Commentators on BadEagle.com have again shown their insight into the truth of matters. They say that the white woman savior isn't just a figure among the American Indians, but she appears all over the world.
Dr. Shatha Besarani might be such a woman. Daughter of the Iraqi Communist Party leader exiled from Iraq by Hussein, Dr. Besarani was educated in Russia, and now lives in London. CNN news already lauds her as a "Hero of War," though there is no connection whatever between her and the war. Dr. Desarani simply wants to go to Iraq (where she was born, but fled with her family at age 15) and work for women's rights. CNN thinks this deserves international attention.
She's definitely trying to save Iraqi's, and knows that saving the women and children is the foundation of changing the society for better. Can't argue that. Too bad she's just not more "Iraqi," and too bad she's from that nasty Communist background.
I've noted before, the communist involvement in the Middle East is profound. Countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq have been greatly shaped by Communism, but Islam crushed out ultimate communist control. Now we can really expect to see a resurgence of Communism, in the name of justice, equality, and all those great American democratic values. I say, beware.
Communism looks like democracy in those stiff Islamic regimes, as well as in many deluded American minds.
I also suspect Hussein is in Russia, even though Putin said Russia would not offer him asylum. Putin was quite clear that he also didn't want Hussein removed from power.
Though Communism is atheist, there is a strange relationship to Islam which keeps surfacing. It's all about tyranny. We know one thing: we cannot trust their news releases about anything.
I hope Besarani can do a great work for the people of Iraq. I hope she is not Communist. I hope she can "save" Iraq. I just have my doubts.
It used to be called cross-dressing. A man wants to wear women's clothing, or a woman wants to dress like a man. But now sexual diversity is a "science". Now its big political business. Now, you can sue if you're not allowed to dress the way you want. You can call it job discrimination. Cincinnatti police officer Phillip Barnes sued the city for demoting him for being a transsexual. Well, maybe he wore his dresses off-duty.
But a school kid in Clarksville, Indiana was sent home for coming to school in a t-shirt, or "a shirt without a collar," which was against the well known rules.
Dress codes are indeed an issue in the country. Dress can effect behavior. Every parent knows that. But now it's all connected with gender issues and politics, big time.
A case in Philadelphia is bringing it all to light. It's all about what you can wear to work. Gender freedom advocates say you should be able to wear whatever you want, male or female clothes. Business owners don't want to be told whom they can hire and whom not.
But, that's an old argument, which lost long ago. The Civil Rights movement took that power away from business in 1964. Business owners are servants of political ideology now. Free enterprise was never so carefully guarded by "Big Brother." Like, free enterprise isn't so free anymore.
So anyone should be able to dress however it suits him, her, or it. Will this be the law, finally, in the name of freedom?
So does this mean that white people (or any people) can wear Indian logos on their team uniforms after all? If not, why not?
Why does freedom of expression cover everything but what the normal white male or female wants to do? "Oh, the Indian logo offends Indians," the Leftists say. Well, a man in women's clothing offends lots of people, probably most. Why doesn't this count as an offense?
It's all about that word "offense." It's all about word power, and who controls words. The Communists have already usurped the important words. Language is their primary tool, because it is the quickest road to power.
Communist language is all about their moral imperative, their substitute religion. They are first to claim offense. They feed off groups that can be said to be "wronged." And they pick the most visceral groups, in sex, race, and even religion.
They own the word "offense." They used it first, politically, as a moral imperative. It's wrong to offend someone, even one person, over one thing. Thus a few Communists control the country through their infectious, self-righteous, quick-fixmoral ideology. It is instant justification, instant power. The only free enterprise that benefits from the Communist religion is the law profession.
Funny, American Communism is the union of "church" and state far and above anything the Catholic church accomplished in Europe. We do it better here in America! We don't need priests. We have attorneys, and their victim cults.
Gonzaga University is a Jesuit institution of higher learning, and nestled in one of the most charming towns I've ever been in, Spokane, Washington. I was there to deliver a speech (or two) April 23. The town is situated on the Spokane River, and has a historical flavor from start to finish. It's almost like a city version of Aspen, or Colorado Springs. Spokane's population never outgrew its quaintness.
I spoke first at the Spokane College Women's Association, at their noon luncheon. Then that evening, I spoke at Gonzaga's Jepson Hall, for the College Republicans. (C-Span was there, but we'll have to wait and see if they use the tape.) The event was co-sponsored by Young America's Foundation.
The title of my speech was "How the Left Stole the Indian Image." It was about the nature of Communism, and how the American Indian has become the mascot of anti-American subversive political leaders. I am concerned that the future of Indians is at a critical crossroads, and that the Indian leaders of today are giving Indians a negative, troublesome image to white people. I am concerned about what white people think, because I believe that is what will determine the Indian's future.
Indians must earn our treaties again. We cannot simply inherit the glory of our fathers. We must fight for the land again, through self-discipline, self-reliance, and initiative. I fear the government will one day, with the stroke of a pen, nullify all Indian treaties. Indians must be careful not to set the majority white population against us, more than it already is, historically. We must learn to find strength within ourselves, in our own people. There is great mistrust among Indians today, mostly because of historical errors in management by the BIA, endless intermarriage, fraudulent white businessmen, as well as fraudelent Indians, etc.
