Have a look at these two threads.

Is this World War history accurate? and Attack Afghanistan?

THIS is why we're taking time to build a coalition and do things right. Our enemy is the leaders of the Taliban, *not* the people of Afghanistan, who are about as miserable as any people in the world.

It takes time to build a large ground force to go in and force a change of government. But if we do that, combined with humanitarian aid, the people of Afghanistan will probably THANK us. The Taliban is *NOT* popular with a majority of the Afghan people.

On the other hand, if we indiscriminately start carpet-bombing just because we're filled with rage and thirst for revenge, we'll create undying enemies and make of Bin Ladin a martyr.

THIS is why it's taking so long.

Patience, people. When we do it, it needs to be done RIGHT.

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

Answers

And if we apply that same thinking to Iran (where most of the population is very tired of the Islamic Regime), Iraq (where most of the population is very weary of Sadaam's depotism), etc., etc., we can accomplish everything that we want to accomplish WITHOUT making Bin Ladin a martyr and tying ourselves into a 100-year war that never ends.

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

<5>YES!!!!!

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

American middle-class and lower-class parents--

Prepare to bury your sons and daughters

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

Lars,

Why do you think the President and Vice-President have been warning people exactly for that? There WILL be casualties.

(There already HAVE been casualties, about 11,000, at last estimate.)

But if we do nothing, there will be MORE casualties later on, especially once these people get their hands on a few nukes ...

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

To me it's a question of numbers. I think a gtound war in Afhanistan would create many American dead--our own sons and daughters. The children of the elite, Dems and Republicans will escape, as usual.

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

Tell your fiction to those who knew Joe Kennedy Jr. whose body was never found when his plane was shot down in Europe, or JFK (whose PT109 was shot out under him and left him with a bad back for the rest of his life), G.H.W. Bush who flew 44 Combat missions and was shot down twice in the Pacific.

Or the rich athletes and entertainers who served in WW II and Korea. Most especially Ted Williams who lost his best years as a Marine Pilot.

Actually, the gutless draft dodgers who avoided Viet Nam by running to Canada or "studying in England" came mostly from the lower demographics because of one simple reason, there were many more of them. After WW II (or any social occasion), almost the first question anyone was asked at a job interview was "what did you do during the War?" not "how did you get out of the draft?".

The "rich" are a tiny fraction of the population and they lose as many in US Wars as the poor (especially since 1914). The ability to "buy your way out" ended with the WW II draft.

In fact, because they had college educations, you could argue that most of the WW II pilots both Army and Navy came from the "upper middle and upper class families".

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

Cherri,

Did you mean,

Yes?

:)

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

YEP

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

Pay attention here, Carlos. I'm calling Charlie on this one.

The ability to "buy your way out" ended with the WW II draft.

It did NOT, Charlie. There are TONS of us still living that remember folks buying their way out of Vietnam. I suspect that you were in the Marines during peacetime between WW II and Vietnam. That makes you older than even Z maybe. No matter. I'm not trying to use age discrimination here. I'm simply suggesting that folks of your era didn't know what was going on during the Vietnam era.

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

Anita:

That makes you older than even Z maybe.

I beg your pardon. Do you want to hear my Norway jokes?

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

By-the-by Anita:

This ol'person just hiked 30 miles in the Cascades carrying 60 lbs of assorted stuff. Then I had to drag up all of those damned crab pots. Nothing better than fresh steamed crab with fresh corn-on-the-cob. This is peak sweet corn season in PNW. Have fun in Texas.:)

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

I love you, Z. I simply use you as a marker on a continuum.

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

You continue to be a leading ASSHOLE on the boards you post to Anita. SHOOTING YOUR MOUTH OFF ABOUT THINGS YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. GO FUCK YOURSELF AND ESAD.

MY ENLISTMENT PAPERS READ:

Reason for joining the United States Marine Corps:

ANS: TO SERVE MY COUNTRY IN VIETNAN.

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

And I knew very well what happened in the Vietnam Era.

SPOILED BRATS WHO NEVER WANTED FOR ANYTHING IN THEIR LIVES RAN TO CANADA RATHER THAN BE DRAFTED SPEWED THE BULL SHIT SPREAD BY THE LAST FOLLOWERS OF THE FAR LEFTISTS OF THE FDR ERA WHO WERE SHUT OUT OF BOTH THE JFK AND LBJ ADMINISTRATIONS.

OTHERS HID BEHIND "PACIFISM" UNTIL THE HELICOPTERS PULLED OUT OF SAIGON.

