be imagined, but what choice do (did) they have?  And yes, a very large portion is duped: especially the young and impressionable.  Some may wish to go to heaven: others believe they are improving the world in the long run because the will for doing good is a strong one.  And those who see through this and see the immediate harm can say little for the reasons I wrote above.

Maxi 

Andrew,

Just like in my proposal to keep religion out of public affairs I forgot about the religion of state which for obvious reasons cannot be kept out of public affairs, you seem to have forgotten the same element in your suggestion to ban all religion which to be effective should read: Ban all religion and state. Since both our proposals seem to be impracticable, I am afraid we have to give them up.

Jacek

Quess there is really no solution.....certainly not with the world as it is and as it perhaps always will be....but we can hope that someday mankind will get its' collective head out of it's hindquarters and start to think.  As long as though, most of the world is unable to think for themselves, we won't see anything positive happening.

  An interesting news item is on the link below......sad to read quotes from letters found there, hard to understand how anyone could think this way until you realise , it isn't most likely isn't mans' nature to think this way...it's the brainwashing done by the state and church, allowed to happen by ignorance, poverty and the general feeling of having to make oneself important.  Perhaps they think that it MUST be better than doing nothing.  Personally, I'd rather they did nothing.  Peace!

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4717595/

Arthur,

I was just saying that my posting mentioned WWI, and I understand your comment as being about WWII.

Originally written by Arthur Borges on April 12, 2004 10:01 PM As I grasp it, there is a world of difference among manslaughter, murder and taking one life to save several other lives. Intention is of paramount importance and if the GI, jihadi, zionist or crusader sincerely believes he is saving souls, then the weight upon the conscience is far lighter than for someone who sees her/himself as a pawn and deliberately continues killing -- even if s/he is wrong.

If we are talking about how we are/will be judged before the eternal tribunal, I think we all we have to recuse ourselves as incompetent.

I can only quote Jesus: "On juge un arbre à ses fruits". That's all I know (or think I know).

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on April 12, 2004 5:59 PM An interesting news item is on the link below...... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4717595/

This being a linguistic forum, let's not forget what Noam Chomsky noted about the manipulative abuse of the term "terrorism" at the beginniong of this thread.

Jacek

Good morning Jacek!

  Knew someone might try to see an attempt on my part to influence someone to feel pity on the Marines, but that wasn't what I wished to point out.....the quotes from the letters was what interested me.......I find it sad that someone out there is feeling he needs to blow himself to bits to accomplish his mission.  This is to my way of thinking a bit too melodramatic, wasteful and cowardly.  It ensures that no one wins, not the bomber or the bombed...and unless you wish to believe the bomber goes to heaven, which I don't, it has no purpose, other than to put fear into others.  Fear dosn't always result in the fearful giving up and going home though.  Sometimes it makes them more determined.  Witness the Isrealis and the Pallastiniens...those people won't be happy until one or the other of them is flattened.  The more awful things the one does to the other, the more awful things the other does back.....is this sane?  Think not.  

So, don't try to see a Marine behind every corner....read the sad letters and weep.  Peace!

Actually, I have been feeling like weeping since day one.  (So did Sara Teasdale: http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/MegaBBS/thread-view.asp?threadid=189&messageid=1727#1727)

In the case of the Israelis/Palestinians--since I remember, i.e., 1967.

Perhaps deploying the Marines elsewhere could have been more productive and would have avoided some deploring?

Jacek

As I read melodramatic I could only think of two extraordinary books: "El perfume de nuestra tierra," (Le parfum de notre terre. Voix de Palestine et d'Israël) by Kenizé Mourad and "Crónicas palestinas," (The End of the Peace Process) by Edward Said. Once you read about the real drama in everyday Palestinean life the desperate act of blowing oneself to pieces acquires a different dimension... and I'm not saying it's "OK" or "justified," but it definitely doesn't look wasteful nor coward.

A.

Hello there Atenea!

  I'm sure there are a lot of things about life in Palestine, that I don't know about, and certainly, I wouldn't say I have read much about it, but there are few things that make me feel blowing yourself up is melodramatic.  These people are desperate for attention. They are what can be termed as nobodys, useless to thier leaders for anything more than training them to do what they are doing and these young people are happy to comply, because they are desperate to impress thier friends and family with just how strong thier commitment is to thier country and or religion.  They are being convinced that they can help more by dying, than by living, and the more spectacular way they can figure to do it, the better.  The so called leaders that they have, have told them of just how honorable it is, and that is what I question.  It isn't honorable, it's misguided and if it accomplishes anything at all, the fool certainly isn't going to be around to see it.  And that's just what he is....a fool.  And he is being used. His leaders aren't fools though, they will still be around when the last one blows himself up, and they will be the ones to reap the rewards, if any are to be had, at that point. 

  I have to stick by my belief that what they are doing is wasteful and melodramatic.  On the cowardly point, I will readjust my comments.  I'm not sure I'd have the nerve to do it.  I'm too cowardly. There is a lot that isn't going the way I wish it would in my life too, at the moment, and there are more than a few times, when I feel incapable of finding a good reason to continue on with it, but so far there has always been some ray-of-light, so to speak, that made me realise that it wouldn't accomplish anything.

  What the bombers are doing, won't accomplish anything either...better to stay alive, fight it through, and maybe, just maybe, reap the rewards with the ones you love. 

PS.......(PD)......All this suicide-bomber thing, saddens me. That's why I have a problem with it.  I take it too personal.  I'm an escapist at heart...I can't watch a sad movie, listen to a Talkshow or read a sad book without feeling too strongly the pain portrayed.   I do though, love to read, but I use it as an escape, to get away from what is happening around me....and it works for hours on end.  Tried Harry Potter?  Great stuff!

  Peace! 

Originally written by Arthur Borges on April 14, 2004 12:20 AM in Dijon, we calculated that 2% of the population of that greater metropolitan area attempt suicide each year.

Thank you, Arthur, for your interesting posting.  I think it is important to make a distinction between suicides due to depression and those due to religious zeal though.

If I can be allowed a medical digression re: suicides of the former, i.e., "normal" type, I have come across figures even more startling than in Dijon:

In Minnesota (!), one of every eight youths responding to the survey said they had tried to kill themselves at some point in their lives. For each racial/ethnic group, girls were consistently more likely than boys to report suicide attempts. There were few differences among racial groups, except for Hispanic girls, who had the highest suicide attempt rate (22 percent).

One of every twenty youths said they had made an attempt within the past year. Again, girls were generally more likely than boys to report recent attempts. Hispanic girls had the highest attempt rate within the past year (9 percent).

http://www.cyfc.umn.edu/adolescents/research/IF1001.html

(We are talking above about those Hispanics who, according to Samuel Huntington, constitute a new threat to the United States...)

As far as the actual (successful) suicide rate is concerned, the record belongs to young women in South India: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994846

In a breakdown by profession, a study carried out 20 years ago in the US put physicians at the top of those killing themselves (at one point the answer was psychiatrists, at another point dentists): http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msuicide.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010420.html

Jacek

Originally written by Arthur Borges on April 14, 2004 6:11 AM From there, it is child's play, so to speak, to take in the kid, show him a few role models, give him a few lessons on the twofer of a free ticket to Eternal Grace plus status of National Hero.

You know of course more about profiling than I do, Arthur.  Had you confirmed any element of excitement in that explosive mixture we are talking about, I would have unavoidably drawn a parallel with the kids from the other side who, judging from their appearances on Fox TV earlier on, not all go to war to, what is it?, "rebuild" Iraq, but in many cases to feel the thrill. Of what? Of combat, I guess, of being a true man, etc.  Whether we call this thrill, zeal or desperation, they are all feelings which are too strong and out of place in relations between entire nations.

Jacek

Originally written by Arthur Borges on April 14, 2004 8:57 PM I don't know much about profiling at all, Jacek.

All right, let's see what scientists have to say then:

Girl chimps learn faster than boys

Daughters pick up their mother's skills, while sons play rough and tumble.
15 April 2004

MICHAEL HOPKIN

[snip, as usual] Young female chimpanzees are better students than males....

While daughters watch their mothers closely, the boys spend more time monkeying around.

The discovery mirrors differences in the learning abilities of human children, says the research team behind the study. Girls tend to catch on faster than boys when learning skills such as writing and drawing, they say....

The difference is down to greater attentiveness on the females' part, the authors say. Females spent more time watching their mothers and their technique resembled their mother's more closely....

Males were more easily distracted, choosing to spend their time swinging in trees, turning somersaults and wrestling with each other....

The males are not necessarily wasting their time, says Andrew Whiten, a chimpanzee expert at the University of St Andrews, UK. While termites are a valuable food for females, males often catch larger animals such as monkeys. Their rough-and-tumble play may be a way to hone their hunting skills, Whiten suggests.

Females, who often have youngsters in tow, tend to stick to termites as a safer alternative to the thrill of the hunt

http://www.nature.com/nsu/040412/040412-6.html

The "thrill"... Didn't I hear this word somewhere lately?

Jacek

P.S. I'd rather stick myself to what Dante wrote circa 700 years ago: “fatti non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e conoscenza” (Ulysses in Inferno, canto XXVI), i.e. you were not made to live like brutes, but to seek virtue and knowledge.

Back to my original language-related posting in which I quoted Noam Chomsky: "I understand the term "terrorism" exactly in the sense defined in official U.S. documents: "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." In accord with the - entirely appropriate - definition, the recent attack on the U.S. is certainly an act of terrorism; in fact, a horrifying terrorist crime. There is scarcely any disagreement about this throughout the world, nor should there be.

But alongside the literal meaning of the term, as just quoted from U.S. official documents, there is also a propagandistic usage, which unfortunately is the standard one: the term "terrorism" is used to refer to terrorist acts committed by enemies against us or our allies. This propagandistic use is virtually universal. Everyone "condemns terrorism" in th sense of the term. Even the Nazies harshly comdemned terrorism and carried out what they called "counter-terrorism" against the terrorist partisans." http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/redir/index415.html

Here is an interesting overview related to the saying that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' : 

TERRORISTS AND FREEDOM FIGHTERS
By Blair Shewchuk
CBC News Online

http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/terrorists.html

Mine was more a reflection on how our language changes. When Chomsky says that "Even the Nazis harshly comdemned terrorism and carried out what they called "counter-terrorism" against the terrorist partisans,"* it strikes me that in times which many of us only know from films such as "Schindler's List" or "The Pianist," Poles ambushing and killing German occupiers were referred to, in Polish, as Home Army soldiers, partisans, Polish underground, but never, no matter how many explosives they used and how many Nazis they killed, not a single time the term "terrorism" has been used in the Polish language to describe their actions.

