« A hearty F*** You to William Arkin | Main | William Arkin video beatdown »
They want it, lets give it to them...
Well, I'm going to dwell on this subject, because the MSM and some of their columnists just can't seem to get it thru their simple minds that soldiers take this abuse, have taken it, and I'm calling them on it. I'm not going to let them make light of it, nor dismiss it as 'urban myth'...
In today's Slate column, Jack Shafer re-hashes an old column from 2000 that reiterates a lame book by Jerry Lembcke, whereby he claims that because no single event was ever documented by the media, the claim that vets were or have been spit upon is indeed an urban myth.
Mr. Shafer would like to hear from you if you have proof. Well Mr. Shafer, if that's so, I hope your IT staff has put a new tera-bit server up, because here it comes...
(And thanks goes to Huntress for forwarding this to me- Slates' site seems to be running a wee slow)
First off, for those who don't want to read any further, please accomodate Mr. Shafer by writing to him at slate.pressbox@gmail.com. I'm sure he'll be feeling lonely soon.
His article, HERE , lambastes Newsweek and seems to claim that because he cannot find a Lexis/Nexis article that could be substantiated, well, then it never happened. As quoting Lembcke-
If spitting on veterans had occurred all that frequently, surely some veteran or soldier would have called it to the attention of the press at the time. … Indeed, we would imagine that news reporters would have been camping in the lobby of the San Francisco airport, cameras in hand, just waiting for a chance to record the real thing—if, that is, they had any reason to believe that such incidents might occur.
Mr Shafer wrote about the same article in 2000, stating:
Although Nexis overflows with references to protesters gobbing on Vietnam vets, and Bob Greene's 1989 book Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned From Vietnam counts 63 examples of protester spitting, Jerry Lembcke argues that the story is bunk in his 1998 book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam (click here to buy it). Lembcke, a professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam vet, investigated hundreds of news accounts of antiwar activists spitting on vets. But every time he pushed for more evidence or corroboration from a witness, the story collapsed--the actual person who was spat on turned out to be a friend of a friend. Or somebody's uncle. He writes that he never met anybody who convinced him that any such clash took place.
I don't want to let them off the hook here. It happened to me, and I asked my father if it had ever happened to him. If anyone were to be on the receiving end, it would have been him after being involved in the Ohio State riots and Ohio University riots for years. (He did say the worst he ever personally received was marshmallow-covered rocks thrown at him during the OSU riots). He did say that they received LOTS of taunts, from spitting to flowers to verbal abuse during those heady days of yore.
...there are the parts of the spitting story up that don't add up. Why does it always end with the protester spitting and the serviceman walking off in shame? Most servicemen would have given the spitters a mouthful of bloody Chiclets instead of turning the other cheek like Christ. At the very least, wouldn't the altercations have resulted in assault and battery charges and produced a paper trail retrievable across the decades?
Ok- again, this guy did 4 years and didn't learn much, obviously. Real soldiers, real warriors, don't beat the pulp out of someone just because they can- only because they deserve it. Repeatedly. We have enough class to know when to walk away, and when to put their teeth in their digestive tract. When it happened to me, I really felt sorry for the kid- it must have been that beat-up old Toyota he was driving, probably to the next sit-in. I didn't have the time nor the inclination to put a Texaco- taser in his a$$ and let him light up the night so I just shrugged and turned away.
The days of the Kumbaya round-tables are over for them. Now, its getting personal.
Wolf
January 31, 2007 • Permalink
Categories and Tags: Bust Their Chops, Caring For The Defenders, Current Affairs, Humor, Military
• Technorati Links
Technorati Tags:
GOOOOOOOOOOOD idea Wolf! Bring maximum Willie Peter down on that sorry individuals six.
Posted by: OldSoldier54 | January 31, 2007 at 09:06 PM
It seems to me that any military person with true pride and dignity would not go running like a whiny baby to the press if he or she were spat upon.
What a moron.
Posted by: Mommynator | January 31, 2007 at 09:17 PM
http://www.washpost.com/news_ed/ombudsman/index.shtml please go the link and voice your displeasure it may not mean much however as I've said elsewhere it will feel good while you type and I also suggest sending e-mails and calling the advertisers of the Post and let them know as long as they are advertising you will not be buying their products, it is the very least we can do for our military members who were demeaned in this article in a vicious way. I am calling for a boycott of all advertisers of the Washington Post money is all these elite liberal know and that is the only way to make them pay for this hateful display.
Posted by: Rightmom | January 31, 2007 at 10:06 PM
My dad, who retired as a 3-Star, was spit on back in the Viet Nam days. He was in uniform attending a seminar at a university and some hippie started calling him a baby killer and shouting his flower power babble, then spit on him in the parking lot. My dad was a college wrestler, and decided to give chase, but let up when the hippie freak took off screaming.
He never told me until a few years ago after both my younger brothers returned from OIF. I don't think he gave it much thought at the time, or even considered running to the press or police. I don't think anyone would have cared, unless he did catch that hippie and stop the $h!t out of him.
Posted by: Semicolon | January 31, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Slate seems to be having problems; I can't find the article.
c&p from a comment I left in the Wikipedia discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Spitting_Image
---
Coming home, in civies changing planes in the St Louis airport, in September of 1969, a stranger approached me and asked me if I was in the Army. "No, sir", I replied, "the Marines!" "Babykiller", he hissed, and spat at my shoes. I looked down, and then up, to tell him that he'd missed, and to invite him to try again, but he was already thirty feet away, waddling as fast as he could. Coward. No, I didn't call the local newspaper, or television station, or the cops. Just a jerk being stupid, not news, not actionable. Maybe today it would be. Really happened to me. As such, it's original research, and not useful here, other than as a war story. htom 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
---
Except that in reading it, it's wrong, and should say October. I won't bother to correct it there.
Posted by: htom | January 31, 2007 at 10:31 PM
I cannot wait for someone to call me a babykiller! They won't wake up in traction, but I will give them a piece of mind mind such that they will run away crying, or I will just collar them, and file an assault charge with the popos. And one more thing. JUST BECAUSE I AM IN THE ARMY DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM SOME POOR PATHETIC VICTIM WHO COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE. I enlisted while still a HS student, because I felt it was my duty as a CITIZEN to DEFEND those rights they were teaching me in Government class. Both my parents objected, because my father is a combat vet, and did not want me to go through what he did. I had to promise them that I would go to college. I could have got into ANY school I applied to, ANY SCHOOL, including a service academy, but I enlisted because my country was attacked. I was going to go to college and study achitecture, now I study Criminal Justice, and am going to try for a Masters degree in Middle Eastern Studies and International Terrorism, so I can learn to think like the enemy, and stop him at home and abroad. I CHOSE MY LIFE; I am considering being a lifer, too. Bottom line, I AM NOT SOME STOOPID FREAKIN' VICTIM, I HAD A CHOICE, GO TO COLLEGE, BECOME RICH, AND WATCH THESE THINGS HAPPEN ON A BIASED NEWS PROGRAM, OR ENLIST, AND BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! So F**k you Arkin, Shafer, big F**K you to Hanoi Jane and her mentally retarded ilk, and to any potential spitter, see ya in court sucker, I hope you like setting precident, cause I will get you, and your little hippie friends too!
Posted by: lucky | January 31, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Shafer and Lembcke claim that there are no contemporary accounts. Well here's one that appeared on the CBS evening news in 1971:
http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1971-12/1971-12-27-CBS-17.html
Permit me to say that Lembcke is a complete hack with an axe to grind.
The debunkers are hereby debunked.
Posted by: Kevin Bowman | January 31, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Not to malign the name "Wolf" but no pun intended google "wolf attacks" and "confirmed wolf attacks" and "north america" and you can find item after item about wolf attacks that happened that simply were not confirmed because of some arbitrary definition of what constituted an attack. It doesn't mean it never has happened.
What we're seeing here is the geriatric hippies trying to feed to us that Walter Cronkite TV spot these long haired fools had in 1968(kids - Google "Tet Offensive") that "the war is now unwinnable". What has munged their message is that anyone with a web browser and a few free minutes of time can see that what our proud "free media" feeds us is a steaming pile of fresh organically home grown bull$hit. Unbia$ed? My a$$.
These ex hippies can't attrition quick enough. Their demise can't happen soon enough.
Posted by: Fancy Pants NYC | January 31, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Wow, that was easy, Kevin. So easy you'd think even a reporter could've dug it up.
I guess they really are reduced to being spoonfed material by the Anarchists and Islamists.
Posted by: douglas | January 31, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Vietnam is probably the only time in history (until now) that American Service people were warned it was dangerous to wear a uniform of the United States Military in the United States of America. It was common, happened in 66 and 71. I ignored the warning and hoped to get a chance to split someone from naval to chin. Also traveled cross country in a 360HP GTO hoping a crowd of the slimey bastards would try to stop me. My family was expecting a phone call at any minute telling them I was in jail for running down a few dozen of the slime balls. The slime balls got lucky and didn't cross my path. I still see an icepick, a spine and a wheelchair for the slime balls of today. Violence is the only answer to these nuts. One down the rest will hide for years.