THEN ONE HAD HIS US SENATOR FULBRIGHT SEND HIM OFF TO ENGLAND AND EVEN RUSSIA WHERE HE "DID NOT INHALE".

STILL MORE PROPAGATED THE BULLSHIT.....OF THE LEFTISTS AND SOCIALISTS AND WERE FUNDED BY "THE COUSINS" (3RD GEN. ROCKEFELLERS ON A GUILT TRIP ABOUT GRANDPA'S MONEY).

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

Heh. One thing I can say about you, Charlie...You NEVER disappoint me.

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2001

Afraid I agree with him Anita. Not the inevitable ad hom stuff but his original point.

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2001

Z,

Your age doesn't concern me.

What concerns me is that all you seem to do is fly around and eat.

With air travel curtailed, are you going to gain weight?

:)

(Grinning and running now ...)

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2001

OK, I will start with an oldy but goody:

How many Norwegians in a hunting party.

Answer: Three; two to watch for traffic and one to scrape dinner off of the pavement.

You must know more. I do. ;<)))

Best Wishes,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2001

This is for all the kids born in the 70's who don't remember this, and didn't have to bear the burden, that our fathers, mothers, and older brothers and sisters had to bear. Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the "100 Women of the Century." Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known specific men who served and sacrificed during Vietnam. The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot. The pilot's name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat. In 1978, the former Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison-the "Hanoi Hilton." Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJs, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American "Peace Activist" the "lenient and humane treatment" he'd received. He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and dragged away. During the subsequent beating, he fell forward upon the camp Commandant's feet, which sent that officer berserk. In '78, the AF Col. still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying days) from the Vietnamese Col.'s frenzied application of wooden baton. From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4Es). He spent 6 years in the "Hilton"- the first three of which he was "missing in action". His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned/fed/clothed routine in preparation for a "peace delegation "visit. They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they still survived. Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his SSN on it, in the palm of his hand. When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets like "Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?" and "Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?" Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper. She took them all without missing a beat. At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him the little pile of papers. Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Col. Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know about her actions that day. I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968, and held for over 5 years. I spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a cage in Cambodia, and one year in a "black box" in Hanoi. My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border. At one time, I was weighing approximately 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.) We were Jane Fonda's "war criminals." When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with Jane Fonda. I said yes, for I would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs received different from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as "humane and lenient." Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees with outstretched arms with a large amount of steel placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane till my arms dipped. I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda for a couple of hours after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She did not answer me. This does not exemplify someone who should be honored as part of "100 Years of Great Women." Lest we forget..."100 years of great women" should never include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots. There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in blatant treason, is one of them. Please take the time to forward to as many people as you possibly can. It will eventually end up on her computer and she needs to know that we will never forget.

-- Anonymous, September 18, 2001

But Jane is a born-again Xtian now. We must forgive her.

Die bitch!

-- Anonymous, September 18, 2001

Carlos and Z: The humor in this is that anyone who DARES to defy Charlie's thoughts on ANY subject is met with his classic response. The humor actually extends to his revealing something about himself in each case, ALWAYS pumping himself up to be beyond criticism.

Think back to previous posts. Charlie claims that he's in better shape physically than he's ever been in his life. Charlie claims that [despite posts that chastised liberal arts people] he, himself is a lover of classical music and an accomplished pianist, as well.

MOST of us realize that ANYONE with any sense of self-esteem would ignore posts that slander us with falsehoods. Cherri's certainly been the target of many.

-- Anonymous, September 18, 2001

I figure we're one miracle away from beautification.

-- Anonymous, September 18, 2001

Poole:

Not really. Since dipstick airport is closed, I am booked on a train. Haven't been on one of those in this country since high school. It was the Seaboard Silver Star [do you remember that one]. Hopefully, we can do this as a secure T-conference.

Now to food. If you want something good, try asp [you know the green shoots that you cut off in their childhood in the spring].

Steam for 4 minutes and then add the following marinade:

1 part good olive oil 1part good balsamic vinegar the right amount of dry Marsala

Put in the fridge for 6 hours.