My question to our Arab colleagues is this: When your media report on, say, "the death of 5 terrorists who attacked American troops in Iraq," what term do they use in Arabic?

Jacek

* Incidentally, a new German film, Downfall (Der Untergang), which had its world premiere at the Toronto Film Festival, also breaches one of post-war Germany's last taboos to show the Nazi leader as a human being rather than just a monster. http://mostemailednews.orb6.com/stories/nm/20040914/leisure_canada_hitler_dc.php

...

My question to our Arab colleagues is this: When your media report on, say, "the death of 5 terrorists who attacked American troops in Iraq," what term do they use in Arabic?

Jacek

...

It depends who makes the report:

In the major cases, we talk about "resistants", it's the case of the majority of mass-medias, man-of-the-street..

Of course when US puppets in Irak speak, they also talk about "terrorists" (la voix de son maitre)

Nevertheless, I have noticed during the last -say- three months that some TV channels, and even al-jazeera do not speak about martyr, as they used to, but about suicide bomber. This last expression is anyhow used in a subtle way, to let you understand -if you want to- that suicide was a personal choice of the suicider, offering his life for his cause.

It's probably a linguistic compromise that al-jazeera has found to stop headaching protests from American policy makers.. Or at least I guess..

Salaam,

Ouadoud

http://www.utne.com/pub/2003_115/promo/10207-1.html

Portraying humans as basically hating war might actually hinder the important work of deterring it, suggests research psychologist Lawrence LeShan. New psychological studies explain what history has long shown to be true—that war holds a deep attraction for large numbers of people in most cultures around the world. In accepting and understanding this hard truth, we may be better equipped to bring peace on earth. A timely new edition of his book The Psychology of War arrived last fall (2002)

Point taken, and indeed sad...but true.  Most of us really "enjoy"  a good arguement or fight and letting our anger out on someone else, at least at the moment of doing it.  I tend to be that way, too, sometimes...ask Scott...he knows about it. 

The prisons are full of people who wouldn't have ever hurt someone else, if they had had a moment to think and hadn't given in to the momentary "rush" of giving someone else just what they deserved.........there is a certain amount of self gratification in doing just what we want to do,  just when we want to...problem is, that moment passes very fast and then regret sets in, guilt and all the other well deserved discomfort.

  I'm sure countries get the same rush of pleasure too, when they attack some other country that "deserves" it....just ask george...he's that kind of a guy.  If you know what I mean.  Justified...maybe...but he tends to let the momentary pleasure control his actions more than is good for him or us. 

I will be interested in comments of this theory...lets hear from you all...Scott?  Where are you???  Best to all!  Andrew

I think he is more persistent in staying away than you have been...

Jacek

I share Edward's point of view about the aspects of our natural instinctive bellic nature. Our first reaction therefore may be depicted as "primary". The fact is that we're also different from other creatures on this universe (birds or camels for example..) with the reason, or say our brain capacities, not to talk about feelings..

On the other hand, war may be a legitime defence, if you defend your country, your family or your friends.. I believe that in this case heroism and soul grandeur may be justified.. Intelligence, courage, tactics, strategy and in-depth analysis become positive ingredients in this case..

Now concerning regret and guilt. They're good when one realizes his errors, the problem is that to be complete this state-of-mind or soul or spirit or whatever (depending on the personal belief of each)  needs reparation of one own's errors towards the victims... And I personally really cannot imagine how a certain george may offer reparations to the 100.000 killed and to the wounded and to those who have lost everything..

As a moslem, I believe that the only just and equitable repair will be made when we'll all stand naked in front of God to be judged..

Salaam,

Ouadoud

Never before have the Western media been so fascinated by things military, writes Raymond Clarinard at http://www.courrierinternational.com/article.asp?obj_id=61959&provenance=accueil&bloc=02 (only the links mentioned inside the article are in English)

RENDEZ À CÉSAR...

A l'aube de la longue guerre

En ces temps d'ébullition géostratégique, il nous a paru légitime de rendre effectivement à César ce qui lui revient de droit, autrement dit, de consacrer une chronique spécifique à ce que l'on appelle parfois l'art de la guerre. Même si l'on peut se demander ce que cette activité tristement humaine peut bien avoir d'artistique.

Nous nous efforcerons dans ces lignes d'aborder à la fois l'évolution des conflits qui ensanglantent la planète et le développement de nouveaux matériels, technologies et stratégies. Loin d'annoncer une ère de paix et d'équilibre, la disparition du bloc communiste, en 1989-1991, a vu le monde basculer dans l'instabilité. Une instabilité encore aggravée par les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, qui ont permis à Washington de s'installer depuis dans une guerre étrangère permanente dont les motivations n'ont plus grand-chose à voir avec l'éradication d'un prétendu mouvement terroriste.

Jamais les médias, en particulier occidentaux, n'ont été à ce point fascinés par la chose militaire. Régulièrement, les journaux s'extasient sur les exploits de telle ou telle nouvelle petite merveille, prouesse technologique la plupart du temps née dans les laboratoires américains. Cet engouement pour le tout technologique s'accompagne systématiquement d'une tentative de relecture de la guerre. On nous assure, à chaque début de nouvel affrontement, quand les bombes commencent à pleuvoir sur une ville lointaine, que cette fois, le conflit auquel nous allons assister sera radicalement différent de tous ceux qui l'ont précédé. Puis, très vite, les gadgets s'enlisent et la guerre redevient ce qu'elle a toujours été : une affaire d'hommes anonymes, pris au piège de la poussière, des larmes et du sang. Dès cet instant, d'ailleurs, la guerre quitte les premières pages et nos écrans pour s'installer discrètement dans la routine de notre quotidien médiatique.

D'où la présence d'Excalibur pour agrémenter notre chronique. De tout temps, l'homme a voulu disposer d'armes magiques capables de balayer l'adversaire sans efforts : les trompettes de Jéricho, par exemple, ou encore l'épée du roi Arthur. Sauf que, même en brandissant le présent de la Dame du Lac, le malheureux a dû chevaucher à travers toute la Bretagne pour repousser Angles, Saxons, Pictes et Scots, pour n'en citer que quelques-uns. Les chroniqueurs ont retenu les noms et les lieux (supposés) d'à peine cinq batailles sur les douze qu'il livra officiellement. Quant à la treizième, mythique, elle lui fut évidemment fatale. Preuve qu'avec ou sans arme magique, il faut quand même toujours mettre la main à la pâte, et que ça ne se termine pas forcément bien pour le héros.

Notre époque, dont les guerres sont infiniment plus meurtrières que celles du VIe siècle en Bretagne, ne cesse de se chercher des Excalibur : la ligne Maginot, la "Guerre des étoiles", les munitions "intelligentes", et, hélas ! le nucléaire. Mais rien n'y fait. En Irak aujourd'hui, ce sont de simples GI qui patrouillent, traquant de simples résistants irakiens, et le tout se règle généralement à coups d'AK-47 et de M-16A2, de grenades et de bombes artisanales. Les frappes chirurgicales ont été remisées au placard, et avec elle le principe de la "catatonie stratégique", le "choc et stupeur" tant vanté par les états-majors dans les premiers jours de la marche américaine sur Bagdad.

Mais elles pourraient ressortir bientôt de la naphtaline. Les bruits de bottes autour de l'Iran se font chaque jour plus assourdissants, et Téhéran ne fait rien pour calmer le jeu. Les Etats-Unis ne maîtrisent pas la situation en Irak mais, à en croire Sam Gardiner, colonel de l'US Air Force en retraite, interviewé sur CNN et repris par le site Raw Story, des unités américaines seraient déjà en action en Iran. "Je dirais, et cela risque d'en choquer certains, que la décision a été prise et que des opérations militaires sont déjà en cours", a-t-il ainsi lancé. Après l'Afghanistan et l'Irak, l'Iran ? CNN, en tout cas, semble s'y être préparée, annonçant il y a peu un changement important dans la rhétorique belliqueuse de la Maison-Blanche. Il ne faudrait donc plus parler de "guerre contre le terrorisme", mais tout simplement de "longue guerre". Plus de date, plus de fin annoncée, plus d'ennemi défini non plus. Outre-Atlantique, on se rapproche chaque jour un peu plus d'un univers orwellien.

Du reste, il n'y a rien de surprenant à ce que les militaires soient peut-être déjà à pied d'œuvre sur le terrain. Une guerre, après tout, ça se prépare un minimum. Comme l'ont démontré des officiers britanniques et américains dès le mois de juillet 2004, en se livrant à un exercice connu sous le nom de code de "Hotspur 2004". Selon The Guardian, "des officiers britanniques ont pris part à un exercice d'état-major américain destiné à préparer d'une éventuelle invasion de l'Iran". Le quotidien de Londres cite également William Arkin, ancien officier du renseignement américain qui, dans son éditorial spécialisé sur les questions militaires dans les pages du Washington Post, annonçait récemment : "L'armée américaine se prépare très, très sérieusement, elle met en place des plans de guerre, étudie les options et les cartes, modifie sa doctrine." Le même Arkin avait déclaré il y a peu que les Etats-Unis n'écartaient pas l'hypothèse d'une frappe nucléaire contre l'Iran, histoire de rassurer tout le monde.

Comme pour faire encore monter la pression, le Jane's Intelligence Digest affirmait au même moment que la Biélorussie se disposait "à exporter de la technologie militaire russe sensible en Iran". Minsk compterait en effet transférer à Téhéran des missiles antiaériens de fabrication russe S-300SP, authentique cauchemar des états-majors occidentaux, capables de traiter plusieurs cibles aériennes en même temps à haute altitude. Bien sûr, ce que le Jane's ne dit pas, c'est que si ces missiles ne sont pas encore installés en Iran, si les Iraniens n'ont pas suivi de formation au maniement de ces armes sophistiquées, on voit mal en quoi cela empêcherait les Américains ou les Israéliens de frapper avant que ces systèmes soient opérationnels.

Avec les tensions montantes autour du nucléaire iranien, avec les guerres civiles au Tchad, au Soudan, en Côte-d'Ivoire, avec la "normalisation" de plus en plus sanglante en Irak, sans rien dire de conflits toujours menaçants, comme entre l'Inde et le Pakistan, la Chine et Taïwan, ou les deux Corées, nous n'avons pas fini de rendre à César ce qui lui appartient. Et si parfois, notre ton bascule légèrement dans l'ironie et l'irrévérence en dépit de la gravité de ces sujets, rappelons que l'humour reste encore et toujours la politesse du désespoir…

I think he is more persistent in staying away than you have been...

Jacek

Bet he was relieved too...but I beat him by a few months indeed. Been away about 2 years now. LOL. By the way....have no wish to pick that ball up again, Scott.

Being one of the uninformed, I can't read this article, but it surely can't tell us anything we didn't in our hearts...already know, or? General overview of this article for me?