Posted by: Scrapiron | January 31, 2007 at 11:36 PM
In the late '60s I, and a good many others in uniform, were going through SFX. There was a crowd of 20 or 30 doing the whole cursing, 'baby killer', spitting thing. At least two people spit at me, directly, and both missed. At least one other fellow wasn't as lucky.
We weren't exactly sitting ducks, after all, although there was a shooting gallery aspect to the whole thing. We could see what they were doing and still had to go in front of them to get where we were going.
No press, no pictures, just my word that it happened.
Posted by: ponsdorf | January 31, 2007 at 11:46 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how those that profess to be for peace become so violent towards those bound by honor to protect and defend it.
Posted by: Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA | February 01, 2007 at 12:27 AM
St. Louis (Lambert) Airport, October 7, 1974. her name was Marion Carlson. The reason I know is a cop saw the whole thing and snatched her up. I told him I wouldn't press charges. He let her go.
The cops' nickname (God forgive, I can't remember his name!) was Tonto.
Posted by: Matty J. | February 01, 2007 at 12:36 AM
How about setting up a protest outside the WasPo and spitting on them as they come and go?
Posted by: PJ | February 01, 2007 at 01:26 AM
I agree that the whole "spitting" thing is a myth. I'm certainly not going to be convinced it exists by war-lovers who think Saddam had WMDs.
Posted by: bodemillerjokes | February 01, 2007 at 02:42 AM
I have a problem understanding your logic. Most of you harp on about there being no evidence of spitting because at the time it wasn’t considered important enough to report. But now over 30 years later it becomes so incredibly important that you have to make a big beef about it.
Why?
Not because spitting has any real significance or is any more important today then then, ok it’s an unacceptable form of expression in a civilized word, but then a hell of a lot of Vietnamese babies were actually KILLED by US-American soldiers (just as Iraqi kids are being killed today). The real reason is that you are so desperately in need of arguments to continue your lost cause.
Your logic:
Hell, they’re spitting on vets! Now we have to finish the job and win this war! It’s a little like kindergarten level, isn’t it? Whipping up hate and trying to discredit your own fellow citizens who don’t agree with your mad ball warmongering. (after all they’re all just spitting hippies and commies so we don’t have to listen to their arguments).
Why can’t you take a few steps back and look at yourselves, hear what you’re actually saying instead of incessantly babbling out your empty clichés and insults.
You’re holding us all back, limiting our possibilities of development and laying down the foundations of spiralling violence for many years to come (yes the fundamentalists on the other side too!). We should be going ahead giving an example of what human development is all about.
But the only example you people give is “Might is Right” Basta! And the lesson of your example has been learned. The irresponsible spread of nuclear arms capability is a sad witness to this; Survival=Strength=Military capability (the thing you guys are supposed to be experts at, just as the Martyr Brigades are in your mirror image eternal war scenario).
Had the greatest industrial nation in the world, together with the crumbling European colonial empires and progressive national leaders in the third world really made an effort to establish a just and effective United Nations after the II world war, we could have been well on the road to solving many of the worlds most serious problems.
But no, all your technological and scientific advances and enormous economic resources have been used for; Nuclear escalation/Cold War/Post Colonial Wars/Imperial wars/proxy wars/Low Intensity Wars/Resource wars/Coups and assassinations/Military dictatorships/ Banana republics/supporting apartheid/Project for a new American Century/The War on Drugs/The war on Terror/Axis of Evil and on, and on, and on, because “we’ve got to finish the job”.
Isn’t it WAKE UP time already!!!
We have earlier finished with John Lennon quotes, here’s a Donovan song text dedicated to “Sheepdogs”.
(Now you’re going to be really confused as to whether I’m a God Damn Hippy or a despicable Commie; Well Hippies grew up and your kind of knee jerk anti-communist alibi died with Joe Macarthy a long time before the fall of the Berlin Wall).
(As an aside I have also been spat on for demonstrating against another senseless war The Malvinas/Falklans war: You know the war to stand up for the rights of 2 million British sheep in the South Atlantic!)
He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.
He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.
And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.
And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.
But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.
He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.
Posted by: censored | February 01, 2007 at 03:01 AM
Congrats BDJ and Censored:
New record on amount of Manure per phrase per cubic inch. Allowed me to say that I honer to be in such august presence.
NOT!
Your Truly
Jose
Posted by: El Coqui | February 01, 2007 at 04:22 AM
Wolf, Jimbo, too ...
Chill for a sec. and do the age math.
Just now, I will be 52 mos-scosh. I sleep quite soundly with the knowledge that those young men and women are on the wall.
When I am 72, I will still be sleeping soundly indeed, except for the fact I will have to make an agonizing decision over just which hero/heroine to vote for when they are 42 and running for office!
Posted by: Michael | February 01, 2007 at 05:54 AM
Okay. If someone's friend said someone's brother said someone's somebody said they were spat upon, it must be wrong. But if John Effing Kerry said someone told him someone cut off ears, derka derka derka, it must be true. Sheesh.
Posted by: Dan | February 01, 2007 at 06:55 AM
Growing up in a depressing suburb of Buffalo, I was priviledged to live next to a family whose eldest son was a Marine. Every Memorial Day, the High School Principal read the Silver Star Citation for a former student killed in Vietnam. Before MS and a snapped knee ligament ended my training, I studied Martial Arts.
Spit on my shoes and prepare to learn how to count ceiling tiles.
Posted by: SeniorD | February 01, 2007 at 07:38 AM
I think that our military personnel have far too much class and dignity to turn to petty violence that a spitter or the like wish to drag them into. A buddy of mine was spit on during the Vietnam War, and he acted like the class guy he is by not pulverizing (which he could readily do) the twerp.
Fundamentally, the press won't report the spitting - they want the far juicier story of "Vet gone wild" - "Vet beats innocent man" etc
Posted by: ThomNJ | February 01, 2007 at 07:40 AM
It would seem that my predictions are coming true. MSM has been after us from the begining. Now they have indeed gotten a following for their bull.
May I remind you trolls that the man/women in uniform traveling from one duty post to another, does stand out. The attack on me was in the bus station in Albany, NY, 1970. May I also remind you trolls that we are trained in combat. We are used to fighting in all types of areas. Rice patties fertilized by human waste, etc., etc. If you think a bit of spittle other than the insult it implies, is a major problem for us to deal with, think again.
I am sure that the men/women today are trained much the same way as we were, that is to kill what is a danger to us and our fellows. While we don't think that being spat upon is a laughing matter, we are smarter than most. We don't fight often but when nerves are on edge, such as when coming back from combat, you should be damn happy we are smart enough not to be the killers you think we are. If we are "baby killers," then doing a few of you would be no problem at all.
The final issue for me today is us "baby killers" are the people(get that, People)who are defending your right to be a$$hole$. If you think that the election last fall declared open season on the Armed Forces of the United States of America, you need to go back to school, study history, and this time remember what you are taught.
Posted by: Nightflight | February 01, 2007 at 07:41 AM
See RIGHTMOM's post above
I always do what my MOM tells me.
http://www.washpost.com/news_ed/ombudsman/index.shtml
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Deborah Howell.
Arkin’s rantings are an affront to me and EVERY American.
I will do everything in my power to see that the Washington Post is run out of business.
Free Speech is your right. I would never prevent you from speaking.
All actions have consequences.
I will be contacting your advertisers and using MY free speech to have them pull their advertising from your disgusting RAG you call a newspaper.
You can stand on the street corner and talk all you want after the Washington Post is out of business.
Please --- contact Washington post Advertisers directly and ask them to pull their advertising.
WE HAVE TO FIGHT BACK NOW! DON'T just sit their DO SOMETHING!
Posted by: Bruce Campbell | February 01, 2007 at 07:58 AM
When I came back in 67 (Back from Korat, Thailand) I do remember being called "SICK" because I was serving. Where else but SF. Land of the Commie C**ksuckers.
Posted by: Bob | February 01, 2007 at 08:08 AM
This rag can't even live up to it's own principles.
http://www.washpost.com/gen_info/principles/index.shtml
Eugene Meyer's Principles for The Washington Post
Eugene Meyer had a vision of what makes a newspaper truly great, and that vision included serving the public according to seven principles. He offered them in a speech on March 5, 1935 and published them on his newspaper's front page.
The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth can be ascertained.
The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it, concerning the important affairs of America and the world.
As a disseminator of news, the paper shall observe the decencies that are obligatory upon a private gentleman.
What it prints shall be fit reading for the young as well as the old.
NOT NOT NOT The newspaper's duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of its owners.
In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such a course be necessary for the public good.
NOT The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public men.
Were does it say about giving comfort and aide to the enemy?
The Washington post should be considered a hostile and maybe a two week vaca at club gitmo would help.
Posted by: Bruce Campbell | February 01, 2007 at 08:19 AM
Fall 1970 or 1971, I can't remember. Too long ago and I'm getting old and forgetful. I was an E5, in my navy whites, walking through San Francisco International Airport when a couple of our nation's finest (hippie scum that is) walk by and spat upon me. I saw no point in retaliation other than the knowledge that the odds were high they were doomed to an eternity in hell anyway, which actually gave me no comfort. I survived, didn't whine about it, and haven't sought redress through the judicial system. I just moved along with life.
Then again, Jack Shafer probably would think I was lying.
Oh, and BTW, San Francisco sucked back then just as much as it sucks now.