I am preparing a full article to be posted in the next day or so. I'm afraid this all boils down to sex, race, and religion, as always. I'm willing to face it. I find most people aren't. It seems uncomfortable, but, if one is humble, one can see wonderful things, and perhaps see the best future possible.
SARS continues to spread. The people scramble. This is truly pitiable. The news will continue to be filled with reports, as the killer virus continues in dramatic contagion.
I mentioned before the suspicion that SARS was related to swine and poultry. What I didn't emphasize adquately is that fact that, if it is connected to animals, it is so because the animals wallow in environments contaminated by human waste. While there has been an article or two connecting SARS with sewage, these reports imply that the human excretions (e.g., diarrhea)of those infected with SARS contaminate the sewage, and if the pipes leak, the virus has an "in" to lots of other households.
The real problem is a careless, reckless attitude toward human sewage, and governments who do not hold sufficient appreciation for the necessity of treating sewage. The Orient has always been the world's worst managers of sewage.
Sewage is understood as fertilizer in many countries--I mean human sewage. Japan has sold shiploads of it. Mexico uses raw sewage in the corn fields as irrigation. I've seen it. Or, I should say, I've smelled it as well. Even the United States has programs to develop the use of human sewage now, and many leaders are very concerned.
The point here is that, anciently speaking, the natural aversion of mammals to their own excrements has some how been lost in some of our more "civilized" nations. China, claiming one of the longest, uninterrupted civilizations, has never manifested the kind of "taboo" on sewage that is required for safe living. Thus, most of the major plagues (infectious diseases) in the world developed first in China, or in the orient. (The only reason the diseased continent of Africa hasn't had the same world-plaguing history is because it was the Orient that had trade goods early on, which were of more use to European markets. We speak of the Medieval age)
Sceptics sometimes mock the "superstitious specificities of ancient Hebrew civilization, but they need to reconsider the Torah. Deuteronomy 23:12-14, e.g., describes latrines, and instructs people to cover their deposits with dirt. In other words, bury it. Don't leave it exposed. Simple as this instruction is, is shows an advanced concept of sewage management.
Often non-Hebrew societies do not have such concepts. Often other societies make no dietary distinctions either. Anything that can be swallowed can be eaten. Untold ills have developed from this carelessness as well.
I think American should recognize that the Judeo-Christian religion has much to do with the strength and advancement of Western Civilization. When this is not acknowledged, our media spends all its time just following the story of the flue, instead of risking politically incorrect, but true, explanations of its existence and effect: heathen filth, ignorance, neglect of discpline, and setting the world at risk. That--is the rest of the story.
Remember 1984, and the famine in Ethiopia? Then the noble Rock stars got together and created the album, "We Are the World, We are the Children." Such a moment of transcendent compassion, from the professionals of moral abandonment! Nothing sells like compassion. American kids spent their money (800,000 copies sold out the first weekend of March, '85), got their new album, the Rock stars got their moment of moral glory, but did the starving children in Ethiopia ever get the food? Hardly. Much of it rotted in the harbors on the ships that brought it. Why? Warring factions within. The Communist regime of Major Mengistu Haile Miriam, who established himself with the slaughter of 100,000 people, and created the conditions for the starvation of 7 millions more. He was happy to see his enemies die.
Well, let's hope it's not all going to happen again. This time, twenty years later, rock stars are going to raise money for the children of Iraq. Once again the noble souls of these amoral professionals rise to the occasion. Once again the children define all human values, especially starving children. Never mind who's responsible for creating those conditions, just pitch in and help the children. Show your compassion and transcendent morality. Help for starving children is the political trumph card of modernity. (Right to Life then ought to own the house, but, unfortunately for the unborn, the compassionate entertainment stars can ill-bare the unwanted child, just the starving child.)
Well, it's like the Hollywood crowd, and the war protesters. They have to show their nobility, too. Everyone knows they've long abandoned all morality and sincerity. No one expects human values from them. No expects them to have a thought in their head. After all, they're actors (like Bill Clinton!).
So they protest. In new, showy ways, they protest. They are desperate for some definitive reality. They are desperate to recover some sense of sincerity in their public image.
Protesting a war is all a wonderful opportunity for a show of transcendent morality. It is a great time for a new act, with free exposure, free advertisement. It's a terrific chance to act intelligent, moral, political, and caring. Hollywood's finest hour, it is. Poor little Rosie O'Donnel confessed to Phil Donohue, "I don't know about all the political details, but, I know one thing: I know war is wrong!" The crowd swooned in the pith of profundity. Rosie saved the people. Rosie gave new hope in humanity.
We all know that Hollywood will immediately make as many movies about Iraqi war stories as possible. The great LA intellectuals will do their thing, and try to make their millions. What we really need is a ban on Hollywood, and the recording industry. This would test their values, indeed. And ours. Maybe we shouldn't criticize them until we've given them what they deserve: a big fat boycott. A long boycott, until they start making the records and movies we deserve.