By the way....almost finished with Micheners' "Poland"...impressive story. Lots of interesting facts, an outsider would never know.....end result, made me want to visit up there in your homeland...

Welcome back, Edward! Poland? Any time! (Don't count on Scott.) Just touched on Iran here: http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/MegaBBS/thread-view.asp?threadid=6346&messageid=84452#84452

See ya around

Jacek

Speaking of historical sites:

From http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/05/reflecting_hubris.html:

....According to a report commissioned by the foundation charged with building Reflecting Absence, the memorial to the dead in the attack on the World Trade Center, its projected cost is now estimated at about a billion dollars and still rising. ...

Let me offer a few framing comparisons:

1. Sometime in the coming week or two, the number of American soldiers killed in the Iraq and Afghan Wars will exceed the 2,752 people who died in or around the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 (including those on the two hijacked jets that rammed into the towers). With a combined death toll of 2,739, the war dead have already crept within 13 of that day's casualties in New York. Here's a question then: Who thinks that the United States will ever spend $500 million, no less $1 billion, on a memorial to the ever-growing numbers of war dead from those two wars?

2. Or consider the prospective 9/11 memorial in this context:

The National World War II Memorial (405,000 American dead): $182 million for all costs.

The Vietnam Memorial (56,000 American dead): $4.2 million for construction.

The Korean War Veterans Memorial (54,000 American dead): $6 million.

The USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor (2,390 American dead, 1,177 from the Arizona): $532,000.

The Oklahoma City National Memorial (168 American dead): $29 million.

The 1915 USS Maine Mast Memorial at Arlington Cemetery (260 American dead): $56,147.94

The Holocaust Museum in Washington (approximately 6 million dead): $90 million for construction/$78 million for exhibitions

The WTC Memorial (2,752 dead): $494 million-$1 billion.

3. Or imagine a listing of global Ground Zeros that might go something like this:

Amount spent on a memorial for the Vietnamese dead of their Vietnam Wars (approximately 3 million): $0.

Amount spent on a memorial to the Afghan dead in the civil war between competing warlords over who would control the capital of Kabul in the mid-1990s (unknown numbers of dead, a city reduced to rubble): $0.

Amount spent on a memorial to the victims of the December 26, 2004 earthquake and tsunami in the Pacific and Indian Oceans (at least 188,000 dead): $0.

Amount spent on a memorial to Iraqis confirmed dead, many with signs of execution and torture marks, just in the month of April in Baghdad alone (almost 1,100), or the Iraqis confirmed killed countrywide "in war-related violence" from January through April of this year (3,525) -- and both of these figures are certainly significant undercounts: $0. ...

Terrifying what the money can do: http://www.newstatesman.com/200606120018

SCARY!!

That's all I can say...

All I can do apart from crying is to try my best to change things from this part of the world... not very easy though.

Whatever is going on with this world?

It was reported that the Pentagon has decided to remove a reference to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions from a new edition of the Army Field Manual on interrogation. That article bans torture and cruel treatment as well as “outrages on personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.” The change, which would reverse decades of military policy, follows President Bush's declaration in 2002 that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to “unlawful combatants” such as terrorists. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-torture5jun05,1,1143219.story (via Harper's magazine)

* * *

THREE Guantanamo Bay detainees hanged themselves using nooses made of bedsheets and clothes, the commander of the facility confirmed yesterday, describing the suicides as "an act of asymmetric warfare" against the United States : http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=861802006%20 (via Harper's magazine)

* * *

The lawyer for a Marine being investigated in the deaths of two dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq, described the event as "tragic," but denied innocent people were killed intentionally and said troops followed military rules of engagement. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/14796116.htm (via Harper's magazine)

This is as if he were saying that wars are meant to kill. Preposterous!

Jacek

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/clive_stafford_smith/2006/06/cultural_sensitivity_guantanam.html

"Perhaps those in the west might be used to autopsies, but to the many millions of people in traditional Muslim countries, the idea of chopping a person up, and putting them back together in a bag, would be considered a horror. It would cause outrage."

Doubtless the US military will secure a couple of friendly fatwas purporting to justify an autopsy, but surely they can anticipate the tidal wave of Muslim outrage that will follow. And why do it? There is no chance that a report by a US military pathologist will persuade an intensely hostile Arab audience that the US was not "at fault" for the prisoners' deaths. The bodies will presumably be sent home for burial. Two of the prisoners had been on hunger strike consistently since August 2005, and when their emaciated, dissected remains are turned over to the families, there will be a predictable reaction.

Overconfidence is a Disadvantage in War, Finds Study
By Roxanne Khamsi, NewScientist.com
Confidence can kill, according to a new study by Dominic Johnson, a fellow and lecturer at Princeton University and author of the book Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions. Johnson and his colleagues recruited 200 volunteers to take part in a computer simulation of an international conflict. The participants were asked to rank their chances of success before the simulation, and those who expected to do best often fared the worst. Peter Turchin, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Connecticut and author of War and Peace and War: The Life Cycles of Imperial Nations, commented on the study, saying, "One wishes that members of the Bush administration had known about this research before they initiated invasion of Iraq three years ago." -- Bennett Gordon
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9374&feedId=online-news_rss20 (via Utne.com)

In war-scarred countries, sculptors and smiths turn weapons into art and tools
—By Chris Dodge, Utne magazine
July / August 2006 Issue

Given the number of weapons produced, it's no surprise that the Mozambique arms-to-art conversion project isn't unique. ...

The mortal balance seems everywhere precarious. In Mozambique, Hilario Nhatugueja, one of the creators of Tree of Life, speaks of changing "instruments of death into hope, life, and prosperity." Phnom Penh artists say that through their work they send a message that the Cambodian people love peace.

http://www.utne.com/pub/2006_136/promo/12156-1.html

It was reported that Private Steven D. Green, who is charged with raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, then killing her and members of her family, had said that, in Iraq, “killing people is like squashing an ant, I mean, you kill somebody and it's like, 'All right, let's go get some pizza.'” (Harper’s magazine): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072801492.html

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on August 3, 2006 9:31 AM This kid has been thrown into the middle of some of the scarriest events

Thank you, Ed. Precisely, thrown the way cannon fodder is thrown. That is the saddest aspect of all wars waged by governments.

Hope to see you more around, also in other threads.

Jacek

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on August 3, 2006 3:31 AM If you read the whole article...you will see that this is a kid that is maybe not the smartest, not the maturest and is at an age that requires him to be tough and prove his manhood and say things just to shock others and get a reaction out of them. This kid has been thrown into the middle of some of the scarriest events and contant fears that any of us could ever imagine, and has had to deal with it in his own way. (...) The kid might not be responsiple for what he said and did. Maybe the war is.

While I agree with your opening statements, I most certainly do not agree that, "The kid might not be responsiple for what he said and did.", for, by golly, he is responsible. He is responsible the same way Lt. William Calley was responsible for My Lai.

There is NO excuse for rape. Especially not the rape of a young and very likely innocent virgin of fourteen. NONE!

Had he not killed her afterwards, she might have been killed anyway. Certainly, she would have suffered for the "dishonour" of having been the victim of rape.

Very young men go to war, or are sent, and it's not a secret that 21 year-old boys are immature, easily led and easily managed.

Nanna 

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on August 3, 2006 12:24 PM     It isn't correct now, and never has been, all the millions of times it has been done in every war in history.  But it will never stop being done,

Well, let's not be defeatist, Ed. I think one day it will all stop one way or another. It depends on your time horizon.

Jacek

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on August 3, 2006 6:24 AM         Dear Nanna.... I tried very hard to word my thoughts.  Correctly.

I know that Edward. While I have never been raped, and I am saying this so you won't feel that you have to pussyfoot around, I have very strong feelings about the subject.

I do not have the time right now to reply as fully as I wish and as your post(s) deserve(s), but I will come back to it later in the day.

With apologies for this short post,

Nanna 

So, what's new a year later?

From http://web1.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html:

The FOREIGN POLICY/Center for American Progress Terrorism Index is the first comprehensive effort to mine the highest echelons of America’s foreign-policy establishment for their assessment of how the United States is fighting the Global War on Terror. Our aim was to draw some definitive conclusions about the war’s priorities, policies, and progress from the very people who have run America’s national security apparatus over the past half century. Participants include people who have served as secretary of state, national security advisor, retired top commanders from the U.S. military, seasoned members of the intelligence community, and distinguished academics and journalists. Nearly 80 percent of the index participants have worked in the U.S. government—of these more than half were in the executive branch, one third in the military, and 17 percent in the intelligence community.

Despite today’s highly politicized national security environment, the index results show striking consensus across political party lines. A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the index’s experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six percent of the index’s experts see a world today that is growing more dangerous for Americans.

By Lawrence Kaplan

Published: August 8 2006

[snip] From top officers down to young captains, its loyalists suspect the US army has been orphaned in Iraq. “We’re left holding the bag,” a young officer told me on a recent trip to Iraq, “and it’s full of garbage.” The officer corps’ resentments rarely spill into public view. An exception was earlier this year when retired generals, claiming to speak for their active-duty counterparts, called for the head of their one-time boss, Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary.

The military’s estrangement was summarised in an opinion poll in the Military Times earlier this year. Among the armed forces, favourable opinions of the president, Congress and even the US public all declined sharply. Officers argue that the war’s uncomprehending managers have dispatched them to fight with neither a strategy nor adequate means for victory. As for the public at large, not even the thousands of miles that separate them can measure the military’s remove from US society. ...

Tellingly, a Pew Research Centre survey last year found that 64 per cent of the military was confident of victory in Iraq, a much higher percentage than the broader public and roughly twice the percentage of civilian elite. Having bled so much there, the military has very little use for the suggestion it did so in vain. Then, too, there is the simple truth – felt more keenly in Baghdad than in Washington – that, if not for US forces, Iraq would come apart at the seams. ...

The US model of civil-military relations assigns absolute authority to civilian leaders, regardless of their wisdom. After Iraq, however, the officer corps may be tempted to erode this authority. For a preview, Americans need only look at the long aftermath of Vietnam. When called on to venture abroad in the 1980s and 1990s, the military establishment resisted – loudly and often improperly – nearly every time. For, as Colin Powell, former US secretary of state, explained: “We would not quietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons that the American people could not understand.” The argument that military leaders should not “quietly acquiesce” to judgments by civilians and that military officers should define the criteria for going to war may be a principal legacy of the Iraq war, shackling the next president and the one after that. However much deserved, such an outcome would damage the US even more than battlefield defeat.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/45a953be-2705-11db-80ba-0000779e2340.html

By Matthew Rothschild

August 4, 2006

Finally, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has thrown in the towel on the Iraq War.