Really good.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, September 18, 2001

Now out come some people who I'm certain would be most welcome where ever Anita is.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/brit-s18.shtml

Enter email address to receive news about the WSWS Add Remove ON THE WSWS Editorial Board New Today News & Analysis Wor kers Struggles Arts Review His tory Scienc e P olemics Philo sophy C orrespondence Archi ve About WSWS Donate to WSWS About the ICFI Help Books Online OTHER LANGUAGES German French< BR>Spanish Serbo- Croatian Russian Tamil Sinhala- Indonesian LEAFLETS Downlo ad in PDF format HIGHLIGHTS Why the Bush administration wants war The political roots of the terror attack on New York and Washington The political significance of Israel's assassination policy Globalisation, Jospin and the political program of Attac Political issues arising from the Genoa summit

WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Britain Mounting concerns in Britain over US war drive By Chris Marsden 17 September 2001 Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author Mounting concern is being voiced within Britain’s media and sections of the political establishment at the extent and possible consequences of American war aims, in the aftermath of the September 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington. With Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair taking the lead, there was an initial rush by European governments to support President Bush and endorse any retaliatory action Washington saw fit to undertake. Mixed in with the shock and horror, was a fear that although the US was the first target, London, Berlin and Paris could be next. Britain in particular has spent the past decade functioning as America’s staunchest political and military ally in order to further its own efforts to dominate strategic regions such as the Middle East and the Balkans. Blair immediately began parroting the statements coming from Washington, and without a trace of equivocation promised Britain’s support for what President Bush proclaimed was the “first war of the 21st century”. He won the backing of the right wing media, led by Rupert Murdoch’s Sun newspaper and the pro-Conservative Daily Telegraph. Some within the liberal intelligentsia also came forward to argue that opposition to the US was now a luxury that could no longer be afforded. Guardian columnist Hugo Young wrote on September 13, “Europe, especially the Europe of the left, has been deeply confused about what it wants America to be and do. For three decades, the left was the chief critic of American power and influence. France led the charge against the hegemon, and she wasn’t alone... No more, I think, will that siren song be heard. There must be less rivalry and no confusion.” At a special session of parliament convened last Friday, Blair had no difficulty in winning approval for his stance, given the efforts of the Conservative Party to paint themselves as more consistently pro- American and militaristic than Labour. In his first speech as Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith pledged his party’s full support for any British involvement in Washington’s “war against terrorism”. Despite this apparent political unanimity, however, the government is facing increasing criticism for having endangered British strategic interests by handing Bush a blank cheque. Several politicians and commentators have warned that the terrible scale of America’s planned response could destabilise the Middle East and generate oppositional sentiment amongst broad masses of the world’s population. During the parliamentary debate Friday, Labour MP George Galloway said millions of people in Arab and Muslim countries believe the West is guilty of “monumental double standards”, warning, “If you launch a devastating attack upon a Muslim country, killing thousands, you will make 10,000 bin Ladens rise up.” Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell warned of the dangers of the West being seen to mete out “rich man’s justice,” and pressed for a “proportionate response” based on sound intelligence and consistent with the principles of international law. Veteran Labour left Dennis Skinner insisted, “There’s a world of difference between standing shoulder to shoulder with the American people and the fight for justice than hanging on to the coat tails of an American President, whose first act when those fire fighters were standing 10 feet tall amongst the rubble in the World Trade Centre, was to scurry off to his bunker.” Blair’s International Development Secretary, Clare Short, subsequently urged caution in any military action against Afghanistan, stressing that military strikes must not further inflame the situation. Amongst the major newspapers, the Financial Times, the Independent and the Mirror have all urged caution, with the Independent writing, “even in the face of such grievous provocation...restraint... has to be the watchword”. A September 14 editorial in the Guardian was most explicit in detailing why it questioned the wisdom of lending uncritical support to the Bush administration. The paper insisted that Bush first “define the threat he would eradicate and the scope of the measures he might employ. The options in the shadowy world he is about to enter range from a full-scale, Gulf war- style mobilisation against Afghanistan to aerial attacks and Special Forces incursions. In prospect too, perhaps, is a return to Reagan era covert operations, snatch squads, secret funds, state subversion, and even political assassination. And as far as can be ascertained now, such activity may not be confined to crushing Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network. This uncontained American campaign potentially leads to the very gates of Damascus, to Tehran and even more likely, to Saddam Hussein’s Baghdad.” Most striking is the Guardian’s warning that the US is demanding the unconditional subordination of the European powers to its dictates: “In seeking to forge a global, US-led coalition to prosecute an all-out war on terrorism, Mr Bush and his officials are saying, in effect, that there are no neutrals any more. “This paramount, ‘monumental struggle’ demands unswerving commitment from allies, friends and the non-aligned alike. In foreshadowing an open- ended military and diplomatic offensive, Secretary of State Colin Powell plainly expects unquestioning cooperation from all countries, great and small. This blunt message to all and sundry is: now we cut the crap. You are either for us or against us. We are going to win. Back us—or you, too, will lose.” The Guardian warns the Labour government, which it supports, “These propositions demand urgent scrutiny—for despite Mr Bush’s initial caution, here is the looming, daunting prospect of superpower unleashed, of Prometheus unbound. And America’s friends must think hard and fast about what they are getting into.” The stand taken by the similarly pro-Labour Mirror group is significant because it makes no attempt to hide its contempt for Bush and the Republicans, expressing a belief that their right wing political agenda is a threat to global stability. The Mirror’s full-page editorial September 17 states that Bush’s demand for retribution “would be the action of a despot, not the leader of a great democracy and the Western world.” The editorial goes on to note, “Shortly before Mr Bush was elected President in dubious circumstances, The Mirror ran a shock issue revealing that, as Governor of Texas, he had sent more than 150 people to the executioner’s chair. They included some who were clearly innocent and others with the mental age of young children. We wrote then: ‘If Bush wins the increasingly farcical race to be President, he will take charge of the largest military power in history. Do we really want a man like him making snap decisions on whether to drop bombs or go to war? Do we really like the idea of his finger on the big trigger?’ “Today that question haunts the world. For today George W Bush’s finger is on the big trigger. And he gives every impression of wanting to squeeze it without a clue about who he is pointing the weapon at.” The Mirror editorial concludes, “This is the moment in history when George W Bush must break with his crude, rabble-rousing past. If he does not, he could plunge his country and the world into something far worse than was seen in Manhattan on September 11.” Blair’s allies in the Murdoch press recognize the precariousness of his position, especially given the opposition to the US war-drive from leading European politicians such as French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin. The Times notes: “Two years ago Mr Blair was trying to push President Clinton further over committing ground troops. Now, while Mr Blair is offering total support in public to President Bush, he is privately seeking to be more of a restraining influence. This is not about whether tough action should be taken, but how to do so without jeopardising international support for the long-term campaign against terrorists and their sponsors.” The Times article concludes, “Mr Blair... has little patience for those on the left who argue that America is partly to blame. But he not only knows the limitations of his influence, but also the fragility of the current high support for his approach.” The Sunday Telegraph anticipates the growth of opposition to war amongst broader layers of the population and expresses concern that this could merge with the type of anti-capitalist sentiment evinced in the recent anti-globalisation protests. A redbaiting article by American journalist Anne Applebaum notes various criticisms of US foreign policy in the British media. She calls this, “the first few skirmishes in the ideological battle which is still to come” and compares this to the Cold War, adding, “Just as there was opposition to British participation in the Cold War, so too will there be opposition to British participation in the war against terrorism. It isn’t hard to see where it will come from... the anti-globalist critique of American cultural imperialism, international capitalism, and the hypocrisy of bourgeois democracy does sound, at times, startlingly like what comes out of the mouths of bin Laden and his ilk. When Mr Blair attempts to rally the British people for action against Afghanistan or Iraq, expect the anti-globalists, along with their friends in the press and on the Labour backbenches, to demonstrate in the way that they do at anti-world-trade gatherings—violently.” See Also: Britain: BBC kow-tows to rightwing calls for censorship [17 September 2001] Why the Bush administration wants war [14 September 2001] The political roots of the terror attack on New York and Washington [12 September 2001] Top of page Readers: The WSWS invites your comments. Please send e-mail. Copyright 1998-2001 World Socialist Web Site All rights reserved