Posted by: TonyF | February 01, 2007 at 08:22 AM
Censored,
Just one question for you. While your sitting in a circle singing Kum-by-ya and discussing "human development," who will you call when Jack the Ripper decides you should be his next victim?
History has a word for foolish pacifists like you, it's slave. No amount of singing, protesting, or discussion ever stopped a Gengas Kahn, Hitler, or Saddam.
Posted by: Francis Marion | February 01, 2007 at 08:29 AM
Spitting on someone in the age of AIDS, should legally constitute a chargable offence. Assault at the least, justifying self defense in the form of a knuckle sandwich, or more as the situation dictates.
Just my opinion. Maybe we press lawmakers for laws backing it up.
Posted by: jim b | February 01, 2007 at 08:38 AM
I was stationed at Ft. Ord '69-70. Used to drive home in my fatigues and stop off for a burger. I never encountered hostility anywhere around Monterey Bay while in uniform or on trips to the city. Not saying it didn't occur but that it may not have been the ubiquitous incident that has been portrayed.
Posted by: pacific_waters | February 01, 2007 at 08:57 AM
Good point, jim b. Spitting in this day and age is assault with a deadly weapon, and law enforcement should treat it as such.
Censored, it's really amusing how fascinated you seem to be by the military mindset. Like Arkin, you take every thought any military person may have uttered, thought about uttering, and all their intentions and motivations and pick them apart, pull them open, turm them upside down and inside out, and examine them under a microscope. Although this level of scrutiny is flattering, no other profession is subject to this kind of adversarial scrutiny.
The spitting is being made into a "big beef" because Arkin broughr it up and questioned it's veracity. These comments are in response to that.
Posted by: jordan | February 01, 2007 at 09:04 AM
Censored, You are a sad human being. What a bunch of crap.
Posted by: Eric Shirley | February 01, 2007 at 09:04 AM
Happened to me! We were advised not to wear our uniforms off base. Seems it is difficult to clean garbage and spit off wool. That was at Travis AFB in 1968. They were right of course. It was much easier to clean civies in the rest room at the airport in San Francisco. Obviously our short haircuts gave us away on the long-hair turf of California.
Between the Hari Krishnas and the protesters it was always an experience traveling. It was always the same scenario; short small talk, baby killer, murderer, killer, and sometimes followed by spitting. Sort of 'spit and run' as it were. What really bothered me was the non-reaction of the bystanders passing by.
They were cowards then and they are cowards now. They are developmentally disabled suffering from the disease of perpetual adolescence. They are to be pitied and their situation not dignified by physical response. Shakespeare said it best, "they hold their manhood cheap!"
They can never know what we know.
Posted by: vet66 | February 01, 2007 at 09:18 AM
Ahhh, something stupid comes into my parlor:
bode, we agree that your claims of atrocities and indiscriminate killings by US soldiers "thing" are myths too. I'm certainly not going to believe those stories are true from Holocaust deniers and war atrocity mongers who think that Saddam was a benevolent and beloved ruler who was GIVEN chemical weapons by the US to kill Kurds in Iraq 6 years later. After all proof would be required of that, and you have as much fact and proof of US supplies for those atrocities in VietNam and Iraq as I have proof of space aliens.
censored, we have a problem understanding your lack of logic too. You are correct that the spitting itself is not a big thing to us vets. It is the sentiment behind it. Spitting as a form of protest against the war in VietNam became an institutional demonstration against the war by anti-war radicals whose only mantra was that anything associated with the war was Evil and immoral. So they attacked anything associated with the war, including their own citizens who had been drafted to fight it. How unfair is that? How moral is that? How civilized and humanitarian is that?
After all, anti-war folks are such sticklers for Justice and Peace that it should be news when violence is their response to their inability to verbally persuade everyone else in the country to stop the war. What if those who agreed with the war had actually taken to the streets with the same levels of violence and destruction reserved for the hippies and radicals in SF? There wouldn't have been much left of CA if that had happened.
Can you point to a "hell of a lot" of Iraqi kids actually killed by American soldiers or are you just lumping all the Iraqi kids killed by insurgents due to their "pray and spray" misdirected gunfire into the count against Americans? After all, very few stories have named those children and innocents killed directly by Americans as an accident, and although I will accept that thousands of innocent Iraqis have been accidentally killed by Americans, I sincerely doubt that tens of thousands have been killed accidentally. The deaths of those tens of thousands of Iraqis were caused by Madhi army thugs, Sunni/Baathist killers, criminals seeking money, drugs, and loot, and al Qaeda lovelies who think killing any kid or woman who does work at an American base is justification for exploding a VBIED in their midst, or sawing their head off for sport. After all, by your estimation, those folks wouldn't have died unless an American was inside 100 miles from them anyway. The fact that foreigners or Iraqis did the killing has no bearing on your feelings. By this measure, your logic is the one at fault.
It’s a little like sub-kindergarten level, isn’t it? Whipping up hate and trying to discredit your own fellow citizens who don’t agree with your mad ball war atrocitymongering. (After all we’re all just kill-maddened robots who have no feelings and have no value to you unless we are killing little brown people, despite the fact that our soldiers ARE the only ones actually signing up to do something to change the world, one little brown person at a time. And all just so you don’t have to listen to our arguments).
Why can’t you take a few steps back and look at yourselves, hear what you’re actually saying instead of incessantly babbling out your empty elitist clichés and DNC insults.
The only thing holding the world back, limiting the world's possibilities of development and laying down the foundations of spiralling violence for many years to come is the refusal to face the tyranny of sharia law, allowing the world's worst despots to beat, starve, maim, murder and kill their subjects and then use the world press to blame all that oppression on Jews and Americans instead of those who actually commit the killing. And it is exacerbated by your willingness to allow those stories, despite the total unlikelihood of Israel, a country of 6 million, to be the cause of all the world's Evil results for 5 billion people, and your willingness to excuse North Korea's Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe, Iran's Imanutjob, Bashar Assad, the Islamic Brotherhood, and Saudi clerics to blame American foreign policy, which delivers more humanitarian aid than any other entity in the world to the poor and oppressed of the world, without you repudiating their propaganda. Some inspiration and example of human development your conduct exhibits!
Your eternal war scenario is only slightly less deluded by insisting that should America simply stay inside its own borders, ignore all the oppression in the world and forget doing business with evil regimes (like France and Great Britain, I might add) then we'd never be attacked and life would be rosy. Spetember 11 didn't open your eyes and nothing ever will. But it crushed, incinerated, and murdered 3000 of my friends and neighbors live on international TV. I don't intend to take that as lightly as you because my neck is next under the knife if I do. You may feel free to turn your back on us. But you should consider that the foreign policy followed by other nations and non governmental entities has a consequence as well. Attacking your neighbor with airliners, shooting at his legal and authorized aircraft in a no fly zone, and attacking ships in international waters has consequences which, if al Qaeda and Islamic radicals want to avoid unpleasantness, they should forego attacking diplomats and civilians in the first place.
You say we bring these attacks on ourselves. I say you shouldn't have poked the bear in the cave if you didn't plan to fight him once you woke him up. Any beef with warmongering should be taken up with al Qaeda for 9-11, Saddam for Kuwait and WMD obstructions, Kim Jong Il for starvation, warlike behavior and warmongering in the extreme in South Korea, and Imanutjob for pursuing nuclear weapons despite the treaty his country signed.
Had you actually studied your history you would have known that the greatest industrial nation in the world, together with the crumbling European colonial empires and progressive national leaders in the third world really DID make an effort to establish a just and effective United Nations after World War II, it is just that the UN has been hijacked by the numerous tinpot dictators who have equal representation in the UN to your so-called "civilized" regimes who have no backbone and they are the ones who insist on passing 9 resolutions condemning Israeli "atrocities" for every one resolution which could actually be used to improve the world. Why aren't you directing some of your energetic attention to demanding the UN do some real work instead of condemning the folks who pay the bills and mind their own business until poked with a sharp stick (again and again since 1979, I might add).
The human race could have been well on the road to solving many of the worlds most serious problems if you devoted as much effort to fighting dictators as you do to fighting the United States and Israel.
So all our technological and scientific advances and enormous economic resources have been used for: Economic expansion of unprecedented world wide prosperity, including in Africa, the largest efforts ever to comabt AIDs, lack of clean water, eradicate smallpox, malaria, dysentery and famine, increasing the ability of the world to grow food by fourfold, medical advances unprecedented in history for fighting cancer, disease, and malnutrition. Literacy improvements for all nations. Energy resources which were supposed to last only 50 years in 1968 now estimated at 200 yrs reserves. Vehicles which produce less waste and CO2 than two vehicles built in 1960. Light bulbs which last for dozens of years instead of dozens of months. A standard of living, through out the world, which has been raised dramatically, and has led to vast improvements in safety and longevity for humans unheard of in every country in the world since 1950. All the "Nuclear escalation/Cold War/Post Colonial Wars/Imperial wars/proxy wars/Low Intensity Wars/Resource wars/Coups and assassinations/Military dictatorships/ Banana republics/supporting apartheid/Project for a new American Century/The War on Drugs/The war on Terror/Axis of Evil and on, and on, and on, because “we’ve got to finish the job” are distractions you pursue, but have no meaning to Americans because WE DIDN"T START THOSE WARS, and we don't support the continuation of war for no reason. You make America responsible for the bad actions of the Assads, Ayaytollahs, Kim Jong Ils, Noriegas, Maos, Stalins and Hitlers of the world instead of how those dictatorial assholes actually use the resources they've been given to do their own bidding without our input. America is to blame to you because someone must be to blame and you are too cowardly to name the dictators themselves because you believe they are too innocent to know better, or they were just misguided by all that free America aid, or you are afriad that they will kill you for saying so, where you know America would never do so. Now who is the stupid one?