“It is now obvious that we are not midwifing democracy in Iraq. We are baby-sitting a civil war,” he wrote in his Times column on August 4.

Long the war’s leading liberal defender, Friedman came late and reluctantly to the realization that the jig is up. ...

But he should have listened to his wife more. As he has noted in several of his columns, she was against the war from day one.

http://progressive.org/mag_wx080406

Other Sides of the Story
By Jesse Hyde, Dallas Observer
Military bloggers, often frustrated with the negative coverage of war, have taken to reporting the news themselves. The estimated 1,400 military blogs registered on the web offer a "boots-on-the-ground alternative" to what some see as "leftist, anti-military media" -- though a small number of soldiers are using their blogs to voice opposition to war. How open these dispatches truly are remains a question: Active-duty bloggers are required to register their sites with their commanding officers. -- Rachel Anderson
http://www.dallasobserver.com/Issues/2006-08-03/news/news.html (via Utne.com)

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on August 10, 2006 4:50 PM German news wanted you to see the Americans as evil, and certainly wrong. I suspect the reporting in Poland, was about the same, all one sided.

You would be surprised to see how many followers Fox News has among Polish reporters. It really depends on what you read or watch. Better not to altogether.

While my last post was about military bloggers, i.e., self-reporting, here is a different type of report, from today's Science magazine:

Revisiting Vietnam's Psychological Toll

The magnitude of the Vietnam War's psychological toll on U.S. soldiers has been a subject of heated debate since 1988, when two major government-funded studies reported widely divergent rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in Vietnam veterans. Interest in this question has intensified as comparisons are now being made between the Vietnam War and the ongoing conflict in Iraq. Dohrenwend et al. (p. 978; see Perspective by McNally) have reexamined PTSD rates in Vietnam War veterans using improved diagnostic methods and military records (rather than self-reports) to document exposure to war zone stress. Their analysis revealed a lifetime PTSD rate of 18.7%, in between the two previous estimates (of 30.9% and 14.7%). An even stronger dose-response relation seen between war-related stress exposure and PTSD confirms th at the war's psychological toll was real and substantial.

* * *

The following article is 2.5 years old:

Language students to help army in Iraq

Students of Arabic are being encouraged to put their degrees on hold to join the British army as interpreters in Iraq.

Acutely short of interpreters, the army has begun a recruitment drive in universities, offering students £200 a day for translation work.

So far, 16 students have been employed; five are already working in Iraq and 11 more are about to leave. http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/gapyear/story/0,,1150809,00.html

Lemme see, 18.7% out of 16 would be almost 3. For the rest of their lives.

Jacek

Yesterday, someone mentioned, in another thread, the high price for interpreting and that, 'my daughter, who's in high school, gets an A in English and could do the whole conference for 20Euro'. That is not a verbatim quote, but taking students of Arabic out of school, way before they have a degree that may have nothing to do with interpreting or even translation, sounds decidedly wrong and could easily account for the many cases of misinterpretation.

Nanna

From http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=114108:

In a superb front-page New York Times piece last week, Bombs Aimed at G.I.'s in Iraq Are Increasing, reporters Michael R. Gordon, Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker offered impressive evidence that, since the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Sunni insurgency against the Americans and allied Iraqi forces has only heightened. Perhaps most striking were the final paragraphs of the piece, meant only for news junkies and buried deep inside the paper (reinforcing my sense that the imperial press can sometimes most profitably be read from back to front):

White House spokesman Tony Snow was forced to deny this at a press briefing the next day, but it makes complete sense. [...]

Michael Schwartz, a Tomdispatch regular, offers seven facts that help explain why the lethal brew our invasion let loose in that country will have no hope of "solution" under present conditions. Tom

I wonder whether mother nature has not created PTSD to prevent mankind from self-destruction. Will neutralizing that defensive mechanism not accelerate the epidemic of madness?

Since soldiers returned from Vietnam, it has been clear that some of the deepest wounds of combat are psychological. Coming home to a land essentially unaffected by war complicates the already disturbing effects of violent battle. Some one in six Iraq veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and, as Joe Piasecki of the LA City Beat reports , some of them are taking a different path to healing: meditation. At a recent retreat at the Zen Center of Los Angeles, Vietnam vet Claude Anshin Thomas taught fellow veterans to confront their trauma by "waking up to how we've been affected" and applying full consciousness to the present moment. "What I'm attempting to do," says Thomas, "is create a safe space where that information will start to become accessible to them."

There may be more at work here than a spiritual centering. In the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Dr. Tana A. Grady-Weliky, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, explains some of the science behind meditative practice. "Mindfulness meditation practice, in which one focuses on 'staying in the present' during meditation as well as other activities, appears to play a role in positive mood and attitude," Grady-Weliky writes. "Interestingly, imaging studies of individuals during meditation show higher activity in the left prefrontal cortex, which is the brain area associated with positive mood and attitude."

Full story: http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2006_264/news/12260-1.html

War documentaries fill in the blanks left by mainstream movies
—By Rachel Anderson, Utne.com

September 7, 2006 Issue

The Hollywood war movie is a staple of American popular culture. Each new combative film, no matter the position on war, displays stunningly high-tech battle scenes -- which Carl Boggs, co-author of The Hollywood War Machine: US Militarism and Popular Culture, says is contributing to the depersonalization of violence and war in America. In an interview with the alt-weekly Sacramento News & Review, Boggs points out that just about every Hollywood combat movie, whether its anti-war (Platoon), a war tribute (Pearl Harbor), or just a shoot-'em-up (Terminator), glorifies violence by indulging in special effects spectacle. The films' high-tech portrayals of violence inure viewers to the US military's war campaigns overseas. "If you think about the celebrated 'shock and awe' tactics that initiated the recent Iraq war in March 2003," says Boggs, "the media just fell in love with this, because it was very telegenic." [...]

So if Hollywood is demurring to address the conflict of the day, does that mean the end of war movies? Far from it if you expand your viewing to include independent documentaries. Leif Utne provides a helpful viewing list in the January/February issue of Utne ($$). And in The Capital Times, Rob Thomas highlights Deborah Scranton's revolutionary documentary The War Tapes as compelling and "absolutely apolitical." Scranton handed out cameras to soldiers in an attempt to "get inside the experience of war" -- an experience currently unavailable to metroplex moviegoers. [...]

Full story: http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2006_265/news/12267-1.html

Lie By Lie: A Chronicle of a War Foretold
By Mother Jones
The stream of dire dispatches from Iraq has left many Americans wondering, "How did it get this bad?" The editors of Mother Jones offer an answer with this extensively sourced and cross-referenced interactive timeline of political swindle. Tags, like "fear factor" and "distraction," break down the daunting mass of information into more manageable parts. Contemporary history is laid bear, from then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney's call to protect Kuwait's oil from Saddam Hussein in 1990, to Colin Powell's now-infamous speech before the United Nations, all the way to March 19, 2003, the day the United States invaded Iraq. -- Bennett Gordon
http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/index.html (Utne.com)

Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff

The obvious question is, can they get away with it again? http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/iran

It does not involve much imagination to understand the timing. The U.S. is poised to adopt a Congressional regime change of its own in November. A political strategy totally based on fear can offer few other options to prevent this. Besides, occupation by Democrats of even one house of Congress in January would make this scheme more difficult (one would certainly hope). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/the-october-surprise_b_30086.html

That's another downright lie.

U.S. Relaxes Air Travel Restrictions

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1882501,00.html

Here in Washington, five years after George Bush launched his "global war on terror" in response to the 9/11 attacks, I sense one of those subtle subterranean movements that may presage a significant shift in American foreign policy. ...

It's a growing sense not merely that the "war on terror" cannot be won by military means alone .... but that it has, in these first five years, relied too much on guns and soldiers, and made too little of the other instruments at its disposal. ...

[EUREKA!!! But... wasn't five years a bit too long to discover that--JK]

BY HEATHER WOKUSCH
09.25.2006

It barely made news last week when Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne called for the testing of nonlethal weaponry on US citizens in crowd-control situations. According to Wynne, "If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation."

Yes, "War on terror" blowback has hit Main Street.

One example of a crowd-control device possibly coming to your hometown is Raytheon's Active Denial System heat-beam, which a US Air Force fact sheet describes as a "focused speed-of-light millimeter wave energy beam to induce an intolerable heating sensation." There's also the crowd-control Taser, an updated version of the "stun gun" already authorized for US government use against civilians. The Taser delivers a short-term electrical charge of 50,000 volts and though marketed as a non-lethal weapon, has been linked to a number of deaths. While the Taser's dart-firing technology is of little use for crowd control or on vehicles, a new laser version of the gun will reportedly be able to deliver a similar 50,000-volt shock across a crowd.

Protests could soon become much more dangerous for those with medical conditions, such as heart problems, potentially exacerbated by electric shocks.

If testing painful heat-beam and electric-shock weapons on hometown crowds seems a little far-fetched, keep in mind that it wouldn't be the first time the government has used US citizens as guinea pigs for weapons experiments. In 2003, for example, the Pentagon admitted to having tested biological/chemical agents on 5,842 service members in secret trials conducted over a ten-year period (1962-73).

In operations called Project 112 and Project SHAD, the Defense Department assessed its WMD capabilities on service members aboard Navy ships. It also sprayed a Hawaiian rainforest and parts of Oahu. Tests were conducted in six states (Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Utah) as well as in Canada, Britain and Panama.

Many military personnel were not even informed when the toxic agents were being tested on them; only decades later, as crucial documents slowly become declassified, have the veterans' health complaints been acknowledged.

"Could never happen today," you might think, "too many legal protections for citizens in place." Think again.

There's a tricky clause in Chapter 32/Title 50 of the United States Code (the aggregation of US general and permanent laws). Specifically, Section 1520a lists the following cases in which the Secretary of Defense can conduct a chemical or biological agent test or experiment on humans if informed consent has been obtained:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

The definition is a little too open-ended for comfort; apparently there are a lot of circumstances under which the Secretary of Defense can test chemical or biological agents on human beings, but at least informed consent has to be obtained in advance.

Or does it? Section 1515, Chapter 32, entitled "Suspension; Presidential authorization": After November 19, 1969, the operation of this chapter, or any portion thereof, may be suspended by the President during the period of any war declared by Congress and during the period of any national emergency declared by Congress or by the President.

You got it. If the President or Congress decides we're at war then the Secretary of Defense doesn't need anybody's consent to test chemical or biological agents on human beings.

It's not a stretch to wonder what kind of clandestine WMD tests the Defense Department could be conducting in the US right now, on military or civilian populations, without consent, let alone on populations abroad.

It all boils down to this: If US citizens allow our government to pull out of international arms control agreements and invest billions in weaponry, and if we allow ourselves to live in a mindset of perpetual war, then we lose the right to be surprised when that war and those weapons are inevitably turned against us.