-- Anonymous, September 18, 2001

Z: There's a young Asian woman at Alberton's who made an exquisite blend of marination for salmon [which was on sale for $2.99/lb...probably the farm-fed stuff that you claim is so intolerable]. I'll be testing out her recipe this weekend, having pumped her for every detail today. I typically bake or grill salmon, but this particular dish is STEAMED.

-- Anonymous, September 18, 2001

Sure sounds like something for the Birks crowd

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2001

Never been much on salmon or catfish, and I've never heard of an "asp" (except for the snakes that supposedly killed Cleopatra).

But with those two exceptions, I generally LOVE fish. Baked, broiled, grilled or fried, freshwater or salt; I just love it.

Comes from being raised in Coastal NC, I s'pose.

When I moved here to Bama, I discovered that flounder was a rarity; in NC, it's as common as rice. No one here does Calabash-style seafood. :(

Z,

I like steamed broccoli. Doesn't even need a marinade. :)

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2001

Anita:

Z: There's a young Asian woman at Alberton's who made an exquisite blend of marination for salmon [which was on sale for $2.99/lb...probably the farm-fed stuff that you claim is so intolerable].

You will need a marinade to give some taste to the farm raised fish. With native sockeye, I just use tomato sauce, onion slices and butter; wrap it in foil and bake it on the grill. Steaming is common in New York; they even boil Atlantic Salmon.