Syria has always been a vortex of dark dealings. In modern times, Syria has been a 'black market central' for illegal guns, drugs, and even people. Right now, much attention is focused on Syria for her connections to terrorism, Iraq, and the probable fact that Syria is where Saddam's regime not only shipped all sorts of valuables, but also weapons and regime members. Of course, Syria denies everything.
But Syria's tradition in terrorism is well known. In 1951, there was a movie made called Sirocco, starring Humphrey Bogart and Lee J. Cobb. It is naturally about illegal gun running, revolution, and, of all things, the French Occupation of Damascus. It reminds us of the realities in Syria. This hasn't come out in the news, but it appears Syria is another left-over disaster of French management, just like French Indo-China, like Vietnam. Syria is another French mess that the United States will have to clean up.
France had military occupation of Syria from 1920 to 1946. Some 5,000 Syrians were killed in the initial French invasion. The last French soliders departed April 17, 1946, which is Syria's National Day. Of course, after that, Syria immediately became involved in the war against the new Israel.
The point is, the impossible politics of Syria may in great part be attributed to the inability of the French to manage anything, politically. Now the French in recent times have worked well with Syrian archeologists to discover Pre-Pottery Neolithic artifacts, but where is the evidence of political cooperation? Or, dare we assume that evidence is what we see in Syria today? Lebanon's Rafic Hariri recently (1997) said that Franco-Syrian relations could not be better, and that he looked forward to even stronger relations.
This is all quite ominous. Is France that deeply involved in the Arab world, supporting terrorism against Israel, against the United States, against England?It certainly looks that way, but, it is hard to accept. France is such a beautiful country. France practically had the corner on Western beauty, in art, in music, even in philosophy and political theory. How could France turn out to be such an incredible flop in modern world politics? What happened in Indo-China? What's happened in the Middle East? What has France done to the world? Why? How can they be so brilliant in the arts and humanities, and so utterly pestilential in world politics?
Would Palestinian leaders (which ever, of whatever faction) support the Kurdish repossession of Kurdish lands that were taken from them by Saddam Hussein?
Would the Jew-hating Arabs of Palestine support the establishment of a Kurdish state, in the midst of the oppressive, imperialist Iraqi Arabs?
The Kurds are making some interesting moves. Right now they're already reclaiming the homes and land from which they were evicted but twenty years ago. They are actually evicting Iraqi Arabs from the stolen land.
Now this all has happened within a single life time. This situation is not three or four hundred years old, like the American Indian situation. This story is not fifty years old, like the current Israel-Palestinian situation. This story is less than twenty years old. This is fresh, and it capsulates all the issues of modernity.
Land ownership: who determines it? How is it determined? The British carved up most the Arab territories into their present boudaries. Hussein protested that when he invaded Kuwait a decade ago, claiming it was originally Iraqi land. Everyone thought that was so terrible, but no one said a word when he evicted the Kurds. And, by George (no pun intended), the Kurds had oil too, underdeveloped though it was at the time. Still, the world passed that one by.
Yes, yes, it's all part of the bigger picture in the Middle East, and the whole matter of diplaced persons. But now its the Kurdish turn. The Kurds are coming back. Who rallies behind them? Who stands with them as they reclaim their land, and their rights?
And if age or time is an element of ownership, like, whoever was there first owns it; or, if whoever has the strength to just take it, or take it back, then the Jews win on all fronts in Palestine. They won it, they were displaced, then they won it back. In all other cases, the moral rights issue is seemingly much more complex, ambiguous, and otherwise impossible to resolve. All nations have blood on their hands, even down to the tribal level, in most cases.
The Kurds are independently minded, from what I've always heard from my Middle East connections. They've never really gotten along with anyone. Therefore, it seems that letting them have a country would be an excellent move. I feel a kinship with these folk. I, for one, support their bid for an independent nation.
So now SARS (Severe Actue Respiratory Syndrome) is attributed to a new form of a coronavirus. It may well have developed first in Asian poultry and swine, and then passed into human beings. Scientists at the University of Hong Kong say genetic sequencing proves the virus originated in animals.
Dr. Carlo Urbani, of Castelplanio, Italy, first recongized the virus in the Hanoi. He was called upon the help in a flu-like case. He had been involved in a massive de-worming program for children.
Flu viruses generally come from Asia, as Gina Kolata says in her recent book on The Flu (2000)
The fact appears to be that most major infectious diseases develop either in Asia or Afria. I heard Dr. Samuel DeShay lecture in Stoneham, MA some time back, and he said 75% of all the infectious diseases in the world are caused by the reckless management of human waste. I would think then that the connection of viruses through animals comes from the animals dwelling in environments contaminated by human waste. I see it as human, to animal, back to human. This link has not been brought out clearly in recent studies.
DeShay presented some health plans to the U.N. in 1998, regarding specific African regions.
There is a fascinating blog called Gene Exrpession available to those interested in various race/geography/science oriented discusssion. Right now, I'm involved in a discussion on cannibalism and the kuru-kuru brain degenerative virus transmitted thereby. Richard Poe is also involved in this kind of discussion lately, and has offered some some thoughts on Gene Expression.