[...]

http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.php?id=459 (via Utne magazine)

Historians Against the War (HAW), formed in 2003 to oppose the Iraq invasion, is urging professors and students nationwide to organize National Teach-Ins from October 17 to November 7 to address these questions. There are currently more than thirty events planned coast to coast with many more in the works. The exact formats and themes will reflect the specific identities and issues of each respective institution but the common bond will be a revulsion against this war, an accounting of the multilayered costs it has exacted, and a renewed commitment to bringing the troops home.

Check out HAW's website if you'd like to organize something yourself. The group is currently lining up speakers, offering suggestions on logistics and planning, and faciliating connections between student groups and national organizations such as Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Parents and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Click here to see if there's a teach-in near you, and sign and circulate HAW's statement against the war. Any historian, historically-minded scholar, teacher, or student of history is eligible.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601009_bushs_nuclear_apocalypse/

....War with Iran—a war that would unleash an apocalyptic scenario in the Middle East—is probable by the end of the Bush administration.  It could begin in as little as three weeks.  This administration, claiming to be anointed by a Christian God to reshape the world, and especially the Middle East, defined three states at the start of its reign as “the Axis of Evil.” They were Iraq, now occupied; North Korea, which, because it has nuclear weapons, is untouchable; and Iran.  Those who do not take this apocalyptic rhetoric seriously have ignored the twisted pathology of men like Elliott Abrams, who helped orchestrate the disastrous and illegal contra war in Nicaragua, and who now handles the Middle East for the National Security Council.  He knew nothing about Central America.  He knows nothing about the Middle East.  He sees the world through the childish, binary lens of good and evil, us and them, the forces of darkness and the forces of light.  And it is this strange, twilight mentality that now grips most of the civilian planners who are barreling us towards a crisis of epic proportions. 

These men advocate a doctrine of permanent war, a doctrine which, as William R. Polk points out, is a slight corruption of Leon Trotsky’s doctrine of permanent revolution.  These two revolutionary doctrines serve the same function, to intimidate and destroy all those classified as foreign opponents, to create permanent instability and fear and to silence domestic critics who challenge leaders in a time of national crisis. It works.  The citizens of the United States, slowly being stripped of their civil liberties, are being herded sheep-like, once again, over a cliff.

But this war will be different.  It will be catastrophic.  It will usher in the apocalyptic nightmares spun out in the dark, fantastic visions of the Christian right.  And there are those around the president who see this vision as preordained by God; indeed, the president himself may hold such a vision....

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 12, 2006 3:18 PM [...] scan the internet for information that puts my country in a bad light.... [...] ...so don't waste your time blaming us all ... [...]

Hi Edward,

I thought I was scanning the Internet for information, not necessarily information that puts the US in a bad light--???

On your second point, could you please point to specific posts blaming us/you "all"?

Thanks!

Jacek

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 12, 2006 3:18 PM this last entry was quite interesting and to say the least...a bit sobering.

Have you noticed that no media are carrying that story? Just a couple of weeks before a possible D-day?

Jacek

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 13, 2006 12:22 PM If I spent as much time finding stories about naughty Poles, be they dictators or presidents, or the fellows that sell the stolen German auto parts at the fleamarkets, just over the border; back to the Germans they stole them from...after a while you would be disturbed by it too and feel it was getting a bit personal.

Gotcha! You've betrayed yourself. You don't read other threads (particularly Tidbits lately, I think) where I have made sooooo many postings against Polish, and other kinds of, stupidity.

I have also explained elsewhere that since I just happen to read mainly US press (for reasons that, again, may be known to those who have followed my postings), it is only natural that so many of my stories come from the other side of the Pond. For my purposes American media are the best!

Jacek

From http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19512:

Review

Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Crisis in the Middle East by Ali M. Ansari

Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic by Ray Takeyh

....There has been considerable speculation that the United States may be preparing an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. See Seymour Hersh, "Last Stand: The Military's Problem with the President's Iran Policy," The New Yorker, July 10, 2006, and Sam Gardiner, "The End of the 'Summer of Diplomacy,'" The Century Foundation, September 19, 2006. Lawrence F. Kaplan, in The New Republic, October 2, 2006, writes, "Bush has also vowed privately not to leave office with Iran's nuclear program intact."

Iranian officials have made it clear that if there are strikes, they will respond by attacking American interests in the region. American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are obvious targets, though Iranian civilian and military leaders have also threatened to disrupt world oil supplies passing through the Straits of Hormuz.

By engaging itself militarily, politically, and morally across the Middle East, George Bush's America has become vulnerable. In the face of an overstretched competitor, Iran is less likely than ever to relinquish its nuclear program unless it gets something it wants in return. It is still far from clear that America's weakness will force it to accept Iran's demands, particularly the demand that the US relax its sanctions and end its efforts to destabilize the Islamic Republic. If the US does not, it is hard to imagine today's Iran suspending its enrichment program for very long.—October 5, 2006

* * *

Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell by Karen DeYoung

In September 1990, as the first President Bush was making up his mind to dispatch a large force to the Persian Gulf to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait, the powerful chairman of the Joint Chiefs was given a chance to make a case to his commander in chief that options short of all-out war had yet to be exhausted. The gist of Colin Powell's argument was that a decision on war could wait, that economic sanctions, combined with a steady buildup of American forces in Saudi Arabia, might be enough to force Saddam Hussein to back down.

Powell points his biographer to a quotation from George Catlett Marshall, a soldier-statesman in whose footsteps he tried to walk. "I never haggled with the president...never handled a matter apologetically," Marshall said, describing his relation with Franklin Roosevelt during World War II. The general doesn't need to be told the analogy has shortcomings. "Colin Powell isn't George Marshall," he observes wryly, "and George Bush isn't Franklin Delano Roosevelt."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19490

From http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=130105: 9 Paradoxes of a Lost War

Recently, the New York Times broke a story suggesting that the U.S. Army and the Marines were about to turn the conceptual tide of war in Iraq. ...

But this plan had one ingenious section, derived from an article by four military experts published in the quasi-official Military Review and entitled "The Paradoxes of Counterinsurgency." The nine paradoxes the experts lay out are eye-catching, to say the least, and so make vivid reading; but they are more than so many titillating puzzles of counterinsurgency warfare. Each of them contains an implied criticism of American strategy in Iraq. Seen in this light, they become an instructive lesson from insiders in why the American presence in that country has been such a disaster, and why this (or any other) new counterinsurgency strategy has little chance of ameliorating it.

Paradox 1: The More You Protect Your Force, the Less Secure You Are

[...]

Paradox 2: The More Force You Use, the Less Effective You Are

[Well, the day Zidane overcomes the defeat of his team to which he contributed and runs for president of France, this thesis will be disproved.--JK]

Paradox 3: The More Successful Counterinsurgency Is, the Less Force That Can Be Used and the More Risk That Must Be Accepted

[...]

Paradox 4: Sometimes Doing Nothing Is the Best Reaction

[...]

Paradox 5: The Best Weapons for Counterinsurgency Do Not Shoot

[...]

Paradox 6: The Host Nation Doing Something Tolerably Is Sometimes Better Than Our Doing It Well

[...]

Paradox 7: If a Tactic Works This Week, It Will Not Work Next Week; If It Works in This Province, It Will Not Work in the Next

[...]

Paradox 8: Tactical Success Guarantees Nothing

[...]

[...]

Copyright 2006 Michael Schwartz

* * *

The US is stuck in the quicksands of the broader Middle East, sinking deeper with every move because the Bush administration has refused to learn any lessons about asymmetrical warfare in the region. The 9/11 attacks showed that in the age of globalisation, violence and extremism stemming from criminal wars, illegal occupations and failed states can and will transcend national and regional boundaries to threaten the heart of the western world, through the ease of modern transportation and hi-tech communications, or through the inspiration and incitement of live satellite television wars and sermons.

Instead of concentrating western efforts on reconciliatory and restorative measures such as rebuilding Afghanistan or resolving the Palestinian issue, the region’s leading generator of anti-US sentiment, the Bush administration, motivated by big oil and military industrial interests, preferred to pack the region with its forces. It invaded oil rich Iraq, supported Israel’s crackdown on the Palestinians and destabilised the broader Middle East.

Which brings us to the second missed lesson. If the 20th century is any guide, no low-intensity guerrilla war or insurrection has ever been won on foreign soil.

http://mondediplo.com/2006/10/03uschaos

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 13, 2006 12:22 PM I sincerly hope he is wrong, and that , as pointed out by a few readers, the change of battle groups is just a normal pattern of sea maneuvers...

"But I'm not buying any of this," says another anti-American at http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3596:

Just as an empire on the rise, like the United States on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, is often inclined to take rash and ill-considered actions, so an empire on the decline, like the British and French empires after World War II, will engage in senseless, self-destructive acts. And I fear the same can happen to the United States today, as we, too, slip into decline. ...

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 13, 2006 12:22 PM By all means...continue to find interesting and informative news articles to educate us as to how not to make the same mistakes as our forefathers, concerning war and it's awful results...but include all the search results, not just those that have been found by doing a search under "American, Bush, bad guy"

At your service:

Arms Without Borders
By the Control Arms Campaign
Boeing, Land Systems, and Thyssen Henschel don't just enable human rights violations in nations including Israel, Uganda, and Algeria, they turn a profit off them by selling armored vehicles, attack helicopters, and armored personnel carriers. The connection between designer, supplier, and victim is made explicit with this animated, sound-scaped map created by the Control Arms campaign of Amnesty International, IANSA, and Oxfam. Glide your mouse over your choice of attack vehicles and hear the cocking of gun. Pick one and watch the war machines journey from the country of origin to the field of battle. A text box accompanied by eerie illustrations explains how the arms have been abused.-- Suzanne Lindgren
http://www.controlarms.org/the_issues/arms_without_borders.htm (via Utne magazine)

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 19, 2006 12:53 PM ....shouldn't be much of a surprise to any on this forum.

"In approaching many of these areas, legal issues are traditionally phrased in absolute, all-or-nothing terms. Using a mechanical test, an act is either determined to be willful, in which case the actor is fully liable, or it is unintentional, in which case the actor may be excused from civil responsibility. ...

This paper proposes a continuum model of intent and suggests that a more open acknowledgment of the role of social values and context in case analysis might prove fruitful": http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/rosedale_herb_legal_analysis_intent.htm

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 19, 2006 12:53 PM ...producing and selling something to someone else, that "Might" be used to make something else, that "might" be used to kill someone. We are ultimately...every last one of us...somehow involved in the chain of events that ends with some bugger getting his brains blown out...if you follow the chain back far enough, to the farmer who feeds the seller, the lady who cleans his bathroom... or for that matter, the translator, that translates his correspondence. We are all guilty somewhere along the line.