I was just salmon fishing; only humpies where we were. We generally just throw those back. To tell you what a great fisherman I am, I caught a pile of ling cod. I later learned that you can't catch them on salmon spoons, so I will know better next time and not do it. ;<)))

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2001

Z: I was REALLY tired of salmon when my last dish turned out too dry, and had moved on from the salmon sale. For some reason I found myself back at the fish counter, tasting the samples. I was totally pleased with the taste and suggested to the young woman that she quickly accommodate my purchases lest I eat all the samples she'd laid out. She said, "That's okay. Eat it all." Heh. Okay...I DID leave SOME.

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2001

Salmon eaters, fish eaters, chicken eaters, red meat eaters = same difference. You are all barbarians. You kill and consume living creatures.

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2001

Petula, just one correction:

You forgot vegans. Plants are living creatures too. Many are eaten while still alive. Yyyyccck.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2001

You are right Z. In fact, it is the worst evil to eat plants because plants don't eat other creatures. Plants nourish themselves by sunlight, water and soil. Except for those nasty Venus Fly Traps and a few others, the nutrition of plants is morally pure. Are you working on a form of human phtosynthesis? I pray that you are. God bless.

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2001

Even though I don't agree with CPR's methods, Anita, you have displayed complete ignorance here. Talk about thread drift!

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Military Draft

Excerpt: "You wouldn't want to get to the situation we had in Vietnam where the rich could 'buy' their way out and educate their way out of the draft," says O'Hanlon. "That was a divisive approach that I think we would want to avoid."

Or were you referring to the salmon?

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

A message to the Left: grow up, this isn't a game By Janet Daley

A WHOLE swathe of this country's educated class is unable to distinguish between right and wrong. There is no other possible conclusion. There are apparently thousands of people out there (or maybe hundreds, or maybe it is just a few dozen with exceptionally good media contacts) who think that it is quite acceptable to see the mass murder of innocent people as a "message" that needed to be delivered.

The puerile anti-Americanism of the British Left has seemed a harmless enough joke during the good, safe years when there was enough capitalist bounty to give socialists a good party. Now, in this moment of terrifying international crisis, we are discovering something in our midst that goes way beyond the rather cuddly imbecility that most of its critics have attributed to it. For how long exactly has the liberal conscience been this malignant? Has the hatred and foaming malevolence now rising to the surface been bubbling away under that smug, lazy facade for a generation, just waiting for the triumphal moment to gloat about what many of its spokesmen have called America's "defeat"?

I am sorry to have to go on labouring the point about Left-wing newspaper comment which has already been so robustly addressed on these pages, but it is simply too deeply shocking to avoid. The pages of the Guardian, the British liberal intelligentsia's house journal, yesterday offered Paul Foot attacking "the Murdochs, the Conrad Blacks, the BBC foreign news chiefs and everyone else who refuses to understand the difference in the Middle East between the violence of conquerors, exploiters and oppressors on the one hand and the violence of the conquered, exploited and oppressed on the other". So mass murder might be justified then, if you are doing it on behalf of the "conquered, exploited and oppressed"? Does it matter, when you are committing this ultimate criminal act on behalf of the exploited, that you are financed by a billionaire born into one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia? (That is just the sort of association that Mr Foot is so eager to point out when it involves Western interventions.)

Nor does it matter, presumably, that the international terrorist alliance into which these murderers in the Middle East and in Northern Ireland are locked is part of a global criminal network which is tied to Colombian drugs traffic and old-fashioned low grade murder and money laundering.

After all, anything is acceptable if it helps to undermine the great United States plot to force American values on the rest of the world. Preventing the dissemination of free markets, with their corrupting prosperity and materialism, must be worth sacrificing a few mundane moral assumptions. Who is America, after all, to tell the world how it should live: if local populations prefer their Marxist tyrannies or their theocratic dictatorships, where does the United States get the right to bully them into personal freedom and private economic security? And when the theocrats and the dictators strike back, surely we should spare our sympathy for their tormentor. As Charlotte Raven puts it, on another page of yesterday's Guardian: "A bully with a bloody nose is still a bully": a theme so aptly taken up by the Guardian's political cartoonist, Steve Bell, who depicts George Bush and Tony Blair as two ape-like thugs with their knuckles scraping the ground, chanting a bellicose mantra which we are meant to see as mindless.