As to your claims of anti-protest insults and spitting hurled at you--good. Did that make you feel better? Did it make you feel like listening to the viewpoints of those counter protesters who spat at you, or did you just dismiss them as stupid and uneducated sods who were unsalvageable warmongers anyway? Glad to know that human nature is no different on the other side of the protest wall, bud. You suck just as much as we do. Now why don't you keep it to yourself and mind your own business like we do.
If you can't stand the heat of your position being subjected to ridicule, then you should stay out of the fire of protesting a war which desperately needs to be fought and won, before your and my world goes to sharia law in a broken handbasket.
Subsunk out.
Posted by: Subsunk | February 01, 2007 at 09:51 AM
Subsunk:
You've outdone yourself this time. Carry on, Navy!
Posted by: SFC D | February 01, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Bravo Zulu, Bash Brother.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | February 01, 2007 at 10:50 AM
You know, I learned something awhile ago. It was that.
"If you are in range of the enemy, then the enemy is also in range of you"
So... if they are close enough to spit on you, then you should be close enough to spit on them. Certainly the range is a little bit longer than your fist.
Posted by: Ymarsakar | February 01, 2007 at 10:52 AM
This is my very first post here though I have been reading this blog for several months. I am a big enough girl to handle all the testosterone - revel in it, in fact. Good to know that there are still MEN who pick a side of the fence and stand there, well armed in every sense.
[...]
Dear Lucky
My boy, God. Bless. You. Please, please, please consider - at some point in your career -running for public office. Please encourage your comrades in arms to consider running for public office so we can take back our country. We need men like you to represent the 'silent majority' of Americans who DO love the country; do revere our servicemen and women, and pray our kids have something resembling a free America in the coming decades.
Why are we silent? I feel so helpless. I vote my beliefs; yet here I am fuming over impotent, childish politicans designed to make sure they have million-dollar mansions and only the best private indoctrination, er, education for their children. How can a public servant earn (and hide) millions of dollars and yet complain about "big oil", "big pharmaceuticals", Wallmart, for God's sake? Because we the people do not hold them accountable, do not follow their legislative trail nor 'special' interests. These people want to wring every penny they can from our great nation, then retire to their 'compounds' where none of the laws they enacted apply to them.
There are no main stream journalists. This elite group graduates with a pre-programed agenda. They don't need proclivity or talent, just enough cash to pay for tuition. They see their job not as investigating the truth, but as pushing their beliefs down our throats. Because it is easy, it is pie in the sky. They never grow beyond the peach-fuzz stage because they do not have a single toe in the water of the real world. Just a degree, a laptop and a paycheck. It no longer even matters if what they write is true because they belong to a brotherhood that is impervious to review - or so it seems. Journalists publish tripe to fit whatever flavor of the day then sit back to see what happens. If it floats, great; if not, just publish a small paragraph that really doesn't clarify anything but CYA's nicely. There are so many shades of grey.
I still know people who watch the evening news for their information - my mother included - and I have to leave the room when they start repeating the MSM mantras. I have lost my patience with these people. Lemmings. Unable to compare apples and oranges. Unable to sit down and perform five minutes of critical thinking.
Truthfully, Lucky my lad, I am MORE AFRAID of journalists than I am the militant Muslims. I know what a Muslim's agenda is. Our own people are working against us to undermine every single thing upon which our country was founded. Filled with disgust and hate for their own countrymen? How did this happen? How can a protestor spit on a soldier and call him babykiller when these same protesters have made sure that abortion is a multimillion dollar industry? When did they suddenly start caring about a baby's life? How can a rational human being come to these conclusions: it is NOT okay to kill to defend our citizens, but it is very okay, enlightened even, to kill a cluster of cells in a womb? My jaw drops. Try getting someone of this ilk to see this little contradiction and all you are met with is at best, a blank stare, or at worse a long-winded diatribe in which the mother brain downloads all the implanted propaganda and it spews forth. They don't remember that they were a clump of cells once - just as innocent and vunerable.
I was blind until 9/11. I have two sons - almost ready to leave the nest. I am afraid for them. This is where my blistering anger was born. No one messes with my kids. Once I started reading these blogs and learning the truth, I feel an overwhelming hopelessness at times. I read the Arkin article last night and was SO ANGRY. I - being the Irish warrior queen I am - wanted to wrap my hands around his throat and squeeze until grey matter streamed through his nose....I know that is uncivilized. But these days, I am feeling uncivilized. I am tired of intellectual discourse that falls on deaf ears and changes nothing. But my country is being stolen out from under me and my boys by spoiled, ball-less wonders like this...everywhere I look. From global warming freaks, to anti-war freaks, to Nationalists freaks...I have just had it.
Men like Lucky give me a ray hope that many of these fine individuals serving in the war on terror will hit this same wall of disgust and run for public office all over the county. I have a vote waiting for you.
I know this is rambling, long, and most likely shot with spelling and grammatical errors but if I go back and re-read it, odds are I won't post it. Judge me on my heart, not typing talents...
God love you all
Boudica
Posted by: Boudica | February 01, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Francis Marion wrote (last name added):
“No amount of singing, protesting, or discussion ever stopped a Gengas Kahn, Hitler, or Saddam or George!”
Well Francis I ain’t no pacifist matey, I just don’t adhere to fighting useless, unlawful or unjust wars. That’s for cannon fodder who take their orders, accept the lies of their commanders and then delude themselves into thinking they are doing something honourable and worthwhile. Reread the Donavan lyrics it might cure your disease!
Jordan wrote:
“I will accept that thousands of innocent Iraqis have been accidentally killed by Americans”
The whole fuckin’ Iraqi thing is an accident, and you caused it!!!!
“allowing the world's worst despots to beat, starve, maim, murder and kill their subjects” Are you referring to the USA supporting here Jordan?: Batista, Somosa, Papa and Baby Doc, Marcos, Suharto, Mabuto, Pinochet, Viola, Videla, Garcia, Romero, Rios Montt, Stroesner, and the list is alas so much longer.
And so to subskunk:
“The human race could have been well on the road to solving many of the worlds most serious problems if you devoted as much effort to fighting dictators as you do to fighting the United States and Israel.”
We have had this conversation before subskunk. I have spent nearly all my adult life fighting dictarors. The only problem was that nearly all of them were being economically, politically and militarily supported by, guess who? The USA.
I was even captured by the 5. infantry brigade in San Vicente, El Salvador in the 1980s and interrogated by, guess who; a US military advisor. Supporting a country that killed its Bishop and priests and several of your nuns (That’s if we discount the Alexander Haig/Jean Kirkpatrik theory that they attacked the Guardia National, raped themselves and then buried themselves in a shallow roadside grave- Yes you guys have been telling whoppers for a long, long time.
Posted by: censored | February 01, 2007 at 12:00 PM
A lesson all should know... one does not mess with a momma bear! I bow to your heart Madam Boudicca.
Subsunk! Sir, you have once again put to pen my thoughts concerning the blind, the deluded, and the criminals with whom we must deal.
In business there is always talk of the 80% vs. 20% rule. This seems to be applicable to our nation and the world in general where 80% watch, worry, carp, criticize, and seek to undercut anything done in the interest of this nation while 20% do the heavy lifting and sacrifice everything for our benefit.
If I may borrow the short phrase that you always use, Press on all you noble warriors, press on. As long as I can stand and ‘speak’ I will be proud to stand with you.
Posted by: bthun | February 01, 2007 at 12:17 PM
censored, some of the comments you ascribe to jordan, my comrade in arms, are actually mine. No harm, no foul. Just wanted you to know exactly where to direct your venom.
And you still have a tongue to speak with? How negligent of that advisor. You mean he didn't torture you to death and take your first borne away to be strangled or raped, eh? Must have been falling down on the job, huh? After all, you claim every American advisor, every American dollar, and every American citizen has only one agenda... to advance the cause and purpose of Halliburton and Exxon everywhere. To enslave the people of El Salvador to ensure they NEVER crawl above poverty levels in the poorest of countries by making sure they buy only American products and use only American money. See how well Communism and Socialism worked?
Your predilections to blame America first are pretty clear, censored. You fought with or allied with groups against anyone allied with US interests (and I mean interests, not biblical prophecy). Just because American companies want to sell Coca Cola to Salvadoran companies, or buy bananas from Columbians or Venezuelans, doesn't mean we agree with their leadership or their politics at all. We jsut want to sell Coke or buy bananas. How nefarious of us!