Thank you, Edward, for the reply that followed. I was in fact concerned that we were relativizing and thus blurring the guilt. I think it's safer to go back to the old good concept of criminal intent and say that there is a slight difference between that farmer/cleaning lady and those selling steel  to gun manufacturers, not to mention those pulling the trigger. Unless the latter were drafted by force in which case not so much them as those pulling the strings are the responsible killers to be punished according to all civilized laws.

Jacek

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 19, 2006 5:46 PM The mention of forced soldiering...be cautious with infuring that just because someone was not drafted, that they are more guilty than those who were.

Yes, it is my opinion that the responsibility of someone acting under duress is limited compared to that of someone being free to choose.

Nothing wrong with working for the military, Edward. Particularly when they help in disaster areas. I was referring to people who volunteer to go to combat zones as part of invasions of foreign countries which invasions have never even remotely resembled the definition of a just war (Post #32734). Yes, for that those combatants are criminally liable. Haven't they heard of a God from a neighbor or a relative? That's why I love India with its, as someone has calculated, 300 million gods, one for every three inhabitants. I saw there people who had hardly anything to eat, yet they would not enlist to invade foreign countries. So, to answer your question about the fellow who joined up to have a job, if the "job" was specifically to take part in an unjust combat, there simply can be no attenuating argument. I was not taking about the military in general which would be as absurd as talking about the government in general.

Jacek

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 20, 2006 11:15 AM But the fellow, be he drafted or not...who serves in the force of his land...he is dependant on the goverment to let him know if a war is just or not...depending upon what they tell him.

No, Edward, ignorance is no excuse, particularly when it comes to kiling. You come from a country which has an incredibly vast array of press titles available. I have always praised the United States for that. In fact, I suspect that most of my postings on TC are quotes from US sources. Don't tell me that access to those sources was impossible before the Internet because I have lived in the US long enough to know that it was not true. 

As for this particular bloody crusade, I remember TC postings dating back to the early 2003 argue that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with a just war. Internet was loaded with that sort of patent information.

He doesn't have much of a choice at that point anyway once he's in one...if he doesn't go along with it..he becomes a criminal

That's what law says and until it is changed, we must abide by it. But the same law also says "Don't kill." So I have added some key emphasis to your sentence to point out, as I have already done in my Indian example, that no joblessness justifies this kind of irrationality. I can understand that a homeless would steal food to survive, but no, I will never accept that he would enlist to kill for that. I am sorry, I just come from a different culture.

So who can truly say...beforehand, if a war is just or not?

Gotcha again! You have not read the definition of just war.

A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations"

>>>>>>>>>Iraq was not responsible for aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of the whole US population.

• Comparative Justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;

>>>>>>>>>Whatever injustice was suffered by the US, it does not significantly outweigh that suffered by Iraq.

• Legitimate Authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;

>>>>>>>>>Oh, yes, US voters ensured that that condition be met in full. 

• Right Intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose- correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

>>>>>>>>>Economic reasons (lemme think, like oil maybe?) are out of the picture.

• Probability of Success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

>>>>>>>>>Does not apply in the case of the US for which, as we can see, there simply are no disproportionate measures due to unlimted funding and human resources.

• Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.

>>>>>>>>>Does not apply either. (Destruction, what destruction?)

• Last Resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.

Jacek

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 19, 2006 11:46 AM Call it niavitate, or what you will...but a volunteer, in a peactime environment, doesn't think about how it might truly end up. He just wants a job..money..security. When it does, come to that point, there is as little choice about whether to shoot or not,

We always have a choice! It's when the choice is between pest and cholera that we turn around and claim that our back was up against the wall and therefore we had no choice. We simply don't want to make a choice between pest and cholera, for they both appear equally unpleasant.  

Once, a few years ago, someone threatened my life. At first, my mind refused to believe what I was seeing, but as my back was literally up against the wall, something within me changed and I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that I would try to kill the other person if he made a decisive move. Before he could do so, he must have seen in my eyes that I was not going to be a willing victim, and he turned around and left. I can still recall the million of thoughts that ran through my mind and among them the thought that I would likely be charged with manslaughter, but...even though I had in NO way signed up for this particular session, and many would say that I had no choice, I still say that I had a choice and that I made a choice.

Nanna

A perfect description of self-defense. Almost an equivalent of just war.

Jacek

Edward,

I don't mind wearing myself out on the subject of life and death.

You will only know what the government wants you to know...

Yes, but it is up to me to believe it or not. 45 per cent of Americans believe the Earth was created by God within the past 10,000 years (Post #89698) I don't.

[Saddam] told us he was going to do it. He made the threats...and he made claims of capabilities that were indeed worrisome. He played poker and thought no one would call his bluff. ... never mind the other bits of "acurate" information that got given to the world in front of the United Nations.

When you say "never mind," do you return to your thesis of the government being the only source of information, or do you dismiss the following UN "other bits of "acurate" information" for some other reasons? Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction: 

"Hans Blix's last report to the UN security Council prior to the US led invasion of Iraq, described Iraq as actively and proactively cooperating with UNMOVIC, though not necessarily in all areas of relevance and had been frequently uncooperative in the past, but that it was within months of resolving key remaining disarmament tasks.^"

If I remember correctly, Hans Blix was never allowed to finish his inspection in Iraq.

Some madman threatening to send missles in my direction...makes for little "choice" of decisions.

Edward, you don't seriously believe that "Rome or Istanbul" are now the target of North Korea or Iran, do you? And yet, that is precisely what we are being told. Why? In view of the coming elections I will let you guess.

Jacek

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 20, 2006 9:08 AM I'd say you had a choice, until the other person took your choice away, by putting you in the situation. Then all of your choices were gone...unless you qualify acceptance of death as a choice.

Edward,

It's difficult to explain but I will try. I do not believe that the other person took my choice away. What he did, IMO, is decide that I was going to be his next victim and he thought that by dint of his large size and superior strength that he had left me with no choice, i.e., I was going to be victimized whether I wanted to or not. He narrowed my choices considerably, I'll grant you that, but for reasons I do not want to go into, I do not accept physical violence from anyone. So I fight back. In my eyes, I had a choice, and I am still here.

I make it sound simple and I know well that it isn't simple and straightforward and that we all have occasion at one point or another in our lives to feel that we are victims of something that we cannot control, let alone change. I think it's in the mind.

Nanna

BTW, this is definitely the case of draft and the US is such a great country not to have it (yet).

Jacek

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 20, 2006 4:10 PM ...just the thought of all those sheep in the fold.

Yes, but the same sheep, when they enlist to go to Iraq, they become armed and dangerous and we cannot just absolve them. I repeat my question: Have they never heard of God from any friend or relative? Here is a little visual reminder from the very land of the Sheriff:

The Texas Ten Commandments statue--sitting right there. You can't miss it!

Half of the problem was that that Bozo made such a fuss about the UN inspectors.....he caused his own problems by not just letting them get their job done.  He pokered with them and made it appear he had something hidden that we would have been unhappy about.

Yes, we all know that he wasn't an angel and whoever had previously supported him in power wasn't either. But when lives of hundreds of thousands of people are at stake, you must not make ill-judged decisions. Those can be made by a Zidane when it comes to some world championship. Here, we are talking stuff that's far too serious.

You too have a nice weekend!

Jacek

But when lives of hundreds of thousands of people are at stake, you must not make ill-judged decisions.

Since we are debating this...which hundreds of thousand people are you really refering to?  The hundreds of thousands that the US apparently tried to help, but now have supposedly hurt in Iraq...or the hundreds of thousands that Sadamm threatened by bragging he was going to do something naughty?

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 23, 2006 10:27 AM ...or the hundreds of thousands that Sadamm threatened by bragging he was going to do something naughty?

Oh, he was not only bragging. With a little help from his friends, he was actually quite effective. See Post #22448. If I were a politician, particularly that religious, I would not be so eager to "help" everyone around.

Jacek

The following is today's front-page news from a senior U.S. diplomat but what the heck, let me repeat it here:

Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the U.S. State Department .... said: "We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq." ...

A senior Bush administration official questioned whether the remarks had been translated correctly.

Full story: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/22/africa/ME_GEN_Iraq_Insurgent_Negotiations_Text.php

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 23, 2006 10:27 AM ....the US apparently tried to help, ....

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 23, 2006 12:12 PM Iraq wasn't finished with building the bombs....

Is Iran finished?
Two views on finishing:

A Short History of 'Cut and Run,' Using the George W. Bush Definition: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061106/trillin

and:

This past August 17, at Fort Lewis, Washington, there was an Article 23 hearing for Lt. Watada. Early in the hearing the prosecution played video clips from his recent speeches. In one of these speeches, to the national convention of Veterans for Peace, Lt. Watada said: "Today, I speak with you about a radical idea...The idea is this; that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers...can choose to stop fighting it." ...

Like David Mitchell in the 1960s, Ehren Watada is not a pacifist. He offered to go to Afghanistan but refused to go to Iraq. He refused to go to Iraq for the same reason David refused to go to Vietnam, not because of objection to all wars, but because of a conviction that war crimes were being committed in this particular war, giving rise to an obligation, under the principles declared at Nuremburg, to refuse military service. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061106/soldiers_of_conscience

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 23, 2006 1:30 PM You haven't addressed the issue.....

That's because I have nothing original to say: Most of the time American boys liberate countries where the US has vital interests. "The American lifestyle is non-negotiable." (That's President Bush at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, 1992)

Jacek

You need wealth to build an army. You then use that army to capture more wealth. Google up Maj.Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC, for his views.

There was also a lite colonel from CENTCOM who submitted a very frank letter to the editor of Al Ahram (online ed) about the USA taking whatever resources wherever in the world it wanted to. You might try googling "Al Ahram" and "CENTCOM" -- the letter was published in Dec 03 (or less possibly 02).

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 23, 2006 11:15 AM Sounds like a guy that will be out of a job next week....

Meanwhile, he is apologizing while the British army chief (Post #100015) is denying any rift with his  government (what General Dannatt said before: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1922341,00.html)

* * *

The Disneyfication of war allows us to ignore its real savagery

Statues of canine 'heroes' from the second world war are still being unveiled while the deaths of Iraqi civilians go unrecorded

The Guardian

Most of our memorials sentimentalise war. Few commemorate the horror. But now we have a new category whose purpose seems to be to trivialise it. ...

