Thursday, October 28, 2004
Anyone interested in the little Ann Coulter quotes thing and the ensuing comments, please hop over to the forum and check out my post. Respond as you feel is appropriate. Thanks.
Most of you probably know that Yasser Arafat's health has been failing for several years. As of Sunday, things have gotten much worse for him. From my sources, it seems apparent that he is now at death’s door. It is doubtful that he’ll make it another week. He is now surrounded by all of his close friends and political comrades. His wife has been asked to come to him from Paris, where she has been living for years. Further, Palestinian leaders have asked for all of the living members of Arafat’s Fatah party who are living abroad, and who are able, to travel to Ramallah.
As of Sunday, when his latest health problems arose, he had made no plans for a successor to his position as the leader of the Palestinian Authority. There is no one of any significance waiting in the wings to fill Arafat’s position should he pass. There will no doubt be a protracted and possibly violent power struggle after Arafat is gone. It is postulated that it could take up to several years for a new, accepted leader of the Palestinians to emerge. This power vacuum will indisputably end whatever remains of an Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, and it will begin a bloody series of Palestinian factional fighting.
Arafat has long held together the Palestinians and melded them into a pseudo-state. However, the truth is that “Palestinians” exist only because they live in the same geographic area. They are not a group bound by family, cultural, ethnic, or tribal loyalties. They are held together by their hatred of Israel and their desire for a free Palestine. But it is a tenuous bond. Without a strong leader to manipulate the masses, they will disintegrate into so many warring factions. I have to wonder whether, after the blood that will be shed should Arafat die, would any possible Palestinian leader be able to re-coalesce the many peoples into one? And there is one more, not as well-known, problem should Arafat depart this life.
It is widely believed that upon Arafat’s death, his family, his Party, and basically all of Palestine will demand that he be allowed to be buried in Jerusalem. Israel has been unwavering in its stance that it will not allow this to happen. This is yet one more, as if there weren’t enough, possible cause of civil unrest were Arafat to succumb to his illnesses.
Israeli forces have already been put on high alert for Palestinian riots upon Arafat’s death. The IDF today increased the garrison around Ramallah. They see the inevitable coming. The only real question is, when Mr. Arafat dies, how far will the chaos really go.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
My friends, this is not going to be good. As I hope you all know, we have an election coming up next Tuesday. I don’t see any possibility of actually knowing who our next President will be on Tuesday night. I doubt we’ll know for sure Wednesday. I hope I’m wrong, but I just have a feeling this is going to be bad. Florida 2000 will seem like nothing next week. Both parties have thousands of lawyers on standby ready to fly to any city or state when needed. Leaders in both parties have said that even if they lose, they will fight to the bitter end.
Again, I hope I’m wrong, and this may seem like an extreme comment, but this election could be the greatest strain on the Union since the Confederacy. Ohio will probably be the ground zero state this year. Others will also play: Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Hawaii, New Hampshire. All of those states also pose problems for a smooth election. We have razor thin margins between the candidates in these states and nationwide.
Bush will probably take Ohio, but it will be contested. He will probably take FL as well, but it won't be as close. Kerry will take NH. And Bush will take NM and a couple other states to get to 270 or so.
This is cliché now, but we are a bitterly divided country. I ask you, why? This is not a rhetorical question. I don’t know the answer. Some would blame the media, some would blame the fact that the last few Presidential administrations have used crisis mongering and fear tactics to try to control the country. And because of this, the became very polarizing admins. Like I said, I don’t know the correct answer. I hope someone does.
I do not operate under the misapprehension that we can all be one big happy family. I do, however, hope that somehow we can overcome the bitterness and hatred and rise back up to a level of intellectual discourse in politics. Though I’m probably a bit too optimistic.
Don’t forget to vote on November 2nd. And then hold on. It’s gonna be one long, rough ride.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Yeah, just like Clinton. Remember how evil Clinton was for letting people he knew who raised a lot of money for him stay in the Lincoln Bedroom? Bush does it too. Basically all recent Presidents have. I'm not trying to indict Bush for doing this. I don't really care. And unlike some, I didn't care when Clinton did it either. It's not that big a deal. I just hate the whole "All of our guys are good and do good, and all of their guys are bad and do bad." They're all the same, so can we stop this self-righteous ideological demagoguery?
380 TONS of pretty potent explosives are now "missing" from a compound that was previously one of Iraq's most sensitive military sites. Before we invaded, this was one of the many sites watched over by the weapons inspectors. Now it isn't. It is in a "no man's land" that is deadly for our men and women to approach but in which looters have free access.
Let me state again, for the record, that I fully support our troops and military. I will be behind them 100% as long as we have even one member of our armed forces in harm's way. I hope for the successful completion of the current military operation in Iraq, and I pray for the protection of our men and women and that they may complete there mission.