American foreign policy is designed to keep the peace and allow American companies to operate in other countries without having their money and assets stolen by Hugo Chavez whenever he wants to line his own pockets. And the aid, money, and goods sent to those countries becomes their property once it is in their borders. We don't want to and can't tell Fidel or Hugo, or Anastosia what the hell he can do with his money once it is in his hands. We can only withhold it, as we did during many administrations where human rights considerations were and still are checked off before the funds are given. And oh, how leftist howled about unfair aid distribution then. The fact that the US government's money didn't go to the folks who insist on using it to overthrow friendly governments, but went instead to those friendly governments, just shows that we will support whomever supports us at the time, provided we have good reason for doing so.
Keeping Communism from spreading in the Americas, and elsewhere in the world gets my vote every time. Just because you support those ideologies doesn't mean you are correct, doesn't mean I should give my aid to you, and doesn't mean I give a rats' ass about what those dictators did with the money and helicopters after it became theirs.
As for the long and distinguished list of douchebags you provided, again, I don't give a rats' ass about protecting or supporting them personally. I give a damn about them providing friendly markets, safety and security to American citizens and companies in their countries. And anything else is their own business and not America's fault. If they keep Americans safe and protect our property, then that is ALL that we can legally require them to do. We can AND do express our displeasure against atrocities they commit in their own countries, but as you have so helpfully pointed out, it isn't our job to meddle in their domestic politics. That is the excuse you use when it comes to justifying attacks against us... Mossadeq was overthrown by the CIA, so the Shah was justified payback, Saddam was our friend agaisnt Iran and we shouldn't have helped him despite his opposition to our worst enemy at the time Iran. Now there's logic for you. So go fix your own problems, jerkoff.
If you and your group of insurgents can't find the monetary and political support to advance the causes you so fervently believe (at least fervently enough to go to El Salvador and support rebels against the existing regime), then perhaps that is a problem between you and the rest of the world. Go take your spleen out on them for a change. Your legal or humanitarian efforts to effect change in regimes in dictatorial countries may be a noble and worthy cause. But it is your cause. You fight it. If I choose not to support you, that is not justification for blowing up my homeland, killing my citizens in your country, or seizing the legal assets of companies the world over just because Hugo Chavez thinks he is El Presidente para Todos los Anos.
You want America's help. Start asking nicely, not demanding we fix every problem in the world, and quit opposing every single initiative we have regarding our own peace and security. You want something from me? Quit crapping on me and demanding I pay attention to you, then. You must not have heard of the golden rule, boy. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. You treat me fair and I'll treat you fair.
You poke me with a sharp stick and you better be ready to have it shoved up your ass. And don't look surprised when I do. You had it coming. For a long, long time.
Subsunk
Posted by: Subsunk | February 01, 2007 at 01:00 PM
Well Francis I ain’t no pacifist matey,
Well that is sort of pocking obvious after I told everyone what folks like you in the majority would be doing right now.
No need to repeat that fact, ya hear.
It's already here cens.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/02/william_arkin_v.html
We have had this conversation before subskunk
I don't remember you having any conversation with sub. Unless you think his spinning your head around like a top is a conversation.
I have spent nearly all my adult life fighting dictarors.
Long live the revolution, because the revolution eats their own. Won't be long now.
I was even captured by the 5. infantry brigade in San Vicente, El Salvador in the 1980s and interrogated by, guess who; a US military advisor.
Long history of anti-American activity, I see. Thanks compadre.
You must not have heard of the golden rule, boy.
You ever hear of the upgraded GR, the meta-Golden Rule, Sub?
That's an great upgrade in firepower, in ethical dilemmas.
Posted by: Ymarsakar | February 01, 2007 at 01:25 PM
Subsunk raises some interesting points that are worth dwelling on, it’s a shame he has to finish off with death threats and low language though.
“Just because American companies want to sell Coca Cola to Salvadoran companies, or buy bananas from Columbians or Venezuelans, doesn't mean we agree with their leadership or their politics at all. We jsut want to sell Coke or buy bananas. How nefarious of us!”
Well it does get a little nefarious when for example the bananas in question are on a United Fruit plantation and the Secretary of State has a law firm representing United Fruit (And to think that they named an airport after that bastard!) and a brother who is director of the CIA.
Then alas a democratically elected president has to be overthrown (CIA using South Korean pilots) and a thirty-year dictatorship imposed and supported in their genocidal efforts to combat communism (500 000 mainly poor indigenous campesinos).
“As for the long and distinguished list of douchebags you provided, again, I don't give a rats' ass about protecting or supporting them personally. I give a damn about them providing friendly markets, safety and security to American citizens and companies in their countries.”
Imperialism by any other name!
“just because Hugo Chavez thinks he is El Presidente para Todos los Anos.”
Well he has been democratically elected in three elections with an overwhelming majority and been through 10 other electoral processes which he also won (without the kind of fraud practiced in Florida). And that is why the USA is benevolently funding the opposition which through coups and sabotage aid the USA in punishing a country that dares to choose another and more equitable path to development (one where the benefits of the countries natural resources go to the countries poor majority and not to multinationals, ie: affecting US interests).
But then we have to remember Secretary of State Kissinger’s famous words referring to the Chilean people: “If they vote for a Marxist then they don’t deserve democracy”
He then went on to plan and assist the coup which brought Pinochet to power in 1973, and we all know what that murderous regime went on to do (with the support guess who?)
Posted by: censored | February 01, 2007 at 01:39 PM
....And that is why the USA is benevolently funding the opposition which through coups and sabotage aid the USA in punishing a country that dares to choose another and more equitable path to development (one where the benefits of the countries natural resources go to the countries poor majority and not to multinationals, ie: affecting US interests).....censored
You poor naive fool.
Posted by: Apollyon | February 01, 2007 at 01:42 PM
Reusable tools are great in this new tech world of ours. Not so great when you realize that it also applies to people.
Posted by: Ymarsakar | February 01, 2007 at 02:05 PM
And the Lord opened up the mouth of the ass and it (Censored) spoke:
Sheesh, you moonbats can't even get your songs straight. Universal Soldier was written by Phil Ochs. Ochs was a trustafarian moonbat from the family who owns the New York Times, if I'm not mistaken, but he was a gifted songwriter.
Posted by: Bozoer Rebbe | February 01, 2007 at 03:11 PM
bodemillerjokes,
Since you're such an admirer of the creator of Cheech Wizard, why don't you do us all a favor and emulate him. Your posts indicate what a jerkoff you are, so I'm sure you have that part pretty much down, now you just need to use Bode's other accoutrement and the world will be a better place.
Peace out.
Posted by: Bozoer Rebbe | February 01, 2007 at 03:16 PM
Well Bozoer Rebbe, actually Universal Soldier was written by Buffy Sainte-Marie, but it was Donovan who made it popularly known. I agree with you on one thing though, Phil Ochs was a gifted writer. For example, "I ain’t marching anymore":
Oh I marched to the battle of New Orleans
At the end of the early British war
The young land started growing
The young blood started flowing
But I ain't marchin' anymore
For I've killed my share of Indians
In a thousand different fights
I was there at the Little Big Horn
I heard many men lying I saw many more dying
But I ain't marchin' anymore
chorus)
It's always the old to lead us to the war
It's always the young to fall
Now look at all we've won with the saber and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all
For I stole California from the Mexican land
Fought in the bloody Civil War
Yes I even killed my brothers
And so many others But I ain't marchin' anymore
For I marched to the battles of the German trench
In a war that was bound to end all wars
Oh I must have killed a million men
And now they want me back again
But I ain't marchin' anymore
(chorus)
For I flew the final mission in the Japanese sky
Set off the mighty mushroom roar
When I saw the cities burning I knew that I was learning
That I ain't marchin' anymore
Now the labor leader's screamin'
when they close the missile plants,
United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore,
Call it "Peace" or call it "Treason,"
Call it "Love" or call it "Reason,"
But I ain't marchin' any more,
No I ain't marchin' any more
Posted by: censored | February 01, 2007 at 03:50 PM
Yup, we all see how it all relates only to one Evil Secretary of State and his ugly hunchbacked brother, or the use of foreign mercenaries to overthrow some enlightened Communist who would never hurt a fly, even though censored has not provided proof, and my poor knowledge of South American politics is limited to Colombia and Venezuela. And though US government interference has not been proven in all these cases other than giving guns or money to rebels in those countries, not dissimilar to what censored and his allies gave to Salvadoran rebels, and the leadership they provided 500,000 or so campesinos who truly only wanted to make a living and probably only followed the orders of their Communist or Socialist leaders who REALLY got the big bucks and the power when their revolutions were won. And how benevolent they turned out! If any of them had a thing to do with protecting or defeating America and eliminating American commerce, I'm sure I wouldn't know and couldn't tell. So I'll yield your points there through my own ignorance.
Imperialism is so much more evil that Communism and yet Capitalism has freed more people than any other ideology on Earth. You call it what you want. I call it free will and capitalism.
But blaming America for the injustices of any regime installed through a coup or some nefarious covert action is still blaming the wrong person. Blame the regime. Blame the strongmen. Blame the Pinochets or Somozas of the world, not the United States, for their excesses. Even dictators have free will to do as they wish. America doesn't provide support to friendly groups in order to kill anyone without regret or for fun and profit. America never has and never will provide covert suport for revolutions or coups because they are friendly regimes who have allowed American interests to prosper. NO.