The Imperial War Museum in London is currently running an exhibition called The Animals' War. It features stuffed mascots, tales of the "desperate plight" of 200 animals trapped by the fighting in Iraq, and photos of dogs wearing gas masks. It tells us about the "PDSA Dickin medal - the animals' Victoria Cross", which has been awarded to 23 dogs, 32 pigeons, three horses and one cat for "acts of conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty in wartime". The museum resounds with cries of "aaah!" and "how sweet!". War is now cute. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1929935,00.html

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 24, 2006 12:48 PM Just because you see war as evil and unnessesary...don't suggest that the heros that saved lives during a war...don't deserve recognition.

It's sort of irrelevant what I think about war because wars have always been there and will be there at least for a few centuries to come, so all we can do is just fix some of their aspects. One way of doing so is to shift focus, uncover red herrings, etc. Thus, my focus when reading the following Guardian sentence is as follows:

Statues of canine 'heroes' from the second world war are still being unveiled while the deaths of Iraqi civilians go unrecorded

Once you adopt this perspective, it becomes much more interesting and worth discussing, for example, that Voters want British troops home. Has this been implemented with the same expedience as the undoubtedly moving project on animal heroes of the second world war? Once you even mention these two facts together, you have relativized everything, blurred all the ethical boundaries of the human community we are part of. First things first is what I believe in.

Jacek

Excuse me! So while more than one Iraqi woman has been raped and worse by soldiers too stressed by the war to behave as human beings, the Victoria Cross, a medal for "acts of conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty in wartime" was awarded to 32 PIGEONS!!!

Sadly, there's no limit to human folly.

Nanna

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 24, 2006 6:48 AM ...these animals performed some feat that was noteworthy....and how else will a goverment make an attempt to say thank you to them, other than some official way, be it a ceremony or medal or both.

Edward,

I have always had a dog and right now, I have a beautiful Alsatian. She is rather important to me and I take very good care of her. But she is a dog, not my son or my daughter, or my grandchildren, or one of my very few trusted friends, all of them more important. Besides, Aria (my dog) wouldn't give a hoot for a medal, she'd rather have a juicy bone, which reminds me of W. H. Auden's poem:

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
....

 http://homepages.wmich.edu/~cooneys/poems/auden.stop.html 

Nanna

In a way yes. But only virtually and only in Maine. From http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/08/30/guard_families_cope_in_two_dimensions/ (via Harper's magazine):

Maine National Guard members in Iraq and Afghanistan are never far from the thoughts of their loved ones.

But now, thanks to a popular family-support program, they're even closer.

Welcome to the ``Flat Daddy" and ``Flat Mommy" phenomenon, in which life-size cutouts of deployed service members are given by the Maine National Guard to spouses, children, and relatives back home.

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 24, 2006 3:11 PM If Nanna's dog saved a few children from drowning...I bet she would be one proud lady when the city decided to recognise him and maybe even present him a medal, ......

While I would be pleased for the children and of course with Aria, I can assure you that I would no more accept a medal for her, than I would accept one if I had saved them myself. With a little luck, either Aria or I could end up on the front page of the National Enquirer as the current incarnation of Lassie.

Nanna

It's true that in accepting a gift, you honour the giver. It is also true that when giving a gift, you often give according to your own needs or wants rather than according to the receiver's needs or wants. These needs and wants may be conscious or subconscious, but they exists.

Do I love because I am loved or am I loved because I love? Ideally the latter, but I think it's a combination of the two. Where does love begin?

I do not know, but I do know that when accepting a gift one should beware....

"... Caesar Augustus commissioned Publius Vergilius Maro (70-19 BC) to author a national epic for Rome. Virgil's Aeneid was written sometime between 29 BC and the poet's death in 19 BC. It tells the story of a minor character from Homer's Iliad who founded a “New Troy” (Rome). It is in the Aeneid that we find the Trojan horse and Laocoon's warning about Greeks and gifts: “I fear Dardanians [Greeks] even when they bear gifts.“... "

http://german.about.com/library/blidioms_greeks.htm

Nanna

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 27, 2006 8:55 AM ...When one gives, and does not get an equivilent back....that's when it will be unbalanced, and... .

If love is a gift and if, when giving, we in return demand an equivalent love, should there be such a thing, where then is the gift?

Then there's war, where tit for tat or preferably, more tit for the tat is the only mode of operation if you want to win the fight for dominion over other people.

Nanna

While I enjoy bridging the unbridgeable divide between religions, I would never ever even think of proposing a rope gangway between the two worlds you mention, Nanna. I mean these are literally the antipodes not of this galaxy but of the entire universe and no interpreting/translation between the two is possible by definition.

Jacek

This is the second installment of the timeline, with a focus on how the Iraq war was lost in the first 100 days: http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

One difference is that real men's life is not for wimps. From (sorry!) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/19/eveningnews/main2109747.shtml:

(CBS) Army Staff Sgt. Bryce Syverson spent 15 months in Iraq before he was diagnosed by military doctors with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and sent to the psychiatric unit at Walter Reed Medical Center, ...

"It ended up they just took his weapon away from him and said he was non-deployable and couldn’t have a weapon," says his father, Larry Syverson. "He was on suicide watch in a lockdown."

That was last August. This August, he was deployed to Ramadi, in the heart of the Sunni triangle — and he had a weapon. ...

"Try, if you can, to imagine what would happen if an imaginary group of pro-democracy Saudis staged a street rebellion in Riyadh": http://www.slate.com/id/2152515/

While the number of revoked clearances has surged since the beginning of the Iraq war, military officials say there is no evidence that service members are deliberately running up debts to stay out of harm's way: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301069.html?nav=rss_print/asection

A new life? Or death?

From http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/30/news/legion.php:

Through savvy online recruiting in 13 languages, using war-play video downloads with a rock 'n' roll beat, the Foreign Legion and its once largely European troops are emerging as a force for globalization.

Fresh recruits trooping to its headquarters in Aubagne, just east of Marseille in southern France, are an e- mail generation of legionnaires who first explored joining the force online from their homes in Venezuela and Brazil, Japan and China. ...

This year, about 600,000 visitors have sampled the legion's Web sites, www.legion-etrangere.com and www.legion-recrute.com, which promise a new life regardless of nationality, religion or education.

Jacek (wondering whether one can apply for more than one life from them in this game)

It seems that your new life will be in and then, "straight out the window into the fire."

Baptism by fire?

Nanna

On October 26, the United Nations voted on a resolution to lay the groundwork for a treaty that would curb exporting arms to conflict areas or areas known for human rights abuses. The resolution passed 139 to 1, with 24 abstentions. The lone opponent? The world's largest arms exporter, the United States: http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2006_273/news/12312-1.html

The Appeal for Redress is the first antiwar movement organized by active military personnel since the Vietnam War: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=135256

A military spokeswoman quoted by the New York Times said soldiers aren't allowed to marry local civilians under the military's fraternization policies: http://www.slate.com/id/2152564/

Well, there's this War of the Roses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

and this War of the Roses:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098621/

Nanna (apologising for the OT)

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 20, 2006 11:15 AM [...] Not all governments broadcast thier true motivations, ... But the fellow, be he drafted or not...who serves in the force of his land...he is dependant on the goverment to let him know if a war is just or not...depending upon what they tell him. [...]

Right.

Nov. 3, 2006 — An ABC News undercover investigation showed Army recruiters telling students that the war in Iraq was over, in an effort to get them to enlist. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2626032&page=1

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 13, 2006 12:22 PM I sincerly hope he is wrong, and that, as pointed out by a few readers, the change of battle groups is just a normal pattern of sea maneuvers...

Right, war games are just a normal thing.

TEHRAN, Iran: Iran unexpectedly announced Wednesday that it would be holding military maneuvers in the Gulf this week, only days after U.S.-led navies held exercises in the same waterway: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/01/africa/ME_GEN_Iran_Military.php

Jacek

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on November 5, 2006 7:29 AM Well.......   What does everyone think about the verdict?  Saddam.  I've got mixed feelings.  Not so much as to whether it was correct or not...I can't make that decision, not being there.....but I have rather a lot of questions as to whether it will ever actually be carried out, whether things will get worse because of it, or perhaps better, etc, etc.   My suspicion is that it will never actually take place, for various reasons and I suspect things will get very dangerous for those who are in the court, not to mention for those who publically  hail the ruling.  So we have somethng new to worry about, in the Iraqi situation now. What are your viewpoints and predictions?

Good insights.  I tend to look at these types of trials as farces (cf. Milošević's).  Best solution probably would have been to turn him loose in Sadr City after his capture and let the locals work out their blood-lust.  They would have strung him up, as the Italian partisans did Mussolini.

You know, Churchill apparently didn't want the Nuremberg tribunals precisely because he didn't want to give the Nazis a final forum to express their ideology.  He supposedly favored executing the top 3000–4000 Nazis, who were well known to Allied intelligence by 1945.

The problem of rulers' accountability is complex. I believe the term "asymmetric" is in now.

On November 14 a group of lawyers and other experts will come before the German federal prosecutor and ask him to open a criminal investigation targeting Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and other key Bush Administration figures for war crimes. The recent passage of the Military Commissions Act provides a central argument for the legal action, under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction: It demonstrates the intent of the Bush Administration to immunize itself legally from prosecution in the United States, even for the most serious crimes: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061120/brechersmith

* * *

A fairly astonishing editorial appears in today's editions of Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, and Marine Corps Times, calling on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign: http://www.slate.com/id/2152981/

Did they say Saddam Must Go?

Jacek

Did US demand dismissal of Poland's Deputy PM? http://www.radio.com.pl/polonia/article.asp?tId=44264

WASHINGTON: The State Department's spokesman refused on Tuesday to discuss whether a U.S. diplomat in Poland overstepped his position by complaining about the deputy Polish prime minister's position on Iraq.

A statement by [Kenneth] Hillas was interpreted to have been a suggestion that [Poland's] Deputy Prime Minister Roman Giertych should be fired for promoting a parliamentary debate about civilian casualties of the Iraq war. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/07/america/NA_GEN_US_Poland.php

A US diplomat has suggested that Polish deputy PM Roman Giertych get the sack for asking for a debate about Poland’s involvement in Iraq. http://beatroot.blogspot.com/2006/11/bloody-cheek.html

Another liberal pipe-dream.   Seriously, if the Germans are as effective in their prosecutions of these Bush figures as they were of their own ex-Nazis in the 1960s, Rummy et al. have very little cause for concern.

Rumsfeld Is Stepping Down
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign after six years at the Pentagon, Republican officials said Wednesday.

Long overdue IMJ.  But what does this have to do with my own remark?

Glad you brought up Pinochet in this context.  The attempt to prosecute him in Spain owes to the efforts of a showboating judge named Baltasar Garzón, who had a very specific set of charges for Pinochet to answer, viz. the deaths of Spanish nationals in Chile during the dictatorship.  (Spanish law evidently allows for the prosecution in Spain of all human rights cases even if committed abroad, however.)  That said, I want you to consider that – as far as I know, and somebody please correct me if I'm wrong – not a single Spaniard has been brought before the bar of justice in Spain for his role in the deaths of Spanish nationals on Spanish soil during the decades of dictatorship there.