But this war was unneeded. We may have taken down a lion, but we've unleashed a vast number of pit vipers. Which you rather be facing in the woods? One big lion, or thousands upon thousands of deadly little snakes? Me, I'd take the lion.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
I'd heard this tossed about by Bush hating folk during the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. I heard it even more after we went into Iraq and the Bush hating got even more momentum. I brushed it aside as probably propaganda crap. However, I've just come across a story on this subject that I find interesting. I find it interesting because it was published in May of 2001, before 9/11.
The article begins as follows:
Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.
That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.
Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998
The link below is for the full article. I just find it a little hipocritical that the administration screams so much about anyone aiding and abedding terrorists. If $43 million isn't aid, I don't know what is.
If anyone reads over this article and can show that the charges levied are untrue or even exaggerated, please let me know and I'll post that also.
I just like getting the truth out. The more painful the better, but it must be the truth.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
I NEEEEED an LED toilet seat!!!!
I use the term "psychotic" because she has clearly had a break with reality. I refer you to the quotes below.
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
"God says, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"
"I think, on the basis of the recent Supreme Court ruling that we can't execute the retarded, American journalists commit mass murder without facing the ultimate penalty. I think they are retarded. I'm trying to communicate to the American people and I have to work through a retarded person!"
"Cheney is my ideal man. Because he's solid. He's funny. He's very handsome. He was a football player. People don't think about him as the glamour type because he's a serious person, he wears glasses, he's lost his hair. But he's a very handsome man. And you cannot imagine him losing his temper, which I find extremely sexy. ( I guess telling a Congressman to "F__k himself" isn't losing one's temper) Men who get upset and lose their tempers and claim to be sensitive males: talk about girly boys. No, there's a reason hurricanes are named after women and homosexual men, it's one of our little methods of social control. We're supposed to fly off the handle. "
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
"A central component of liberal hate speech is to make paranoid accusations based on their own neurotic impulses, such as calling Republicans angry, hate-filled, and mean."
And in the same book:
"While having dinner recently with John Lott, author of 'More Guns, Less Crime,' one of life's enduring debates came up: Are liberals evil or just stupid? I was surprised to discover that Lott vigorously disputed those of us staking out the evil position."
And from the Today show:
"Political debate with liberals is basically impossible in America because liberals are calling names while conservatives are trying to make arguments...It's really all the same lie [that liberals tell], that conservatives are either stupid or scarily weird and therefore you don't have to deal with their ideas."
I love it when people are definately not hypocrites
"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."
"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."
"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."
And finally, two of my favorites. Remember, there are NO grey areas. All is black and white. ALWAYS. EVERYTHING.
"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster."
"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."
Read the news report here.
See photo here.
The crowd was getting a little rowdy. They had set fire to some things. But they weren't violent. The police decided to bring out the CS gas. Not a bad idea, in and of itself. In this instance, the delivery devices were guns shooting small plastic balls filled with the stuff of pepper spray. Picture a paintball gun plus Tabasco sauce. You get the idea.
Again, this is not that bad of a thing. However, one cop decided to shoot at an unarmed woman's FACE instead of the ground, her legs, her gut, or one of the other approved places to direct the weapon's fire.
Victoria Snelgrove, a 21-year-old Emerson College student, was hit directly in one eye by one of the pepper bullets. She died hours later.
This weapon used by these cops is VERY similar to a paintball gun. I'm sure some of you, like me, have played paintball at some point. If so, you are keenly aware of the dangers inherent to the game. NO ONE is allowed NEAR an arena without the proper face protection. Even during play (in friendly play anyway, I've no experience with pro etiquette), shots to the face are discouraged. Of course, if a helmet is all you can shoot at, you shoot at that. But we try not to.
I believe we can safely assume 1 of 2 things here:
1: The officer did not now that a headshot with that weapon could be VERY dangerous, and even lethal.
2: The officer was aware of the danger, and he shot her in the face anyway.
I understand that the projectile fired did not have the aerodynamic advantages of a bullet to travel in a generally even path. The projectile can rise and fall, cut left and right. I understand that. But these are usually relatively small diversions. To be hit with enough force to be killed, I believe that the woman must have been relatively close to the cop.
Given the 2 options above, the entire police force is liable for the young woman’s death. If this is the case, I hope they are sued into complete bankruptcy.
The second option, and I believe the more likely one, places the blame on the officer. I cannot fathom a large police outfit like the one in Boston not providing at least adequate training in the weaponry it gives to its troops.
Therefore, the officer knew the risks and dangers. And he fired anyway. He shot this young woman in the face at a close enough range to kill her. By all accounts, yes, she was in the crowd, but she was not throwing rocks or such shenanigans, nor was she even very close to that group. And he fired anyway.
I call that murder. But hey, I’m just a dumb white southern kid.
Sleep well my friends, for we are well protected.