This is grotesque. But it is also a revelation, as fascinating as it is repulsive. On the one hand, it has the clear ring of elaborated neurosis: the extrapolation of your own adolescent rebellion into a cosmic political philosophy in which the most powerful country in the world personifies the domineering adult authority against which you pit yourself. But it also suggests an intellectual decadence that should be laughable - and was, in the innocent past of a week or so ago, laughed at. But they aren't funny any more. These are not champagne adventurists but salon terrorists who are excited - really excited - by this horrible event. Even when they contain their outright vindictiveness toward the country upon whose successful economy the developing world is utterly dependent, they suggest that there is something rational and meaningful in this "message" that has been delivered. As Martin Amis puts it in (where else?) yesterday's Guardian: "Terror is political communication by other means."

What kind of discourse is it that includes this kind of utterance? At what point would these people decide that an action was so evil, so utterly beyond the pale of human conscience, that it was ruled out as part of the argument? In the meantime, grown-up politicians have suspended all disputation in favour of an absolutely unified stand. This is not some war-time reflex of nationalistic piety, or a casual downgrading of the idea of democratic opposition. It is an acknowledgement that in order to have a debate, there must be two sides to the argument. And, as any sane person should be able to say with ease, there are not two possible answers to the question: was the attack on innocent civilians in America justifiable? There may be differences of opinion about the appropriate tactics for dealing with this gross criminality which threatens the lives of free people (and the freedoms which make their lives so worth living), and those differences will certainly be aired in private. But we have turned a corner.

This is not a question - however much sniping there has been, and may continue to be, between the press enclaves of Farringdon Road and Docklands - of the Left- and Right-wing press having a ritual go at one another. The moral confusion of a whole section of opinion formers and well-educated British people is being exposed and tested. No one will forget what has been said and written this past week. http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt? ac=003858128934066&rtmo=gGjljwSu&atmo=rrrrrrrq&pg=/01/9/19 /do02.html

Blaming the U.S., whitewashing terror National Post

Sorrow and pity have given way to excuses and equivocations. Some commentators are now explaining the terrorist attack against New York City and Washington with the argument that the United States "had it coming." A representative example in this regard is George Galloway, a British Labour MP who recently declared the U.S. "had to swallow its own medicine" when thousands died on Sept. 11.

How a serum of freedom and prosperity curdled into murderous venom Mr. Galloway did not say, but he is not alone in his opinions. Writing in the Ottawa Citizen, Susan Riley naively suggested the terror attack -- years in the planning -- might have been payback for the U.S. walking out of a UN racism conference a week earlier. A contributor to the Toronto Star thinks something called "Americanism" is part of the problem. Naomi Klein, the embodiment of trite Chomskyism, believes the United States has been guilty of "sanitizing and dehumanizing acts of war committed elsewhere" and wonders whether "U.S. foreign policy create[d] the conditions in which such twisted logic could flourish." Some TV pundits in Canada blame President George W. Bush's alleged "isolationism" (Paradoxically, others blame it on his "interventionism"). On a recent broadcast of the BBC's debate program, Question Time, the U.S. Ambassador was reduced to tears by hard-left audience members jeering that the United States brought terror on itself owing to its "anti-Arab and pro- Israeli policy."

However the view is hedged, when a person says the United States "had it coming," what he or she means is that murder is a morally appropriate rejoinder to a perceived slight or injustice. The annihilation of innocent civilians is thereby cast as a legitimate means to promote one's political or theological ends. This is familiar territory for the radical left: Since the time of Lenin, Marxists have preached the virtues of exterminating inconvenient classes of individuals in order to bring those still living into a state of equality.

How does one respond to such arguments? It is simple morally, but difficult rhetorically -- because those who attack the United States inevitably express their view through slippery, ill-defined phrases such as "cultural imperialism," "neo-colonialism," "economic hegemony" and the like. But look behind the slogans and you find empty air.

Take the culture issue: The United States does not force its boy bands, fast food and slinky Hollywood starlets down any nation's throat. The spread of U.S. culture is a matter of demand. In truth, it is the fact that millions of teenagers and young adults worship Western icons like Michael Jordan and Britney Spears of their own accord that drives Islamist militants to murderous distraction. As for the economic argument, it is the West that should be umbraged, not the Muslim world. Uncle Sam pours billions of aid dollars into Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and Afghanistan every year. Yes, the United States gives money to Israel, too. But that is the Middle East's only democracy -- and isn't the Left always telling us we should aid democracies, not dictatorships?

Consider also that in recent decades, the Western world has paid trillions of dollars for Middle Eastern oil at prices controlled by a Muslim-led oligopoly, OPEC, which would be illegal under the anti-trust laws of any major Western nation. That Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are despotic regimes in which a select few profit from oil revenues is not the fault of the United States. It is the fact that no Arab nation has ever had a truly democratic government that is the real reason political stultification and income inequality are rife in the region.