Back to Germany.  The (largely failed) Allied de-Nazification courts are well known, but less known is that the de-Nazification effort was taken over by the Federal Republic in 1958.  Through the 1960s, they prosecuted very few Nazis, even though the law had been changed to remove the statue of limitations on murder.  By the 1970s, the effort was largely over, even though there were still plenty of war criminals living openly in West Germany.  From that I conclude that the German people were comfortable with the status quo.

If German justice (the phrase doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?) want to prosecute people for crimes against humanity, they will find a rich vein to mine on German soil.  When they run out of (elderly, but unrepentant) ex-SS members, they can start on the (equally unrepentant) ex-Stasi members.  (IMJ.)

With this context, I see the "prosecution of Rumsfeld" as a grotesque publicity stunt.

The US suggestion that deputy prime ministers of countries like Germany, France, Denmark or Poland would/should resign if they dare to inquire about the carnage in Iraq (that was just days before Rumsfeld's resignation Post #102970) was but a gentle reminder of who is running the show. I cannot even imagine the hell that would start if anyone on this planet dared to attempt to enforce a hypothetical international warrant against Mr. Rumsfeld.

Jacek

I am not the least bit fond of Fogh Rasmussen and his Danish People's party cohorts, but that Big Brother should even suggest, let alone attempt... well, the latter would certainly raise my ire...

Nanna

Bad timing award on the day goes to this Reuters story, sent out at 10:50 a.m [about two hours before his resignation was announced].

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the face of U.S. war policy and a lightning rod for critics worldwide, will not be forced out just because he faces a tougher time from resurgent Democrats. via http://beatroot.blogspot.com/2006/11/rumsfeld-falls-on-his-sward.html

I'm not sure whether this addresses my point, which was (in part) that Germany, with its unfulfilled prosecutions of Nazis, and with itself only having shaken off totalitarianism in 1989 in the east, has likely forfeited the right to bring charges of "crimes against humanity" etc. against others.  Bring those charges, consistently, against German citizens in Germany first, then you'll be more credible.

But as I said, this is little more than a sick joke, and I've wasted enough time on it....

And here is the link to the organization in question:

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp

It's a well known radical Left/communist-front organization in the mold of International ANSWER.

For the record, when Time broke this story, it suggested that it was the Federal Prosecutor's office in Germany that was considering bringing the charges.  The BBC (radio) at least reported the story correctly, i.e. that a private organization wanted the case begun in Germany, citing Germany's universal jurisdiction law.  (To their credit, The Nation also reported the story correctly.) 

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on November 11, 2006 8:51 PM I'd say there is little doubt of guilt...but a lot of doubt about doing something about it.

How about this: http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20061109_truthdig_interview_dennis_kucinich/

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the potential next chair of the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, calls for congressional hearings into how and why America invaded Iraq, and demands “accountability” for those who led America into a “war based on lies.”

On the war on terror, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19657 brings a review of

What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat
by Louise Richardson
Random House, 312 pp., $25.95

Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them
by John Mueller
Free Press, 259 pp., $25.00

Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism
by Charles Peña
Potomac, 241 pp., $27.95

Originally written by Edward Mowbray on October 20, 2006 11:15 AM [...] Not all governments broadcast thier true motivations, ... But the fellow, be he drafted or not...who serves in the force of his land...he is dependant on the goverment to let him know if a war is just or not...depending upon what they tell him. [...]

Ignorance is bliss!

From http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/world/middleeast/10marines.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1163221200&en=e2b42fbea8b9beb7&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin:

ZAGARIT, Iraq, Nov. 9 ....

“Rumsfeld’s out,” [the sergeant] said to five marines sprawled with rifles on the cold floor.

Lance Cpl. James L. Davis Jr. looked up from his cigarette. “Who’s Rumsfeld?” he asked.

If history is any guide, many of the young men who endure the severest hardships and assume the greatest risks in the war in Iraq will become interested in politics and politicians later, when they are older and look back on their combat tours.

But not yet. Marine infantry units have traditionally been nonpolitical, to the point of stubbornly embracing a peculiar detachment from policy currents at home. It is a pillar of the corps’ martial culture: those with the most at stake are among the least involved in the decisions that send them where they go.

I guess they have to, otherwise they may end up having some serious doubts.

All that to be kept on a tight leash, though:

From http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20061115impeachment_1.cfm?gp=TNE260793896:

Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman is one wise legal thinker who says that, whether or not it would be a political liability for the Democrats, impeaching Bush is their constitutional duty. Holtzman served four terms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. Holtzman's full brief on this subject can be found in The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens (Nation Books), which she co-wrote with Cynthia L. Cooper.

Scott,

The Plaintiff coalition is led by the New York-based civil rights group Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). So even though the venue is Germany, the charges are not exactly brought by Germans. Incidentally, the suit also names 11 other high-ranking US officials, including current US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet, and Ricardo Sanchez, the former commander of all US forces in Iraq. They are all accused of either ordering, aiding, or failing to prevent war crimes.

Snippets from http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,448320,00.html:

CCR and its partner organizations filed a similar complaint in 2004, but it was dropped. They claim the US pressured Germany to drop the case, which was dismissed in February 2005 on the eve of a visit by Rumsfeld to Germany. At the time, then-federal prosecutor Kay Nehm said that there were no indications that the US authorities would "refrain from penal measures" regarding the violations described in the complaint. The activists believe that Nehm's successor, Monika Harms, who took office earlier this year, may be more amenable to their cause.

And they also feel they have more chance of success this time. One reason is new evidence such as documents from the 2005 Congressional hearings on the al-Qahtani case. Rumsfeld's resignation last week may also mean that prosecutors are under less political pressure to shun the case, the activists feel. His resignation also means he can no longer try to claim immunity as a sovereign official from international prosecution for war crimes.

And the human rights groups have an ace up their sleeve: Janis Karpinski, the former commander of Abu Ghraib, will appear as a witness on their behalf. ...

The case could not be brought to the International Criminal Court in The Hague because the US is not a member, Ratner said, adding that the case could also not be pursued through the United Nations because of the US's veto power.

Yes, yes; I knew this sounded familiar.  I remember the other (dismissed) case.  I don't know, the whole thing impresses (me) as a pathetic stunt, but it may lead to increased donations to said public-advocacy institute.  Maybe they can get their own fundraising link on MoveOn?

The Army probably should have submitted Karpinski to a court martial; she got off easy.  Getting her pension benefits reduced to those of a colonel hardly seems like much of a punishment.

If there was ever a jurisdiction to try the "just following orders" defense, Germany certainly is it.  I don't suspect she'll make much of a witness (but I'll guess that the prosecutors don't take the case, so we'll never get to hear her testimony).

Again, my larger point is that a country e.g. Germany should be prosecuting its own human-rights violators.  You and I may have different opinions about this...but I don't care whether some of those people are in their 80s or 90s.  For what they did, they should not be allowed to pass from this planet in comfort, at home.  They should die imprisoned.

I saw that Markus Wolf died.  He was actually tried and convicted, but the conviction was quashed.  He died peacefully in his sleep at his Berlin home.

All civilized courts are supposed to be independent from politics and history, but of the two initiatives at hand--the Congressional and the German one--the former is better because it would also help American people understand their part of the guilt on the reelection of Bush.

Otherwise, the issue of jurisdiction is fascinating. For example, lawsuits of property owners expropriated decades ago by Polish communists used to be filed in... US courts (until Post #97096 that is). In the most glamorous of such cases, a $275M suit launched by a Canadian family in New York says that the US conspired with communists in taking over their family's land in Warsaw to build the US embassy: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=f9949ee3-261f-426b-8ee3-2e44a1ac762c.

Jacek

And, yet again, history recycles itself.  This is the same type of remark I recall hearing from Europeans in the 1980s – then it was Reagan who was the "war criminal" because of his support for the Contras.  (Some of these same high-minded folks, though, advocated a society constructed along the lines of the programs of the Brigate Rosse or Sendero Luminoso.)  We call this being "unclear on the concept," and that is why I began the (unproductive) thread on liberal and totalitarian ideologies.

There is a certain type of comfortable, educated Westerner prone to exhibit what a friend calls "penitential narcissism" – over his or her own latent "racism," or the colonial depredations of his/her country in past times.  In the US, The Nation and Mother Jones and the editorial pages of the New York Times provide good examples of this tendency.  I'll just make the point to my international friends that very few Americans are interested in any this, and feel no "guilt" about the Bush presidency, whether they cast a ballot for him or not.  We are not a guilt-racked people, like it or not.

That's why I merely suggested helping the American people understand certain things, not forcing them to do so.

Jacek

Well...being helped to feel guilty may not be high on the list. 

Nanna 

Originally written by Jacek Krankowski on November 17, 2006 10:26 AM Nanna, If you look at my Post #103914, you will notice that it contains two statements: one about my preference for the proposed Congressional hearings on the war-related wrongdoings (I mean, when I hear that hardly anyone in America is interested in this sort of things, then maybe they will be interested in what their own representatives are up to, after all it's a representative democracy, isn't it?), and two--about most incredible jurisdiction entanglements in the context of which an action brought in Germany should not surprise anyone.

I read almost all the post in this thread and find that the more I read the less I understand. This morning, in order to refresh my memory, I researched the German case and got lost in conflicting information. I don't know if I am correct in this, but while living in the States, I found it hard to rouse people to action unless the action was presented in a God Bless Our Country manner that, in my opinion, speaks to the lowest common denominator. It seems to me that the Congressional hearings are too removed from the average consciousness about We the People in God's Own Country. I can still recall the Gulf War and how people in a neighbourhood close to mine burned several Japanese cars because Japan couldn't send troops they didn't have. Recall, how I was accosted by my neighbours because I refused to have an anti-Japanese-sentiment sticker in my window. That sort of thing will get people off their fannies, while words like rendition and water-boarding are just words with no meaning, for whatever it means to them it's happening too far away.  

Perhaps Bush's War on Terror is so etched in people's memories that they can find excuses for any and all atrocities committed in the name of defending what seem to them right and good, that the end justifies the means. I don't know, Jacek how to explain why it seems to not bother people. It bothers me! It also bothers me that Denmark is involved in what I see as a war waged on faulty premises and a pack of lies. I honestly do not understand the legal jurisdictional wranglings in the US, in Germany or in Denmark.  

I apologise for my rant, which isn't much better than what I just accused Americans of doing

Nanna

OK, but I wouldn't brag about that.

they can find excuses for any and all atrocities committed in the name of defending what seem to them right and good,