America supports rebels because human rights, national interests, and security for millions of Americans are more important to us than the lining of some "democratically elected" socialist's pockets who then imprisons all the middle and upper class of his country and promises bread and circuses for the campesinos, but never delivers (because of the Jooos or the American devils, you see). The blood will always remain on the killers' hands. Blaming the US money is like blaming the Soviet Union for the deaths of billions due to starvation around the world because money which otherwise could have been spent to feed the world was spent on defense from Communism, an ideology which has killed more people than died in WWII. I could just as easily blame you for providing aid and comfort to folks who fought America and caused more American deaths than necessary, scared us into spending our money on defense (how foolish of us)and depriving the Mandelas of the world their due support.
So end your assertions that evil deeds have anything to do with someone other than the evil men who perpetrate them. The killers who pull the triggers. To do otherwise makes you just as guilty as I in the deaths of millions who otherwise could have been saved if the Soviets, N Koreans, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Egyptians, Saudis, Europeans, Japanese would just do what we say and quit fighting the Justice we bring.
Now do you see how stupid your position is? Now do you see how dumb you sound?
You have chosen to place yourself in direct opposition to that which I and millions of my Countrymen love. My Country, my Soldiers, and my Family's health and well being. Why are you surprised that I oppose you with every fiber of my being? I am as justified in seeking you out and killing you as terrorists are in seeking me out and killing me for opposing them. With you there is no civilized response, only violence justified because they are weaker and I am stronger. The strong never should be allowed to fight back, according to you. The weaker should be able to use any dirty trick in the book because they are underdogs.
Horse shit.
Rules is rules. Targeting deliberately innocent civilians is not allowed and is not practiced by the United States military. True civilian deaths as unintended consequences of killing bad and evil men hiding behind them since time began has always been an ethical dilemma to Man, and has been answered time and again the same way. When you show me a perfect way to stop the Evil, I will use it. When you make me God, I will use my almighty power to perfectly ajudicate the world's arguments, and dispense absolutely fair punishment. Until you make me God, I will do what I can to be fair, and ethical and minimize innocent deaths. Unless you can do better than the US military every single time at utilizing the laws of war, minimizing civilian deaths, and eliminating Evil men who deserve to die, then shutup or get out of the way because I will ignore you as an idiot who knows nothing of ethics and would only stop to open the door for those who want to separate my head from my neck.
Piss on you. It is my life. It is my family's life. You disregard it. I won't make that same mistake. And you should neither expect me to, nor be surprised that I choose my life over yours every single day. Because you would do and are doing the same.
Subsunk
Posted by: Subsunk | February 01, 2007 at 04:08 PM
“Targeting deliberately innocent civilians is not allowed and is not practiced by the United States military.”
Perhaps you can explain to me the invasion of Panama City in 1989. Just to try out your new stealth bomber in battle conditions you blew away a whole slum and wasted over 3000 civilians. Bit of a SWAT team, just to get a small time narco smugler who had until recently before been on the CIAs payroll?
Posted by: censored | February 01, 2007 at 04:21 PM
I think censored is bad in the ethical framework because he doesn't obey the meta-golden rule.
I mean, sure he rants against the powerful United States. But what would he say to some peasant who complained to him about cens' policies crapping on his family and way of life? Censor would not give a damn... really.
So why does he expect the US to give a dam worth of water as to what the hell he cares about?
We're talking about individuals here. Not numbers, not nations.
The Socialists and the Mullahs, from Chavez to Castro to Amanie, they always talk about the oppression and threat from the Great Empire. (US)
But really, you have to ask yourself if they were in our position, what would they do with our power?
The meta-golden rule is a simple one. It simply dictates that how you treat those weaker than you, justifies and almost demands that anyone stronger than you treat you in a manner that is no worse than how you treated those weaker than you.
Why doesn't the US get the same consideration that we show to the "sovereignty" of other nations from the people of such nations?
Do they believe that they, if in our place of power, would do better? I think not. I think they just want the Power, the ever lasting power. They don't care about the ethics, because they will kill and slaughter those who they have under them, and then complain to those more power than they (the US) and we should take it easy on them because they are victims of us....
Mexico says the US is trying to turn the border into the Berlin Wall, full of machine gun nests and what not. Then we saw a few days later, the Mexicans go in with federal troops to put down a rebellion in one of their provinces... nice. And we're the ones building walls like the Soviets...
You heard Chavez say in the UN about America being the Satan or whatever the hell he ejaculated. And then Chavez even right now... takes emergency powers.
These people don't give a damn about ethics. They act like members of an animal kingdom pack. If they are more powerful than you, they can stomb you into the ground. But if you are more powerful than they, they go belly up and try for sympathy, false submission. When you turn your back, they will come at you for a backstab.
Perhaps you can explain
You don't have the right to judge us. You don't even have the power.
Posted by: Ymarsakar | February 01, 2007 at 04:48 PM
Sure, when I get done traveling I'll explain that one. I need a book I got at home to make sure I don't steer you wrong. When the Guardia hides in a slum and shoots at Americans, it doesn't require a stealth bomber to deliver the correct ordnance to eliminate the threat. And your supposition that 3000 innocent civilians were the victims would be better received and answered if you have a link to back it up.
I would also point out that the narco smuggler on the CIA's payroll was removed by the US military specifically because he was a poor security risk to American personnel. If he had just kept from harming Americans, I'm sure he'd still be persecuting his people and you'd be complaining that we hadn't overthrown him. So which is it, pal? Do you want us to eliminate all the bad actors in the world, or just allow them to oppress their campesinos?
Lead on, genius.
See you back here on Sunday when I get home.
Subsunk
Posted by: Subsunk | February 01, 2007 at 04:53 PM
With you there is no civilized response, only violence justified because they are weaker and I am stronger. The strong never should be allowed to fight back, according to you. The weaker should be able to use any dirty trick in the book because they are underdogs.
I think you pierced his armor right there, Subsunk.
Critical wound.
If the Left and their allies ever admitted to being under the jurisdiction of the meta-Golden Rule, then that means that we can kick their ass anytime anyday. So they have to find a way in which they can abuse people freely that they have power over, yet prevent us from kicking their teeth down into their evil maws.
We can still can in fact, given that they are still under the jurisdiction of the meta-golden rule, it does not require someone's agreement or knowledge to apply.
Therefore the modification to what you said, is only that the weak can only fight back if the Left is the weak. The strong may only wait to be attacked if the strong is the US or anyone opposing the Left (apostates and those who support Israel in Palis land). If the strong are Chavez dictators... well anything goes as they say, they are allowed to do anything, so long as the "strong" is the "good strong" in their view.
It is a rather interesting selective version of ethics. Ethics to be used in justifying mass murder, you know. They can mass murder, but if we try to stop them, we are the murderers and they are the victims.
Posted by: Ymarsakar | February 01, 2007 at 04:58 PM
It looks like you have had a little too much dope, censored. It's waisted your brain beyond hope.
You do not use proper citation. You change other peoples words when you quote them and you have no concept of logic. I found your picture in the dictionary under the listing, Fool.
You do not argue with a fool. You only show everyone else his foolishness so they do not follow his stupidity. Well done Subsunk.
Posted by: Francis Marion | February 01, 2007 at 05:14 PM
Ymar,
I'm glad you're on my side.
Press on, son.
Subsunk
Posted by: Subsunk | February 01, 2007 at 05:53 PM
Sub and Ymar, thank you. Your contributions make tolerating the trolls much easier.
Posted by: alexa kim | February 01, 2007 at 06:19 PM
............Well he has been democratically elected in three elections with an overwhelming majority and been through 10 other electoral processes which he also won (without the kind of fraud practiced in Florida)......by dumbfuk
Are you so stupid you understand what’s goin’ on here? Recently the Venezuelan legislature has essentially given all its power to Chavez. We are witnessing the birth of a dictator; somewhat similar to the way Hitler rose to power. I suppose if Hitler were around Dhimmi Carter would lick his boots as he did Chavez’s.
BTW, Saddamy once got 104% of the vote.
Posted by: Apollyon | February 01, 2007 at 06:33 PM
One item I've not seen mentioned is that NO democratic society has ever suffered from a famine. WHO and UN studies, among others, show that in a democratic society, it is not possible to suffer a famine. Only in socialistic, communistic, or dictatorial societies will any or all parts of a society be subject to suffering severe shortages of food and basic necessities. It's only a matter of time before Venezuba (its different from Cuba how?) subjects itself to the same thing.
I now return you to our regularly scheduled smack-down...
Wolf
Posted by: Mr. Wolf | February 01, 2007 at 07:02 PM
Thank you, Sub, but for me there is still much to be learned from those that have gone before.
Sub and Ymar, thank you. Your contributions make tolerating the trolls much easier.
As they say, war is doing things you don't like to people you don't like even more. In this case of course, it is a pleasure to take out the trash when it saves you from the chore, alexa.
Sub, keep cracking their keels.
We want torpedoes. Not bananas.
That’s for cannon fodder who take their orders,
I can't guarantee that you can be shot out of a cannon censored, but maybe Sub can arrange for them to fire you from a torpedo tube if you agree to never follow another order, deal?