I think cultural habits do affect health. Different religions in the world have different practices, some of which are very health damaging. If disease develops in one culture, it is bound to reach another, given the complexity of world trade in these modern times. I think we have to be our brother's keeper, just to keep ourselves. We are approaching a time when "racism," "ethnic chauvinism," and even "imperialism," are becoming necessary elements of survival. The process of life has a way of having the last word. Political ideologies that are finally proven destructive, no matter how "moral" they may appear to be theoretically, will have to be considered passe, and dissolved.
Rodney King is at it again. He got himself high, went speeding down the road again, and had a big wreck. Los Angeles loves him. The city paid him and his beloved attorneys 3.8 million before, in 1994. What will they pay him now?
He beat up his wife in 1999, got three months jail time and four years probation. He was convicted of being high on PCP and for indecent exposure in 2001. The guy is a wonder child of the victim theorists. He is a deeply troubled man, and must therefore deserve to be paid for his suffering.
I predict that some communist attorney in LA will find a similarity between King and Saddam Hussein. Some American attorney will come to the defense of poor Hussein, and will sue the United States and Great Britain for tearing up his country, which he built so carefully on abuse. As in the King case, the man who abuses others is himself the one to be pitied with boundless compassion. The abuser must be considered the victim himself. This is how it works. Punishment is a thing of the Dark Ages. Compassion is the order of the day. We must have compassion on Saddam Hussein and his family.
I should be careful what I say. I said professional Indian protesters would finally latch on to protesting the American military's use of Indian names on weapons and vehicles. Sure enough, in time, they have. Of course, the protest statement comes out of Minnesota, haven of the American Communist Party. Make no mistake about it. Communists use racial groups as spearheads of many of their social agitation movements.
Yet, I have to say it. From Los Angeles (or maybe New York) will appear an attorney who will see America's intrusion into Iraq as a racist, imperialist aggression of religious prejudice, and he will sue. He will defend Saddam Hussein as the abused.
Actually, it is perhaps more likely that France will produce such an attorney at this point. There are more show-boaters in America, but, France will be looking for serious justification in post-war times. She may kick up her heels higher.
Some time ago, I published an article entitled, "American Indians Aren't Like Palestinians." Today, I have to say that some Indians are like some Iraqis. It has to do with denial of reality.
Last Friday I posted a note on the Arab Forum on the Syrain Ambassador Imad Moustaph. Last night I saw him again on Meet the Press, with Tim Russert. Once again his discourse was a series of uninterrupted dissembling and lies, it seemed to me. Syria is afraid it is next on America's hit list. Syria has dirty hands, and always has had. I gather from Joan Peters, in From Time Immemorial (Harper & Row, 1984), Syria is at the bottom of all the major historical problems in the Middle East. Ambassador Moustapha's image is therefore not surprising.
The Iraqi Minister of "Disinformation," Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, has also distinguished himself with creative lying. He is extraordinary, and regarded with humor by most people whose minds dwell in reality. Though the minister has recently been absent, he managed to deny everything that was happening since the beginning of the war. It was amazing to see him and hear him. I'll bet even when he is dead, he'll somehow be denying it.
There's something that reminds me of some Indians in this Arabic take on history and present day relations, and even the matter of speaking about it. When I spoke at the University of New Mexico last year, I responded to questions later. A UNM visiting professor was in the audience. Professor John P. LaVelle, a Santee from Kansas. Prof. LaVelle declared that Indians had not been defeated, and that Indians had merely ceded land to the American government. LaVelle is a law professor at the University of South Dakota.
Denial can be useful, creative, and encouraging. It can create an entirely new perspective for people, and offer what seems to be a new, better path. The words certainly sound better. Never mind reality. Never mind the circumstances in which people actually live. If you tell the lie long enough, they will begin to believe it.
Let's take a look at American culture for a second. Is black really beautiful? Are women really equal? Were Indians never defeated? Now look at Iraq, and the words of al-Sahhaf. Is Saddam in full charge of all his forces? Are there no Coalition victories in Iraq?
It all seems part of the same reality manipulation. There are times when it really seems to make things better, psychologically. But, if in the end it isn't true, then we've traded temporary appeasement for long range delusion. That always means more and deeper frustration, unsolved problems, and delusion usually calls for unorthodox means of confrontation. When that hits, violence is the final reality.
The "looting" continues in Iraq. The western media continues to use the word anarchy, with dread and condemnation.
Anarchists are associated with communists, Democrats, and other revolutionaries. I wonder if there are communists at work in the "looting" process of Iraq, destroying government records not out of patriotic vengeance or justice, but out of clear political purposes of covering up outrageous records. I wonder if much of the looting is actually an organized political effort.
Even as exiled Iraqi leaders return, and begin the process of reorganization, there is a distinct possibility that there are anti-democratic forces in the crowd, forces which Saddam Hussein held at bey through his own personal tyranny. The political environment is now seething with possibilities.
