DOCUMENT

ABOUT

zwarg.blog
the philly take on things

CATEGORIES

MAIN
war
thoughts
i-net
holidays
whiskers
triplecross

ARCHIVES

United States vs. Iraq
(round 2)

  Seconds: 84919011
  Minutes: 1415316
  Hours: 23588
  Days: 982
  Months: 32
  Years: 2

Contact

RSS

Well, it's all top-secret hush-hush and whiz-bang, but there's a new government in Iraq. The New York Times reports on the consummation of their secret plan.

Although that is kind of sketchy, I'm happy for the Iraqi people. Hopefully, the Yankees will now leave. Which means that we must welcome home the soldiers who have fought. This is a tricky point: since they have been in combat, many if not most will suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder. And they face alienation by an American public who may or may not have supported the war. It is important to know that the soldiers, who have been machined into killers, may be humanized again, and integrated into our "normal" lives. That's going to be hard as hell for most people to understand.

Another thing that I'm happy about, is the Supreme Court's decision that the 'illegal combatants' in Guantanamo have the right to due process, and the 'process' they have had does not constitute that. This makes the illegal detentions, well, illegal. Also, it makes the Administration's stance look ancient and tyrannical. At least to me.

Hooray for progress! Or at least what feels like progress.

[/war] permanent link

So the jury is back in, regarding the "Phenomenally Amazing, Practically Unbelievably Horrifying" Iraq/al-Qaida link. I mean the fact that it doesn't or barely exists. And when I say barely, I mean non-functional.

This news has been accepted many different ways. The White House has been slowly modifying it's party line, and now it is agreeing with the commission. Now, this doesn't mean that they come out and say it, but they speak of the same terms. According to the Guardian, it would appear that the commission and the White House are going head to head. The way I see it, they are saying the same information two different ways.

It's just mighty convenient for the White House that they sound similar, even if the spin is applied the opposite way. Is this another bone to pick? I thought that this was an argument George W. Bush lost a while ago.

[/war] permanent link

Dear Webmaster:

First of all, I want to thank you for bringing to my attention the usefulness of your work. I would not know where to look in the unconquered dominion of the internet if I wanted to find a chocolate-chip cookie recipe, without the help of Google (thanks!). Also, I would have no idea what the weather would be today or the next day, without something as useful as The National Weather Service, since I don't have a television to catch the latest news (thanks again!).

And with your work, you have been able to provide to us, the internet public, a huge assortment of options. If I want the news, I can decide which type of news. One can pick out of the spectrum of Newsmax, NY Times, or Alternet, in order to find the news that is most relevant to my daily life.

I would like to express to you my profound confusion, therefore, at the abundance of websites that claim to be "the source" or "the only" or "the most [superfluous adjective] website". For example, if I were to travel from my house to my place of business, I would probably look at www.511.org, in order to figure out my transporting needs. But wait! What if I looked at goldengate.org instead? Or actransit.org? Or commute.org? Or rides.org? Which resource is which? Who should I turn to? Who is the best bet here? All these services serve commuters in the San Franciso area, and all of them have different coverages, systems, maps, timetables, etc. Why is this information in multiple places?

Please do not assume the answer is "make another website," because this world does not need ANOTHER website. What is so horrible about collaboration and cooperation? In the push to web, everyone has seemingly crawled, scratched, and bit their way over everyone else, in order to just put up some kind of information on the web. But truly, it is NOT a web.

This is where you come in, webmaster. A web, defined by dictionary.com accurately describes the WWW this way: "Something intricately contrived, especially something that ensnares or entangles." However, for the sake of sanity, why can't the web be: "A complex, interconnected structure or arrangement?" If relevant information was truly linked to additional relevant information, then this web's potential would be SO TAPPED.

So please, webmaster, the next time you consider publishing more information online, consider collaborating with an existing site, and enhancing their service, or be thorough in your linkage, make this web truly interconnected, instead of a dark, lonely corridor full of empty rooms.

Sincerely,
David.

[/thoughts] permanent link

If the United States government was anything like the NY Times, I think this world would be a better place. One may be curious as to why I would say such outlandish things. Well, on the "International" page of the NY Times, there is a link to a critical article on the Time's presentation of information regarding Iraq, Al-Qaida, and WMD. It can be found here if the page has changed.

Now, if the United States government was as critical and as willing to put forth its own critique of itself, well, damn. Can you imagine the kind of information you would get from that kind of outlet? I can just see the headlines streaming by now: "FDA Admits to Passing Untested Drugs," "President's Comments On Iraq And Al-Qaida Misleading," "Secretary of Defense's Attitude Toward Prisoners Of War Is Inappropriate." And they could go on.

But just imagine the possibilities! Imagine if the administration and the higher-ups actually had a dialog with the meat of this country, the American people. I have heard that Bush doesn't read any newspapers. Maybe he needs to just get in touch with his constituency again.