As for the charge that the United States is "anti-Arab," this is a slogan, not a supportable claim. Where Arab nations blundered away their land to a surrounded Israeli army, the United States has done everything in its power to help them get it back. The peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, which saw Anwar Sadat get back the Sinai, was brokered in the United States. (Islamist radicals subsequently assassinated Mr. Sadat for making peace, of course. Presumably, he, too "had it coming.") In the last decade, Washington has repeatedly attempted to involve the Palestinians in a peace agreement that would see the West Bank and Gaza revert to Palestinian control. Bill Clinton even offered up to US$17-billion to bribe Israel to leave the Golan Heights. And what about the Gulf War? In that conflict, the United States helped defend Saudi oil and Kuwaiti independence from Saddam Hussein. Did the oil-thirsty Americans have an ulterior motive? Yes. But that did not seem to bother Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and the other Muslim nations that joined with the United States to fight Iraq.

Ask yourself this question: Why do so many Arabs/Muslims seek to emigrate to the United States every year? If the United States in general and President Bush in particular are so "anti-Arab," then the leading U.S. Muslim- Islamist organizations should explain why they not only issued a resounding endorsement of Mr Bush's candidacy in last year's Presidential election, but specifically cited his pro-Muslim credentials.

All of this, though, is somewhat beside the point. Even if the United States were "anti-Arab," surely the bias would be properly addressed not by terrorist attacks, but by diplomacy -- assuming the Arab/Muslim dictators and their Western apologists satisfactorily explain what is wrong with U.S. policy in the first place. If the United States "had it coming," then would it be legitimate for Jewish terrorists to blow up the Eiffel Tower because the French government is pro-Palestinian and therefore "anti-Israel"? For that matter, did massacred Jewish families dining in a Jeru-salem pizza restaurant recently "get theirs" when a suicide bomber blew himself up? If it is legitimate to cite grievances over land and politics in the same moral breath as the mass slaughter of innocents, on what basis may we denounce any terrorist attack as evil?

At the heart of the propaganda campaign against the United States is a moral equivalence conflating what is evil with what is merely imperfect. In the Cold War, this tactic took the form of the argument that the United States was just as dictatorial as the Soviet Union because poor Americans were allegedly not "free" from injustice, racism and want. Now that we have entered a new kind of war, this fatuous argument has been recycled: Yes, Islamist maniacs slaughter thousands of innocents ... but think of the psychic pain inflicted on the Middle East by Taco Bell and the Backstreet Boys. Who is to judge which is more inhumane?

In Macbeth, Shakespeare reserved a special space in Hell for "an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale." That thought provides some consolation as we watch our television screens and see this shameful parade of apologists wagging their fingers at the United States.

http://nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html? f=/stories/20010919/695473.html

And Andrew Sullivan [http://andrewsullivan.com/] makes a brilliant point: One of the amazing things about the far left's embrace of the anti- American ideology of some in the Middle East is their willful blindness about what these fanatics actually believe in. Susan Sontag, for example, is a Jew. Does she honestly believe that America is responsible for more evil than a bunch of Muslim fanatics who would gas her in a second if they could? Could any gay person seriously argue for appeasement of people who would execute [him] on the spot if [he] lived under their rule? Could any serious feminist not believe in opposing fanatics who would eviscerate the slightest shred of freedom for women? I just don't get it. Liberals of all people should be the most serious about fighting this scourge. Is their hatred of America that deep?

http://andrewsullivan.com/

As to bin Laden's vicious anti-Semitism, check the PBS interview [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview. html] out. Here are [my] choice excerpts from the Goebbels of Afghanistan: "The enmity between us and the Jews goes far back in time and is deep rooted. There is no question that war between the two of us is inevitable. . . . The leaders in America and in other countries as well have fallen victim to Jewish Zionist blackmail. . . . Once again, I have to stress the necessity of focusing on the Americans and the Jews for they represent the spearhead with which the members of our religion have been slaughtered. Any effort directed against America and the Jews yields positive and direct results--Allah willing. . . . We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says. . . . We believe that this administration represents Israel inside America. Take the sensitive ministries such as the Ministry of Exterior and the Ministry of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand in them." This isn't like Nazism. In its pathological, paranoid hatred of the Jews, it is Nazism. And these guys want to appease it again? We suspect--we hope--the folks who've made sympathetic noises about America's enemies have done so merely out of habit, the enormity of the current situation not having quite sunk in yet. Perhaps it takes longer than a week for even an atrocity like this to pierce a shield of cynical complacency built over decades.