America and coalition forces ran Hussein out, but we will also have to keep adverse forces out of the new government. They are there and waiting for opportunity. Communism works through one of two ways: revolution and anarchy, or through the perversion of democracy. Lenin said: "The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing else but this: Power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules." The Communists will create anarchy, or use it whenever it exists. It is the open door through which their form of tyranny walks.
I'm still hoping that Islam can have a saving, healing influence, but, I'm afraid that in modern times, such an influence has not been forthcoming. Ahmad Kasravi, (1890-1946), the great Iranian political theorist, took Islam to task in his work (now published in English), On Islam & Shi'ism (Mazda, 1990). Kasravi says that Islam was essentially a failure, at least in Iran, and that it did not and could not provide political stability, properity, or even peace. He says the religion of Islam had slipped totally off its Q'uranic foundation, and became only a tool in the hads of self-serving egotists and innumerable factions.
Sound familiar? Kasravi says the same for Christianity. But I say, at least Christianity, American style, however naive and historically immature it may seem, still motivates some of our better leaders to noble sentiments, heroic action, and at least well-meaning designs. If equal opportunity, equal respect, and Republican values of self-reliance, individual independence, and social responsibility mean anything, then I think Americans can give themselves just a little pat on the back. I'm praying that we can help Iraqis in the same way.
America really fouled things up in Iran, back in the '70's, through the self-interest of our businessmen and the personal ambitions of Islamic leaders. Let's hope lessons were learned, and we don't make the same mistakes in Iraq.
Indeed, there appears to be some social disintegration in war-torn Baghdad. The country of Iraq is changing. Violence is perfectly normal, of course, but, again, I emphasize the opportunity for the religion of Islam to really show its stuff, to show that it has healing, restoring principles, to show that it has the seeds of love and good will.
Remember, too, the history of Europe itself is the history of Christians killing other Christians. The Christian religion didn't really out-grow it's own inner violence until the American era. Roger Williams, in 1636, founded the settlement of Providence, which later became the capital of Rhode Island. It was there that religious freedom, as a political concept, was born. The western world has never been the same, never better.
But fifteen centuries of Christians killing other Christians must not go unnoticed when we're looking at Islam, a religion not started until 622 A.D. This religion has not yet discovered the political concept of freedom of conscience. Only now, in America, by Islamic groups experiencing freedom, the discussion developing.
I'm afraid the glories of freedom sometimes blind us to the abuses in our own history. Freedom is so wonderous, so scintillating to the soul, we quickly forget the misery, the inennarrable price paid for it.
We should have a patient attitude toward Iraq, and also Afghanistan. These people are all tribal, and Islam provided only a superfical unity. In the earlier days, Islam had a much stronger grip. Arabic Islam almost took over Europe, still attacking Vienna as late as 1683. Europe woke up, Protestantism was born, and explorers set out to expand as quickly as possible, while the Islamic choke-hold was loosened. Islam has never recovered its power.
I've heard liberal NPR interviews with mis-educated, liberalized Arabs, denouncing Bush as a crusader, condemning the war in Iraq before it began. These views show not only ignorance of politics, but ignorance of history, yes, even Islamic history. Islam was the aggressor, not Christianity. The crusades were reactionary, not initiatory.
But the point is, Islam needs to develop a non-political dimension. If it doesn't, it will continue to harbor bin Ladens, and produce tyrants like Hussein. I'd like to think Islam is just a little behind, that's all. Remember how long it took Christianity to pass beyond the killer instincts.
I'm not sure about the status of the social conditions in Baghdad right now. When poor people enter the abandoned buildings of the government that tortured them, to glean a chair or two (which they apparently don't have in their own hovels), is it "looting?" When they set flame to the offices of those who designed their misery, is it "arson?" Are the poor people collecting insurance?
I fear that some of the media is trying to make things look a bit worse than they are. I did hear one faithful report on TV in which a reporter said conditions weren't out of control at all, and that the "looting" was just by a few, and just in a few places, and that is was rather "organized." Of course, there is the fear that more affluent neighborhoods will be attacked or looted. This might be a real concern.
And too, the looting of hospitals is critical. But, what are the people taking? "Beds, electrical fittings, and medical supplies." Why these things? It only shows that the people have been long deprived of such simple luxuries. It only shows how oppressed they really were. I also may show that there are still Hussein loyalists in the rabble of Baghdad. It might be their work entirely.
I do not justify theft, of course, but, these incidents in Bahgdad are temporary, and only show how deeply neglected some people under Hussein had become. It is pitiful. Most of these lootings are of Hussein's regime centers. The TV reporter I saw said the Iraqi's aren't looting each other. They haven't looted the street shops or businesses. This is the most significant statement of all, but, the major media passed it by. I heard it once, in a fleeting moment of truth in media.
I am anxious to see how the Islamic religion functions in this new environment. Justice is a really strong element in Islam. Hussein mistreated many people. The reaction of the newly freed people is perfectly normal. But, it is a Muslim people, and the religion is not one of chaos. Hussein's terrors were not related to the Islamic religion. Let's hope that the Muslim people of Iraq can separate their religion from the regime of Hussein. Let's see if the religion of the Muslims can really work as a civilizing, healing influence, in a most needed way. Now is their chance, more than any other time in the history of Islam. Muslims need to demonstrate something far above the foolishness of Hussein and bin Laden. Let's pray they can do it.