It's about time someone threw something at her. Though I wish they'd had better aim.
Monday, October 18, 2004
I realize that this topic has been beaten to death, but I've not really addressed it here. The topic being, "Why We Invaded Iraq.”
The problem I have is that that reason seems to change quite often. First it was because Saddam was an imminent threat with biological, chemical, and even nuclear weapons. Then the reason was, “Iraq didn’t abide by all those UN resolutions.” Next, “we invaded Iraq because it harbored terrorists.” Then “we invaded Iraq to free it.”
I believe I’ve written the above reasons in chronological order as to when they were used as the main defense of the Iraq invasion. Now, let me deconstruct those reasons.
Number 1: WMD’s
Do I really have to say anything here? There were none there; the weapons inspectors were correct all along. No biological or chemical stuff left, and there was definitely nothing nearing a nuclear device.
North Korea, China, Iran, and Pakistan are all greater threats in this area. And yet, all except North Korea and Iran are our “allies”.
Number 2: UN Resolutions
I love the way we, as a country, generally just kind of thumb our nose at the UN. Until we need it, or like something it writes a resolution about. We don’t need it’s approval to attack Iraq, but we attacked Iraq because Iraq didn’t obey the governing body that we basically say has no power. Catch-22 anyone?
If not abiding by UN resolutions is a reason to go to war, then we’d have to attack ourselves. We’ve violated quite a few. Ok, maybe that’s unreasonable, to attack ourselves. How about Turkey then? They’ve violated more than Iraq.
Number 3: Harboring Terrorists
This one gets a big maybe. Iraq is in the Middle East, if memory serves, so I’m sure there were some terrorists in the country. But there was no operating relationship with the Iraqi government analogous to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. There is no evidence of “the terrorists” using Iraq as a base of operations or a planning area.
If we must attack any nation that harbors terrorists then we must NOW invade the West Bank and the Gaza strip in Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, India, Malaysia….you get the idea.
Number 4: We wanted to free the Iraqis
First, you can’t invade a country only because you don’t like its form of government. You cannot shoe horn democracy into a tribal culture. Second, let’s assume that it can and will work, believing that your system of government is better than another country’s doesn’t give you the right to tear apart that country to rebuild it in thine own image.
And again here, if we want to free people, there are many other equally bad or worse regimes out there. Some are militant theocracies, some are simply power mad dictatorships. Examples of both: North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, etc.
Ok, I can hear some of you saying, “You’re an idiot. You don’t get it. It’s not just one of those reasons, it’s all of them put together.”
To which I would say (Disregarding the fact that they have not been cited all together as the reason we attacked Iraq until very recently. Before that they were each used in singular fashion.) I think I understand now. We must preemptively strike any country that meets all of the above standards! I can see the light!
But with this gift of knowledge comes a heavy weight…I know of another such country that must be invaded…er…destroyed…er…liberated. Yes! That’s it, liberated!!
Let me tell you about this country. I’ll go down my list as before.
First, we know 100% that this country has chemical and nuclear weapons. We know because we gave them some of this technology years ago, and also we know this because they tell us. We suspect they have or are working on bio-weapons too.
Second, they have violated more UN resolutions that Iraq and Iran combined. Given that America puts so much stock into the UN resolutions, this must be the most evil country on earth.
Third, this country is known to be ripe with terrorists. We hear all the time about their plans and their bombings. They run rampant, almost with impunity at times.
And finally, this is no democracy. This country is an ancient theocracy, as are the hated Iran and the erstwhile Afghanistan. Though this country masquerades as a democracy, don’t be fooled! They exist as a theocracy, guided first by the principles in their scriptures.
This country exhibits ALL of the same reasons we invaded Iraq for. And I can prove that all of the above that I’ve written about this country is true! It is publicly available.
Now that I understand the doctrine of preemptive strikes, I am ready to sign up with the military and begin this next battle. For we must strike soon, the WMD’s are already loaded on their missles!!
We must destroy Israel!!!!!
I don’t really want to destroy Israel. I like Jews as much as any other people, so please don’t accuse me of any anti-Semitic crap. I abhor that sort of mindset. I just wanted to make a point. We can’t just make up arbitrary motives to go to war. I can name 1,089 reasons why we can’t do this again. All of them being good American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. We are in this now, and we can’t leave until the job is done. I understand that. But let’s not make the same arrogant mistake twice.
In 1992, then-Defense Secretary Cheney spoke to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. Cheney was asked why coalition forces didn't roll tanks on Baghdad and depose Saddam Hussein. Cheney's response, given 14 years ago, could well describe the mess we currently find ourselves in.
"I would guess if we had gone in there," said Cheney in 1992, "I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war."
"And the question in my mind," continued Cheney in 1992, "is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Remember my dear sheeple, only Democrats can be hypocrites. D bad, R good.