Posted by: Ymarsakar | February 01, 2007 at 07:55 PM
Rick Atkinson, Pulitzer Prize winner and former assistant managing editor at The Washington Post, writes in his book, "The Long Gray Line: The American Journey of West Point's Class of 1966," of Captain Tom Carhart's return from Vietnam, pp. 324-5:
"Still in uniform, he was strolling through the O'Hare terminal in search of a telephone when a group of hippie girls darted up and spat on him. The shock and pain could have been no more intense if they had slashed him with knives. Reeling with surprise and uncertain what to do, he did nothing. His assailants scampered off through the airport crush as Tom wiped the salive from his face, now aflame with humiliation. That night he got into an argument about the war with his friends' daughter, who was home from college. This is great, he told himself sardonically. I'm back less than twenty-four hours, I get spat on, then I get hassled by my countrymen over a cause for which I got myself shot twice. Welcome home, Johnny."
I was a cadet at the Air Force Academy in 1973 and can tell you that it was common to be called names by hippies in public when you wore your uniform. I distinctly remember being called a baby-killer in an LA bus terminal in the summer of 1974. Such insults and abuse were facts of life for everyone in the military. In fact, anyone in any kind of a uniform was a target of abuse. Security guards in grocery stores were called pigs. Boy Scouts were called little fascists. The hippie hate for the military was so widespread for the military that it just astounds me that liberals are denying it now.
I've never been spit on, but that's because I was never in a position to be spit on. From what I hear, the spitting incidents usually happenned in a crowded public venue where several hippies ambushed a single guy in uniform. Usually, when travelling in uniform I was with a group of other cadets. In such cases, the deranged hippies would simply call you names rather than start a physical confrontation. It would usually come out of the blue and they'd be walking away before you had time to react. So I can tell you from direct personal experience that the atmosphere was ripe for these kind of spitting incidents.
However, I don't recall ever telling anyone about these incidents nor any friend in the military talking about it. I think everyone just shrugged it off and pressed on.
Posted by: Tantor | February 01, 2007 at 08:43 PM
Censored: "Perhaps you can explain to me the invasion of Panama City in 1989. Just to try out your new stealth bomber in battle conditions you blew away a whole slum and wasted over 3000 civilians."
That was the Stealth fighter, not bomber. They dropped two two thousand pound bombs near an army barracks on December 20, 1989. Not a slum. Nobody was killed by those bombs. Your claim that those two bombs killed 3000 people is not just a lie, but a bad lie that isn't even plausible.
You can read about it here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-117.htm
Censored, not only are you a liar but you are also an incompetent buffoon if you think you can tell such whoppers on a military website and get away with it. Go tell your fibs to the other kids who might believe them and stop bothering the adults. Scat!
Posted by: Tantor | February 01, 2007 at 09:08 PM
Bob Greene wrote a book in 1989 called "Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned From Vietnam" which counted 63 examples of protester spitting on military people.
You can buy this book used on Amazon for less than a buck as ammo to refute the next lunkhead liberal who denies the spitting abuse:
http://www.amazon.com/Homecoming-Bob-Greene/dp/0399133860
From the Library Journal:
""Were you ever spat upon when you returned home to the United States?" asked syndicated columnist Greene of the Vietnam veterans among his readership. He received over 1000 letters in reply, many recounting specific details of just such a painfully remembered incident. Evidently this recollection of "hippies" (as they are often called in the letters) spitting on combat veterans has become one of the war's most unpleasant, enduring images."
So that's the second book I found that cites example of hippies spitting on Vietnam military people. It took me less than fifteen minutes of casual searching. The lefty dimwits who say they can't find any such published examples simply aren't looking.
Posted by: Tantor | February 01, 2007 at 09:19 PM
Correction:
Are you so stupid you [don't] understand what’s goin’ on here?.....
Posted by: Apollyon | February 01, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Tantor,
Thanks, I thought I remembered that event in Panama you researched for me. I just don't have the book at hand.
censored, please assume Tantor's comment applies to my research for Sunday.
Have a nice day.
Subsunk
Posted by: Subsunk | February 01, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Hugo Chavez certainly coddles and supports dictators ... including one who foments terrorism and seeks nuclear weapons to apply in that effort.
Where is your condemnation of Chavez for this, censored?
Is it hidden with your condemnation of Chavez for taking on "emergency powers" (i.e. gaining the ability to suspend basic civil liberties), and muzzling the opposition press?
There is a reason we oppose this man ... elected or not, for democracy is not enough, to assure that a nation does not become a threat to life and liberty, both inside and outside its borders.
Democracy without the structural protection of basic civil liberties ... and our inalienable rights to life and liberty ... that are the possession of ALL MEN ... too easily descends into mob rule, and/or is susceptible to hijacking by a charismatic despot like Chavez.
The checks-and-balances of rights-respecting governance, as implemented in nations like America, Canada, Australia, Great Britain ... and even Norway ... are ESSENTIAL for assuring that government will not run roughshod over life and liberty, and descend into totalitarian expansionism.
And yes, that includes the maintenance of a free market, where people can pursue happiness to realize their own potental ... not their potential as perceived by some elitist or bureaucrat.
In a world where, when these checks and balances are absent, 21st-century technology can kill tens of thousands when combined with 7th-century totalitarian brutality, our global civilization can no longer afford to "co-exist"; i.e. tolerate, "experiments" with other forms of governance that history shows are inadequate for achieving government's primary aim -- to secure the rights of the People.
Censored, a few dozen guys with about $1M US perpetrated 911 ... how much damage could men of like mind, in terms of their lack of respect for life and liberty, do when they have control of the wealth, infrastructure, and soverignty of a nation?
That is why we had to invade Iraq ... WMD or no WMD.
Either way, the cause was just ... except in the minds of the myopic, who cannot seem to differentiate between totalitarian dicatator and rights-respecting democrat, or hold the dictator up as superior simply because the democrat is (presently) stronger.
Because of the myopic, the justice of the cause in the simplest of terms was not enough to convince free people to take action ... so other evidence was sought -- not manufactured -- to convince them.
Given Saddam's history of seeking/possessing WMD, his successful effort to bribe UN officials, his obstruction and obfuscation of the weapons-inspection process (along with its non-comprehensive nature), and his duplicity/ambiguity with regards to acknowledging their existence (trying to please the West, while sending the message to Iran et. al. that he "might" have them), the evidence for WMD was plausible ... again, unless one is so myopic, that they overlook the above and simply place their faith in the procedures of UN inspection.
It was also the myopic ... who stridently discouraged the direct, timely, resolute, and decisive use of military force on the part of America and her rights-respecting allies ... that persuaded our leaders to instead coddle the dictators you list, as they did their best to attempt to protect the LEGITIMATE security interests of the free world against totalitarian forces ... by engaging them as proxies to provide that protection.
When was the last time you encouraged America to take decisive action to overthrow such dictators and replace them with rights-respecting governance?
Probably ... never.
Because you wanted them replaced ... with the fallacy of "equitable" socialist rule, which is INADEQUATE for protecting life and liberty ... and INADEQUATE to prevent a nation from becoming a threat to others, because it does not adequately respect the individual's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You and your ilk, by discouraging decisive action against totalitarian threats, helped persuade our leaders to coddle the dictators you now try to use as a propaganda point.
You made this mess ... and that, along with the lack of real results from such efforts, from the UN, and from diplomacy that lacked the backing of CREDIBLE military force, illustrates how INADEQUATE the worldview you and other Leftists hold is for governance.
OTOH, the "cowboy diplomacy" you repeatedly condemn liberated hundreds of millions from totalitarian rule ... reduced international tensions ... and even reduced the number of nuclear weapons in the world.
"Cowboy diplomacy" delivered REAL results, censored ... OTOH, your kind of international relations only maintained a deadly status quo that slowly killed thousands and impoverished millions ... in a masquerade of "stability" that was misinterpreted as "peace".
I saw this first hand -- I have two uncles in western Missouri, whose farms were located right in the middle of the Minuteman missile fields around Whiteman AFB, that helped keep the Soviets in check ... and out of nations like Norway ... during the Cold War. That means that they were "in the bullseye" of a nuclear war, since these missiles would be the first targets of a Soviet strike.
Thanks to the confrontation of the Soviet Union by Ronald Reagan -- over the strident protests and ridicule of you and your fellow-travelers in Leftist lunacy -- those missiles are no longer there.
Top that, Leftist.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | February 02, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Tantor/Subsunk; A U.S.-based independent Commission of Inquiry, headed by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, estimated more than three thousand Panamanian civilian casualties. But then just as now the US was’nt counting. That’s convenient then you can call anyone that does count a liar! Never mind I’m sure they’ll all be pleased to know that they died for a “Just Cause”. Research; MY ARSE!
Apollyon wrote:
“Are you so stupid you understand what’s goin’ on here? Recently the Venezuelan legislature has essentially given all its power to Chavez.”
Lets see who gets the prize for stupidity here: The reason Chavez has the possibility to use these powers is because the US-supported/financed (freedom of information act released documents readily available) opposition withdrew from elections (national assembly) in December 2005, that all observers from OAS, USA, EU, deemed to be fair). Now is that stupid or is that stupid? But then they had some very good advisers (guess who?)
Some jems from Rich Casebolt:
"experiments" with other forms of governance that history shows are inadequate for achieving government's primary aim -- to secure the rights of the People.