I'm so happy for the Iraqi people I could cry for joy. Think of the generation of agony they've all been through. And now to feel a sense of relief, a sense of freedom!, this is a glorious moment!
Let's give credit where it's due: President George Bush. Everyone was against him, but he knew the cause was right. Everyone accused him of economic motivation and self-interest, of being evil, of being a curse to the world.
So what? Look at the Iraqi people now. Need we say more?
Yet, President isn't gloating, like Hussein would be, like the envious anti-Americans would be, were they the captians of such a victory.
Some liberal papers, like the LA times, fail to say enough. Typically, the liberals, the anti-war Communists, all want to play down any vital sense of the triumph of righteousness in American foreign policy. They would never want to admit that America did something great for another country. They make their career off condemning America.
But even the New York Times had to admit more of the truth. It's just too obvious. The people are happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein. They are happy that the United States finally did it. They just coudn't do it themselves.
So, while the rest of the anti-American communists in the world were quite happy to leave the Iraqi's in misery, President George Bush was willing to help them, and even to go it alone, under severe moral condemnation from the liberals of the world. There is no question who is morally superior now. We're not flying our American flag over there. We're letting the Iraqi people fly their own flag! We're letting them have their own country back!
So let the anti-American commies criticize the social excesses in the wake of the liberation; let them find fault with collateral causualities, and try to make a stink out of accidents.
The spirit of the Iraqi people is loud and clear. There are better days ahead for Iraq, now. Anyone who isn't willing to see that, and who isn't happy about it, is an immature, prejudiced, deluded human being. There are such, in high places, unfortunately. Will they learn anything from this? Probably not. They will continue to criticize the U.S. They will continue to accuse capitalism. This is their leech-like livelihood. They are casualties of democracy. Kill-joys must exist.
For the rest of us, we can renew our faith in America, and our American values. We can thank God that we have a country, and that we have the greatest one in the world. We can thank God that our leader was willing to share the values that made us great, willing to take them to a tortured people, and them those people have the breath of freedom.
There is much talk about the role the United Nations should play in the reconstruction of post-war Iraq. Naturally, France, Germany, and Russia, the three countries which most vehemently opposed the war, and who had the most economic investment in pre-war Iraq, and who contributed most to the Iraqi military machine, all want to have the leading roles in post-war Iraq right away.
French mouth Dominique de Villepin said France must lead in the humanitarian efforts. How noble, how caring. Funny no such concern mattered to the French government before, when Hussein was torturing away his own population.
Russian political hack Igor Ivanov sees great tactical logic in ending the hostilities as soon as possible. This is truly great insight, from a country renowned in the 20th century for economic wisdom and political savvy.
Germany's 'Machtwort' Joschka Fischer catches a new, true Weltanschauung for all three countries, France, Germany, and Russia, in that all share "a convergence of views" on their central role in post-war Iraq.
I say forget all three of them. Their role, if any, must be completely minimal and, indeed, humanitarian. Let them contribute food and medical supplies if they want. They demonstrably forfeited any place they might have had, first by utterly neglecting the people of Iraq under the criminal regime of Hussein, secondly by vehemently opposing the US efforts to bring any change to Iraq.
UN resolutions for humanitarian efforts are not impressive, since other recent resolutions regarding Hussein's government proved utterly ineffective. The UN is a terribly weak and sick monster of bureaucracy. It just demonstrated that fact with unquestionable evidence. It is merely a show case for has-been communists, rulers of insignificant third world countries, anxious to speak big, loud words in a world arena. The United States, or any other country of self-reliance, is in no wise obligated to defer to such weightless, presumptuous, theoretical authority.
The countries which should be allowed every legitimate political, and economic advantage in post-war Iraq are the countries who put their money where their mouth was, so to speak: Poland, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and other smaller countries. Especially Poland, who's military forces were in the initial invasions of southern Iraq, deserves first opportunities.
These smaller, weaker nations ought to be given the opportunity for "economic" development, so that they might achieve a more balanced role in the European Union. Where's your communistic unity and equality now, you fraudulent nations of France, Germany, and Russia? What will you do when the dirty little countries of Easter Europe rise to your level of importance? Are you willing to share the stage, behind whose curtains you've hidden your own agenda in the Middle East? Your agenda obviously did not involved freedom and humanitarian causes in Iraq. Your record stinks thus far.
I say let the little countries have a go at world responsility. They can do no worse. They might to better, given the opportunity.
Everyone is well aware of the remarkable, frontline media coverage of modern warfare these days. Cameras and reporters have become part of the battle uniform of the armed forces, like some necesssary equipment they must wear into combat. Even the missiles and rockets have cameras attached to them. It is as if we civilians mustn't miss a trick. We must have a front row seat in the war, and we expect it. If deprived of it, we'd probably demand it.
Furthermore, journalists have even advocated their "responsibility" as a moral imperative. They say the people have a right to know, therefore, the journalist has a right to be there in the thick of it. The media companies have a right to compete for the best seat in the war theatre, and to know everything that is happening, so they can broadcast it over the world.
