DOCUMENT |
|
 |
|
|
ABOUT zwarg.blog CATEGORIES MAIN ARCHIVES 1999(14) [+] 2000(3) [+] 2001(4) [+] 2002(18) [+] 2003(159) [+] 2004(108) [+] 2005(129) [+] 2006(38) [+] 2007(23) [+] 2008(8) [+] 2009(3) [+]United States vs. Iraq
Seconds: 185073059
|
Thursday, March 02 2006
Well, how do you like this interpretation of thorough (versus the definition):
thor - ough
I guess someone guiding United States Foreign Policy thinks that's
correct, because it's not
getting any better over there.
Sunday, January 23 2005 So I saw a menu of the airport junk-food place ... er ... I mean restaurant, and on it was Freedom Toast. Is this the same idea as "Freedom Fries"? Like, you are trying to take back (as in rename) something with "French" in the name? I admit, I didn't stop and ask about it, and perhaps there IS such a thing as "Freedom Toast," and I have just not heard of it. This really gets me, though. I understand that whoever created the menu probably thought: "I'll call it 'Freedom' instead of 'French', then I won't have a reason to not eat it." Faulty logic. Because if you like eating it, it doesn't matter what it's called. Also, if you name it in the form of an ideal that you carry, does that mean that it's always had that quality, but you've just been too slow to identify it? For example, did the French recognize the fact that their toast symbolizes freedom first, and you just called them "French," when you really wanted to call them "Freedom," but you just figured it out, so you changed it. That must be the case, because all the French people I know are pretty cool. Also, they haven't started a preemptive war recently. At least, not that I know of. Friday, January 21 2005I would like to write an indictment for President Bush for being complicit in a system of organized oppression. Anyone know how to write such things? Tuesday, December 14 2004Looking around today, I find this little nugget on the bbc's web site. It's been long known that there are private contractors in Iraq acting as security personnel. What is news to me, is that the DEA, DoD, and other government groups are using private contractors to run their wars. Oh, that makes me ill. Now the United States is a global juggernaut with mercenaries. I guess I want to know what kind of sick people are in control of these kinds of decisions. And how to get them to shovel manure for the rest of their life. Or maybe clean up superfund sites. Or maybe make them act as crossing guards in the poorest neighborhoods of our cities. Jerks. Wednesday, December 08 2004I have seen the President and his Cabinet describe the war on terror in many ways. They have enumerated many reasons why we need to fight terrorism, and they typically evoke some kind of patriotic or democratic rhetoric to support their arguments for war. I have been waiting for a long time, and I haven't been able to identify for what. Until now. I don't believe the President, his Cabinet, the Military or any of the collaborators in this effort are in the mess to stop terrorism. I don't believe that they understand the cause or the proper remedy for terrorism. If they understood the cause of terrorism, they would not have gone to war. If they wanted to stop the advancement of terrorism, they would not have gone to war. If they ever try to inculcate the idea that terrorists hate freedom-loving nations, they are wrong. I want someone, ANYONE, to ask the President, point blank, "what causes terrorism?" And if he says, "the roots are foggy, but I would point the finger at the historic foreign policy of the United States," I will eat my shoe. In fact, I will eat both of my shoes. Tuesday, November 23 2004There's been a lot of talk about how Iraq is like Vietnam. We've all heard it. Questionable beginnings, deception of the American public regarding atrocities, extremely brutal military, underground insurgencies, etc. But what hasn't really been discussed in detail is this: the "great ideological gulf." Not only that it exists, but how to cross it an realize that human beings inhabit both shores. Sunday, October 10 2004 Presidential Debate #2. Very much the same as Presidential Debate #1 and the Vice Presidential Debate. The moderator was less of a robot, and the candidates were a little more lively. I think the candidates are getting better and better at avoiding questions. These are questions from moderators, audience, or even each other. It's interesting, because they speak to what they want you to hear exclusively, and they don't add any new information, for fear (?) of it's unintended effects. Wednesday, October 06 2004I watched the Vice Presidential debate last night. If you can call it that. I was kind of disappointed to hear the moderator speaking like a robot. I guess that was written into the 'rules' that each contestant -- er, I mean candidate had agreed to. Basically, I didn't think Cheney came off as that evil. He didn't put out any new information, and repeated the party line quite often. Edwards was also a little puppet. He said nearly the same things that his running mate had said on Thursday. Not much to distinguish the two of them. Friday, October 01 2004So I watched the Presidential Debate last night. I haven't watched any news programs analyzing the fact, or read the papers yet this morning. This is my take on things, and my take alone. The debate went well. Except for two occasions, the contenders did not try to snipe at each other. I felt that Kerry finally described some kind of foreign policy. I felt that Bush was standing behind his convictions. Thursday, July 01 2004This shit has got so mixed up lately, it's almost worse than fear. You see how all these people in the media are shouting left, shouting right? The spin goes this way, the spin goes that way. This person is lying, distorting the truth. This expose on this former lying person is distorting the truth. This revealing article reveals the expose authors distortion again. Learning anything from them is like seeing your image in a hall of circus mirrors. You can't ascribe any attribute of reality to it. At all. I say it is worse than fear, this is why: fear is a visceral, real, and undeniable emotion. It's something that can heighten your senses, cause a true physical reaction. Something that is REAL, and cannot be denied. This world of grays reminds me of the Soundgarden song, Superunknown. A part of the verse goes like, "If this doesn't make you smile/You don't have to cry./If this isn't making sense/It doesn't make it lies." (full lyrics available here) At this point, I prefer the reality of fearing something concrete (NOT SPIN) as opposed to the back and forth flip-flopping of subjective reporting. I suppose this is all part of the web's expansion and ease of use - now everybody can do it (everybody that can afford it). Tuesday, June 29 2004Well, 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. Friday, June 18 2004
For Once, They Agree To Disagree
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. Tuesday, June 15 2004
If Government Was Like The Times
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. Monday, June 14 2004An 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? Friday, June 11 2004
Politics 101: Lesson 1: "I Don't Know"
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:
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. Wednesday, June 09 2004So, 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. Tuesday, June 08 2004
Abuse Them, But Don't Torture Them.
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:
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. Monday, June 07 2004A 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? Friday, June 04 2004According 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. Thursday, June 03 2004For everyone's sake, I hope I stop writing here on June 30th. |