[/war] permanent link

An article on Aljazeera states that Bush is under fire from former diplomats and military officials for his shoddy foreign policy. Although, I don't know if you can call it a policy.

I might opt for the term "selfish."

The article is available here, along with a fancy picture of the fearless leader himself.

I though a funny little sidenote was how someone commented that "their timing is a little off," regarding the criticism. I don't know how that is any kind of defense for the administration. Why don't they just say, "well, we KNOW that, why didn't you say it a couple months ago when everyone else was saying it?" Can't the administration say, "our foreign policy works because of ..." instead? I mean, do they just not get it?

[/war] permanent link

According to an article on scotsman.com, Bush acts like a creepy politician. The article discusses the use of torture, and the knowledge of the administration as to the use of it. The way Bush avoids answers, and answers the question he wanted to be asked (something I heard in The Fog Of War).

This is the logic, according to the article:

1. Bush is asked if torture is ever justified.
2. Bush avoids the question, and says that 'our people' are instructed to follow the law of the United States of America.
3. The Justice Department states "that US laws against torture do not apply to the war on terror."
4. The administration says that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to prisoners of the war on terror. However, they are willing to follow the convention's guidelines.

So, what we're being told is... torture is okay, as long as it's not against a United States citizen. Especially those who are not REALLY prisoners of war, because we like the term 'illegal combatants' instead. That's my take on this hideous situation.

[/war] permanent link

So, amidst all of these glowing praises of the wonderful past president that recently past away, I hear very little criticism. I guess I expected more, since I am just learning of his involvement in Latin America during his tenure. It's quite offensive, and I am quite amazed that he was able to convert parts of the United States government into terrorist sponsors.

Not exactly the type of information you want in a eulogy, I suppose. It makes me wonder, what is it going to be like in many years when Jr. passes away? Will people remember his 'humanitarian' effort to bring Democracy to Iraq? Or are they going to remember his deception of the United States politicians and the public?

Time will tell, I suppose, but I don't want to have to wait so long before he goes.

[/war] permanent link

Okay, it seems that we are descending into a war of semantics. I would like you (the reader) to guess which definition is which. I pulled the definition of 'torture' and 'abuse' (as nouns, although they both have transitive verb forms as well) from dictionary.com, and here they are:

• physical maltreatment
• something causing severe pain or anguish

Now, to me (and me only, I suppose), it doesn't seem like there is THAT much difference between the two definitions. It seems that they are just synonyms: in fact, let's do another search for 'torture' on thesaurus.com. The first result of the first entry for torture is ... drum roll please ... 'abuse'.

These are the facts as I understand them: prisoners of war/illegal combatants are being held by the United States military. Said prisoners are being subjected to 'abuse' by their captors. This much has been confirmed by the President of the United States. The Bush Administration keeps stating that "the United States has abided by international conventions barring torture."[sic]

Okay, I have one last thing to say: I'M NOT FUCKING STUPID.

[/war] permanent link

A story on the bbc's website is entitled "US 'not bound by torture laws'". This is what caught my eye. What made me gag is the last line in the story: "The Bush administration has said it supports the Geneva Conventions and humane treatment for detainees." (full article)

Now. What the hell does that mean? The US is okay with torturing people, and believes that it is holding true to the Geneva Conventions? Let's do some reading here:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

This passage is found in ALL FOUR Geneva Conventions. So. Which part does the current presidential administration need HELP READING?

[/war] permanent link

[/thoughts] permanent link

According to http://www.editorandpublisher.com, the self-proclaimed "authoritative journal covering all aspects of the North American newspaper industry", the media is attempting to pull back the veil of secrecy that the current administration is using to cover up the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq. The article I am referring to resides here.

I think it is interesting not because of the source of information, but the fact that the media industry itself is beginning to question just how much of this attitude is the bandwagon. That's the gist I get. It seems that when the whole terror war was beginning, it didn't matter what the government was doing, just as long as they were doing it. Now the questions arise as to HOW the government is doing what it is doing, and the media and reporters are discovering that it is not all peachy keen.

Question is: is this another crack in the sidewalk? Or a crack in the dam? The two have drastically different outcomes.

[/war] permanent link

For everyone's sake, I hope I stop writing here on June 30th.

[/war] permanent link

Last Friday, the most powerful post, the prime ministership, went to Iyad Allawi, a US-backed Shiite Muslim with military and CIA connections.

Let me break it down for you: "with military and CIA connections" = "pawn". I guess the US would not have permitted a government to be completely sovereign and think on its own. I mean, the poor people have no idea what REAL democracy is like, so why not help them along? <!-- SARCASM -->

I hope the transfer of power works, and the Iraqi people can make this work. When I say "make this work", I mean: implement their own type of government that preserves human rights and their own national identity, and improves the standard of living of all Iraqi citizens. Is that too optimistic?

[/war] permanent link