A number of journalists have been killed "in action." Several are missing. Some have been held as prisoners. The price of front row seats has gone up, steep.
There is a question to be asked here regarding public reaction to this war coverage industry. We have natural sympathy for anyone who is killed in war, even for the enemy; but how shall we react to the death of those who are voluntarily there in battle, not to fight, but to report? What is it, other than their lives, that is valuable? How shall we regard their great risk?
We can watch innumerable movies of war; we can read endless fictional stories, and even historical records; but when we see live action, it has higher "entertainment" value. The reporters risk their lives, and their roles as spouses and parents, to bring the live action of war into our living rooms, to bring explosions, bullets, bombs, death, and triumph to our face, in the peace of our own homes. Is that what we value, the entertainment? Is that why they are valuable to us?
And what of the distraction reporters and cameramen surely cause to the soldiers and commanders? What of the irritating "extra" responsibility they must be to those with whom they are "embedded?"
Are the cameras an encouragement? Does even the soldier want to be "on camera?" Have we seen so much violence and blood from Hollywood that now only the real thing can satisfy us? Is this what it's come to?
I think there is something profoundly sick about this whole enterprise. Yet, it is here to stay. It is part of the war picture. However, to lament any too strongly the death of the reporter killed in action is to expose our own blood lust for his work. It is an ethical predicament, and one of such a refined nature as to have gone unaddressed so far. The journalist always justifies himself, of course, as does anyone; but how shall we justify our own desire for his frontline war coverage?
Life and death are in the balance. Everything anyone thinks or says seems to be important. Some people get paid a smart salary for their thoughts, and compete with others for the opportunity to express them. News is part of free enterprise, too. We the people are but the consumers. I'm ready to vomit, myself.
The war in Iraq will not be complete without the death or execution of Hussein. He was allowed to live through one war, and subsequently demonstrated utter alienation from the world and from human sympathy. Shall this error be repeated?
Washington is saying that our goals in Iraq, removing Hussein's regime and destorying WMDs, can be accomplished regardless of his personal biological status (i.e., alive or dead). I say this is a very specific, limited view of our goals. While the statement may be accurate in concept, history has shown us that these goals in Iraq are not to be isolated from the larger, world picture.
That larger picture includes the Muslim terrorist problem, which is none other than the suicide/murder cult. It is the Wahadi fundamentalist cult. Even now this element may become a major part of the Iraqi war itself. Nationalism is hardly separable from the Islamic identity here. M.S.N.Menon identifies the Islamic global terrorism quite clearly. (In his article, "Fundamentalism, the Shape of Things to Come," he notes that Iran is actually against Wahadiism. Of course, the elements in Iran that support it are actually Arabic Iranians.)
The point is, if Hussein is left alive, he will be a perpetual rallying point for the cultists. He may be such anyway, should he become a martyr. At least, dead, his intelligence and craft of lying can't contribute directly to the cult anymore.
I realize that the Coalition, especially the U.S., doesn't want to be perceived as a hateful enterprise. This war effort is not personal, not Bush against Hussein or Iraq. But that is exactly the Wahadi Arabic view, and the Communist view, and the view of all enemies of America. I'm not sure leaving Hussein alive will be seen as a merciful, altruistic gesture. It didn't work before. I should think the freedom lovers of the world will consider it more than a dereliction of duty this time. It may be a criminal injustice to the rest of the world.
I sincerely hope the world view will be considered as the Coalition reconstructs Iraq, and the Middle East. This is a case where cutting off the head doesn't kill the snake. The head grows another tail.
From the very first day of bombing, there has been doubt whether Saddam Hussein is injured, dead, or alive. Since March 19, it is still uncertain.
If logic can be applied to a predicament of lies, we should be able to deduce a few probabilities: 1) he is dead, but the fanatical regimers feel it is to their advantage to keep the people thinking he is alive; 2) he is alive, but obviously wants everyone to at least doubt it, so he can escape to Syria, like many of the elite families have already, and at the same time keep the Iraqis fighting to the death--thinking he is with them fighting to the end; he would never want them to know he left, so he has to either play dead, or play like he's with them; 3) he is injured, can't control things, and is languishing as the country crumbles.
If he is alive, he has two lies going simultaneously: 1) he's going to fight with the Iraqis to the bitter end; 2) he wants the allies to think he's dead, so he can escape. Either lie seems to be a base betrayal of the Iraqi people.
Interestingly, most tyrannical, brutal dictators have this detached attitude toward their own people. The people are only a tool to them, an element of their egos. The people is a thing, and not a human relationship. The mind cannot accommodate two different realities, generally speaking. One has to be denied. The ego dictatorship is the conscious reality. The abuse of the people must be denied.
Of course, there are those that suggest that the American government is developing its own style of dicatorship and tyranny. I don't quite see that, yet, anyway. Free enterprise does develop economic power men, and they fall prey to all the tempations of power, but, I don't have the sense of anything abnormal along those lines.