I take it you’re referring to neoliberalism?
(or do the economic rights of 10 to 20% of the people count as everyone on your perverse calculator [probably the same one you use for counting civilian casualties]).
“Censored, a few dozen guys with about $1M US perpetrated 911 ... how much damage could men of like mind, in terms of their lack of respect for life and liberty, do when they have control of the wealth, infrastructure, and soverignty of a nation?”
Well you don’t have to look so far to get the answer; look at the damage a sovereign nation did in Vietnam and is doing in Iraq today.
“You and your ilk, by discouraging decisive action against totalitarian threats, helped persuade our leaders to coddle the dictators you now try to use as a propaganda point.”
I see, so now it’s my fault that the USA does bad things, now that’s what I call really psychopathic!
Posted by: censored | February 02, 2007 at 01:41 AM
censored,
Now you're citing Ramsey Clark? The same traitorious mother f'er who went to Iran during the 1979-81 hostage crisis to "negotiate" with the hostage takers and denounced the US in the process?!!
You truly are pathetic.
Posted by: Matt M | February 02, 2007 at 02:54 AM
Well if you’re looking for traitors you ought to look at the contacts made by the Reagan team in a pre-electoral effort to delay the release of the hostages. Gave them a lot of experience for later deals (Arms for money in the Iran/Contra affair). And most of those “pardoned traitors” have now got top posts in the current administration: Did somebody say Negroponte!
Posted by: censored | February 02, 2007 at 03:06 AM
As Vietnam has popped up frequently in these postings perhaps it’s time for a:
Dummies guide to Vietnam:
1) Nasty baby eating communists try to take over democracy loving land in South East Asia, USA against their will forced to intervene to save the poor ignorant population.
2) A liberation movement fighting against oppressive colonial rule from France when all other options are closed is established in the first half of the last century. When the French Vichy government collaborates with the Axis powers and allows Japan to occupy Vietnam, the liberation forces continue fighting both the Japanese and the Vichy colonial administration.
Japan capitulates, Japanese forces in Vietnam disarmed. Colonial power cannot contain the liberation movement and rearms the Japanese soldiers with USAs aid.
Oppressive French colonial power is soundly beaten by liberation movement, USA moves in and takes over the mandate, cancels UN promoted elections (because everything indicates that Ho Chi Minh would win a fair election hands down) and imposes a series of gangsters (who they remove with will when it pleases them).
Escalates war by making up a non-existent incident (Tonkin Bay affair- Whoops caught you lying again!) offers 50 000 of its own citizens in a cruel and unjust war, bombs the north and neighbouring countries back to the Stone Age. Widespread use of chemical and biological weapons. Estimated 3 to 5 million Vietnamese deaths, mostly civilian.
USA pulls out with its tail between its legs (blaming gob spitting hippies and liberal sissies for the losing the war because they couldn’t accept the fact that they’d been thrown out by a sovereign people), and went on to punish the country for another two decades because they had the audacity to depose a mass murderer in Cambodia who the USA went on to support as the recognised government of Cambodia in the UN, pressuring its allies to, follow suit.
Note: One of these versions is a fairy story made up to convince gullible patriots that they had a right to practice genocide in far flung parts of the globe (worked pretty well on you guys!)
Posted by: censored | February 02, 2007 at 04:03 AM
"you ought to look at the contacts made by the Reagan team in a pre-electoral effort to delay the release of the hostages"
If you believe that old lie, you're insane.
Posted by: Robert Crawford | February 02, 2007 at 05:01 AM
You obviously don’t know me friend. I don’t believe in anything; belief is the root of all ignorance. But there are very strong indicators that ought to give credibility to this particular October surprise knowing how important and lucrative it is to win elections:
“Mr. Sick explains that in the course of researching a book about the Reagan Administration's policy toward Iran he conducted hundreds of interviews, and that his sources included government officials from several countries in Europe and the Middle East and also "low-level intelligence operatives and arms dealers who are no boy scouts." In the end, however, it was not the credentials of his sources but their knowledge of "certain events" that Sick himself knew about only by virtue of his service on the N.S.C. staff, and "the absence of contradictions on the key elements of the story," that pushed him to continue his investigation --until, he says, "the weight of testimony" overcame his initial doubts. The heart of Sick's story concerns .a series of meetings that William Casey, then Reagan's campaign manager and soon to be his C.I.A. director, is alleged to have had with Iranian officials in Madrid and Paris during the summer and fall of 1980. It was at these meetings-Sick says that he has "more than 15 sources who claim direct or indirect knowledge" of them-that an agreement was supposedly reached: the Iranians would not release the hostages before the election, and, in return, the Reagan men would persuade Israel to ship arms and spare parts to Iran. In late October, Israel did in fact send a shipment of American aircraft tires to Iran, in direct violation of the Carter Administration's policy. just after the shipment, Sick writes, "a series of delaying tactics ... by the Iranian Parliament stymied all attempts by the Carter Administration to act on the hostage question ... before Election Day." After Carter's defeat, and shortly before Reagan's Inauguration, the Iranians suddenly offered a series of "startling concessions," which resulted in the hostages' being released minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President.”
Posted by: censored | February 02, 2007 at 05:41 AM
I see, so now it’s my fault that the USA does bad things, now that’s what I call really psychopathic!
No, it's your fault that Saddam Huessein and his sons were able to continue to do VERY bad things for so long, along with ...
... the mullahs in Iran ...
... Kim Jong Il ...
... the Palestinian terrorists ...
... the government of Sudan ...
... the Somali warlords ...
... the forces of the Soviet Union ...
... and Al Quada ...
NOTHING you and your ilk has done or proposed, has ever been effective in ending these expressions of the inhumanity of totalitarian rule.
In fact, your strident objections to the decisive use of force against such proven totalitarians, because it would be America wielding that force, has actually aided and abetted such as these.
Neither have you encouraged Norway, nor the European Union to stand up and take such decisive action ... and where are your cries about the UN -- who is supposed to ACT to stop the kinds of atrocities those above have perpetrated -- doing NOTHING?
You are guilty, as charged ...
... and it is the cowboys like Reagan and GWB, that have cleaned up/are still cleaning up the messes your "progressive" thinking made worse.
Well you don’t have to look so far to get the answer; look at the damage a sovereign nation did in Vietnam and is doing in Iraq today.
In both Vietnam and Iraq, it was not Americans whose policy was to target innocent civilians, despite your beliefs to the contrary ... it was the so-called indigenous "freedom fighters" whose aim was to impose anything but freedom on the people.
True freedom fighters don't target their own, censored.
And we were not beaten by the VC/NVA in Vietnam ... we were beaten by our own rhetoric, and the same kind of vacillation and indecision you and your ilk still encourage today.
We pulled out on our own ... then pulled the support from the South Vietnamese govenrment, allowing the North to come in, kill off its most potent South Vietnamese enemies, establish re-education camps to imprison thousands within, and "encourage" thousands of refugees to become boat people, leaving the nation at the risk of their lives.
Another legacy of Leftism that can be laid at your feet.
You can't even recognize who would kill you, given the chance.
Lemming.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | February 02, 2007 at 06:37 AM
One of these days, I'm going to find a reason to give you all a REAL history on VN- my wife, who was born there, raised there, and lost family there, will straighten you ALL out on what it was like- and why the commies did it.
This just ain't the time nor place...
Wolf
Posted by: Mr. Wolf | February 02, 2007 at 08:05 AM
Censored: "Tantor/Subsunk; A U.S.-based independent Commission of Inquiry, headed by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, estimated more than three thousand Panamanian civilian casualties. But then just as now the US was’nt counting. That’s convenient then you can call anyone that does count a liar! Never mind I’m sure they’ll all be pleased to know that they died for a “Just Cause”. Research; MY ARSE!"
You falsely claimed a Stealth bomber killed three thousand civilians living in a slum with indiscriminate bombing. Now that I have definitively disproven that wild claim, you have dropped your bogus claim and are clumsily attempting to rewrite it.
You remain a liar.
Posted by: Tantor | February 02, 2007 at 08:52 AM
Well in my references, Tantor, it’s called a F- 117A batwing stealth fighter-bomber.
Fighter, bomber, that’s just nitpicking which you guys are experts at when confronted with truths that don’t jell with your indoctrinated, warped kindergarten world history.
The fact is that it dropped bombs that hit the neighbourhood of El Chorrillo and caused thousands of civilian deaths, now that’s what I call a just cause!
Posted by: censored | February 02, 2007 at 09:20 AM
censored, I would not mind dropping something on your house, you pathetic moron....get lost and spew your communist manifesto in North Korea, jackass...
Posted by: charron | February 02, 2007 at 09:37 AM
Charron, can't we keep this at a slightly higher intelectual level. You're giving away your Neanderthal tendencies, hardly a good example for people who claim to be waging war for the good of humanity!
Posted by: censored | February 02, 2007 at 09:43 AM
It missed you, so it can't be that much of a just cause.
censored just said that belief is the root of all ignorance, and then he splashes all his misbegoten personal beliefs for all to see here. Obviously censored graduated near the top of his class in How to use Doublethink 1984 style.
Lets see who gets the prize for stupidity here: The reason Chavez has the possibility to use these powers is because the US-supported/financed (freedom of information act released documents re