John Leo of U.S. News & World Report sums it up nicely:

What the War Is About [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/010924/opinion/24john.htm] Now that everyone seems to agree that we are at war, it's important to make clear just what that war is about. It is not primarily about Israeli or Palestinian grievances. Some of the most dedicated fanatics--Osama bin Laden, for instance--rarely bother to focus on the Palestinian issue. Despite what our blinkered academic establishment thinks, the war is not about post-colonial resentments either. Colonialism is two or three generations past. The rich nations have spent so heavily on the underdeveloped world that who-did-what-to-whom many decades ago cannot explain what is happening. No, this is a global cultural war, pitting a pan-Islamic movement of fundamentalist extremists against the modern world and its primary cultural engine, America, "the Great Satan." But that does not mean we are in a battle against Islam. The vast majority of Muslims want no part of terrorism, and many Muslim states are as nervous about extremism as we are. The problem is a religious subculture that cannot cope with openness, change, rules, democracy, secularism, and tolerance--and that wishes to destroy those who can.

Much of this was pulled from the Wall Street Journal's daily "Best of the Web Today" Best of the Web Today - September 19, 2001 By JAMES TARANTO - I reccomend you go to http://OpinionJournal.com and subscribe.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006R9p

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Anita, do you still wear flowers in your hair? (joke) Everyone 'bought' their way out of the draft; marrried with children, school, not just the 'rich'. Then the lottery changed the draft. I still don't understand your point in all this. Even Rich and Eve stated they'd 'sign up' if they could. You can't compare this to Nam or Desert Storm or any other past event in US history. I imagine you'll begin to form some kind of protest movement to denounce US actions. I wish you good times.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

What she thinks doesn't much matter, Maria. This time the numbers are on one side:

90.5% give GWB and " A" for speech. How would you grade President Bush's speech to Congress?

90.6%

A (222 responses)

3.7% B (9 responses)

1.2%

C (3 responses)

0.4%

D (1 responses)

4.1%

F (10 responses)

245 total

http://www.wb33.com

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

My only point on this thread was to counter Charlie's statement:

The ability to "buy your way out" ended with the WW II draft.

My response was:

It did NOT, Charlie. There are TONS of us still living that remember folks buying their way out of Vietnam.

I'm not surprised that you don't recognize the point. Charlie then went on to paste numerous goofy articles that have NOTHING to do with the point, and [alas], he summed it all up in an article about public response to Bush's speech [which was never mentioned at all.]

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

I never did understand how that lottery worked with the draft.

I had never heard about Jane fondue doing that crap, but I didn't watch any TV in the 1970's. Didn't even own one. If I had known what she had done............*snarl*.

My Wing Commander at Homestead came in for a checkride, I gave him the hardest one he had ever heard of. I got some some critisism during the check ride, from kibitzers (gutless wonders who would have given him an easy ride). When he completed it and came out of the simulator, he was pouring sweat. I apologized for going so hard on him. He told me he wished he had had me give him that ride before he went to VietNam, he said if I had, he probably would not have ended spending 7 years in a Vietnamese POW camp.

He was more of an American that Jane Fonda will ever be in her life. I had heard some things about her, but didn't know what she had done, as I was busy at the time. If I ever see her in real life I will spit on her.

Some times doing it the easy way is more harmful than pushing yourself to the limits doing it the right way.

I may not have been able to go fight in VietNam myself, but the lessons I gave some who did were essential to their ability to live instead of dying (or ejecting and being captured). To have people like her doing what she did to him..... or any other POW's makes me want to puke.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

Anita, I see your point -- you just wanted to bash CPR. In the process you made yourself look like a fool.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

Maria: I'm sure that Charlie will agree with you that I look like a fool. I assure you, however, that my post was meant to disagree...NOT bash.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

I think that the people, especially the women of Afghanistan will be grateful to have the Taliban destoryed. The question is how far can we go with carpet bombing? I understand that taking out the Military Targets are importaint. But it has to be done professionally. this is now far beyond the 11th September, it is now also about freeing people from the Taliban.

There are many scared people out in the world. I won't consider myself one of them since I live out in no where in the mids of snow, grumpy human beings and a lousy military defence (not that Norway has anything anyone would like to have...) And every time I hear something about US Military and what they are doing I watch. I wish that I could do more from where I am now.

I agree with Mr. Poole. It is taking so long because it has to be done right. There are only two sides in this war..right and wrong.

btw: A huge salute to everyone on this board who are serving/has served in the Military. I will follow in you footsteps. (Even if it means getting to America and join the Marines..)

----- Anne Wolders Norway

-- Anonymous, November 10, 2001