Maybe the problem becomes apparent when the people see themselves as different in character from their leaders. The Iraqis have been squelched from even considering the possibility. In America, however, we are free to demonize our leaders if we feel like it. The very freedom of expressing this may actually prevent us from seeing ourselves to be just like them.
Saddam, dead or alive? We can also askourselves, Bush, are we like him, or not like him? Are our minds awake or asleep? Are we dead or alive?
In this case, I'd like to think I'm like Bush, and not like Saddam!
Iraqi TV broadcast another pretended message directly from Hussein yesterday. The message, read by a military officer, called for a global jihad (holy war) against the US forces. It was the duty of all Arab Muslims to defend their religion, their property, their people, and their honor.
Yet the message said only a third of Iraq's forces had been committed to war. Maybe the Iraqi people are focused on the wrong "enemy." How do the Iraqi people defend themselves against Saddam? They should declare a jihad against him!
The US began a new and awesome air raid on Bagdad, and yet Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf denied the advances, the bombing, and the significance. "It is trivial, and it will continue to be trivial," he said. So is this his idea of honor? Denial? What about the maternity hospital apparently hit? Is that trivial? And who bombed it? Can we know? Did Saddam considered the hospital a haven of disloyal Iraqis too, or was it full of hidden soldiers, weapons, or other secrets?
Early this morning, our troops moved within 19 miles of the southern outskirts of Bagdad. Iraqi TV and news said this was an "illusion." True to lying form, these deluded professionals.
The Iraqi propaganda officials had another pretended message from the Grand Liar broadcast Wednesday. "Victory is at hand," he proportedly said, as the US troops approach Badgad.
"Fight them so that Iraq, the bastion of religion and principles, will be secured and our (Islamic) nation will come out of this crisis glorious," the statement said. "Fight them. Victory is at hand, God willing, although we have only utilized a third or less of our army while the criminals have used everything they brought in."
"Their failure was manifested and victory is glowing, God willing," the statement said.
This is truly un-reality. Anti-reality. Aggressive, intentional, and costly. Of course, most people in the free world don't know exactly what it's like to live in constant fear of being tortured and executed by our own governments, and to be fed constant propaganda which is obviously contrary to reason itself. Then again, one begins to lose reason. One buries oneself in the artificial reality of fanaticism.
Iraq is a tragedy of the mind. This war has happened because of unreality gone too far. It is unreality, nationalized. The al-Qaida thing can never sustain itself without a national entity behind it. While I think Saudi Arabia houses the real enemy force, Iraq seems to have been more obvious about it. Maybe our attitude about Saudi Arabia is our American version of un-reality. Heaven deliver us from what that un-reality may bring about. September 11 was an ominous hint.
Lies seem to be Saddam Hussein's weapon of choice, or rather, weapon of necessity. He has shown that lies are the foundation of this throne.
Yesterday, headlines announced that US trops shot and killed Iraqi civilians. That simple. That apropos for Iraqi propaganda. "Women and Children," another headline read. See, Americans kill innocent, defenseless women and children. Oh, how horrible. Oh, how justified the Arab anger against the evil U.S.
It was a perfect set-up, a perfect lie. What happened? A car full of Iraqis went through a checkpoint, refused to stop and be checked, and thus called for the use of force. It was planned. This was a group of civilians used to provoke a predicted response.
Why was it predictable? The day before, and as occasioned several times previous, Iraqis have used soldiers dressed in civilian clothes, faking surrenders and murdering those they deceived, and have also used suicide/murder bombers already. The element of deceit is the foundation of Iraqi defense. There is no honor, no dignity, no pride, and no win.
While we know there is no reliability in Iraqi news, we do know that there have been some genuine, accidental civilian casualities caused by coalition forces. They have been extremely few thus far, considering Iraqi planned use of citizens as shields in the lying propaganda program. The whole plan of staying in the cities, when there is unlimited battlefield area in Iraq, shows the desperation of Hussein's regime. He has obviously brought all this on his own people. It if is not obvious, it is only because of illiteracy and lies. In his medieval mode, in the illiterate Arab world, he can live in lies. Even in death, he we will honored in lies. It will take a generation or more for the truth to be absorbed by the Arab world, if then.
Bus loads of Iraqis from Palestine have been interviewed and broadcast on world news, vowing to give their lives as suicide/murderers. I saw theym on CNN and elsewhere, vowing to kill Americans. Yet, Palestinian Arab sources have denied all this. Lying is reality to these people. They live in a lie. It is a profound level of social delusion. Lying is natural. They expect it, practice it, and develop it.
But the truth does leak out now and then, even from the Iraqis. A soldier tells it all. Surely none can doubt the words of a former Iraqi soldier, escaped to the coalition forces to testify.
The biggest lie right now, though, is about Hussein himself. Is he alive or dead?
Nothing but video since the war began. The illiterate believe. The educated can only doubt. The talk of exile in Syria could be more lies. His very life and existence can be lied about ad infinitum. As long as there are hoards of illiterate, fanatical Arab Muslims, Hussein will live in their minds. Show a video, or just say he's alive. They will believe. They like living in their imagination. There's more control in that realm. And, remember, Islam is all about control.
What do the educated, intelligent Muslims of the world say about all this?