I try very hard to think of myself as an urban sophisticate. I'm a UC Berkeley alum (class of '66) living in San Francisco, and a retired criminal law trial practitioner. There is very little that can be done to shock me, but I can be disgusted. You've done it.
Your obnoxious publication of Shock magazine with a cover containing the photograph of a US soldier holding a dead little girl has taken a tragic and touching moment in war and converted it into anti-war pornographic trash. And to add insult to injury, you expropriated the photograph from an honorable war correspondent to serve the nefarious purpose of attacking America. How very French.
As an automobile aficionado, it will pain me to stop purchasing your publications, most of which I have been buying since I was a teenager. But stop I will. And I will recommend the same to my extended family and lengthy client list. And most of us will be contacting your advertisers. Losing something I have enjoyed for years is distressing, but at least I can replace it with the time I'll have to continue to chase down international liars and thugs. And I very much enjoy my fine California wines.
Oh, and I will also be contacting my friends at the Pacific Legal Foundation to see what we can do to assist Michael Yon as he attempts to reclaim his property and fend off your laughable libel charges. One advantage of retirement is to be able to take on the occasional pro bono matter. For crissakesyou're public figures by your own will! Have your lawyers actually read the law? And don't bother threatening me, either. I've been threatened by experts over the years.
Kindly tell your French friends to cease eating those psychedelic snails, and re-join civilization. They love to surrender. We don't.
Well, it's come to this. Hopefully, you either visited Michael Yon's site to get the latest or heard him on Pundit Review Radio telling the story of how HFM agreed to stop using his image and make a donation to Fisher House, and then changed their tune.
I work with a few photographers in my civilian job. They all warned me to tell Mike that magazines run roughshod all over photogs because a photographer will not engage in a huge legal fight over a picture that is only worth a few hundred dollars. So, in the normal operation of their businesses, magazine publishers tend to get away with a lot of nonsense at the expense of photographers.
HFM really misjudged Mike Yon. They tried to placate him long enough to get by, and then changed the deal and tried a strongarm tactic on Mike. So, how can we help?
We already might have done in Shock, but that's not enough...
So I am calling for a boycott of HFM's flagship magazine Car and Driver. Boycott's are legal. Contact your clubs, friends, family, work groups, professional organizations, etc. You have more influence here than you might think.
Anyone want to start boycotts on the other magazines? Elle, Flying, etc...think about where you might fit in and get going.
I have sent emails to my friends about doing the same. My doctor pals are canceling their office subscriptions as well. I have a small email list of about two thousand veterans. They'll be hearing about this shortly.
#5
US magazines of HFM
American Photo
Boating
Car and Driver
Cycle World
Elle
Elle Décor
Elle Girl
Flying
Home
Metropolitan Home
Mobile Entertainment
Popular Photography and Imaging
Premiere
Road and Track
Sound and Vision
Woman's Day
#7
From one of the google search entries and auto translated from French:
Media. According to the New York Post, Saddam Hussein would hold 2 % of the capital of Lagardere SCA, the head office of Hatchet Filipacchi Media. This participation, held via the Swiss structure Montana Management, would represent an amount of 90 million dollars. Before the war of the Gulf, in 1990, the participation of Saddam Hussein was 8,4 %. Lagardere SCA indicates that this participation is cold today in agreement with the decisions of UNO and that Saddam Hussein does not have any representation at the Management committee of the group.
#8
We don't subscribe to any magazines, so I can't boycott them. My wife occasionally buys Woman's Day at the grocer's. I would like to participate, however. I'll have to get online and visit some of these magazines, and start targeting their sponsors.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/14/2006 19:39 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Because soccer is a defensive sport. Americans love a winner and winners are on the offensive.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
06/14/2006 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
LOL. Any fatso can play an American sport ;-)
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/14/2006 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I was looking the Yahoo photo galleries. I am impressed that The Cup games and events are going so smoothly and everyone looks like they're having a very good time. Congrats to Germany for putting on a good show, and I hope you make scads of money for all your troubles.
1) Fake being injured. (this one is HUGE)
2) Defend all the time, kick the ball out of bounds intentionally, etc, instead of trying to do score. A team will get lucky, score one goal in the first five minutes, and then spend the remaining 85 minutes of the game defending.
3) Are mincy prima donnas in their personal lives.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
06/14/2006 11:03 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Because real football is when you can hear Joe Theisman's leg break under the weight of the linebackers. Real football is direct contact. That's why the Aussies can claim pride in their version as well.
Soccer is for possers, for wannabees. Its for primitives who play territorial games. Its for show and bravado without pain.
When they read the lineup of an American professional team, at least the large majority of them attended some sort of advanced education.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/14/2006 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Boring, Rafael. Might as well stand in line at the john for an hour and pick up the "game" where you left off.
Posted by: ed ||
06/14/2006 11:38 Comments ||
Top||
#13
"Soccer was invented by European ladies to keep themselves busy while their husbands cook supper." -Hank Hill ;)
Has a professional soccer player ever had an appendage amputated so they wouldn't miss the next game ala Ronnie Lott?
Hockey and American football is all I need. After all, I'm American. We're all just ignorant savages with a lust for violence, right? I will watch women's soccer on occasion, but just because I like Betty's.
Enjoy your soccer. Just don't foist you're collective inferiority complex on me by whining that I don't care about it.
#14
I think it's viewed as a child's sport in America. Millions of kids play it in elementary school (ergo, the "soccer mom" driving them to practice in the minivan).
Most American adults experience with soccer is watching their 8 year old kids kicking the ball around pathetically.
Then as they get older most of them quit and the ones who are athletically inclined go into basketball, football, and baseball.
I did the same thing ~30 years ago. Played right forward, scored one goal a year in each of three years. My primary role was to cross it to the talented kid on the team who played left forward and happened to be left handed/footed. He scored 2-3 times a game. I must have had a zillion assists but who tracks that at that age?
Now when I see World Cup soccer, I think "Hey, check it out" the same way I do when I see bobsledding. Watch for a few minutes on the off chance of a spectacular goal (or crash, if its bobsledding), then change the channel.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
06/14/2006 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Rafael, shouldn't they be more offended that the Germans allowed Buttwiper Budweiser [aka that watery Amurrican crap, not the good Czech (?) stuff with a similar name] to sponsor the Cup instead of a good German beer? Really, WTF is up with that??
#16
My primary role was to cross it to the talented kid on the team who
Interesting. There's a dad in our Cub Scout Pack who grew up in England. I thought he'd love soccer. He said the same thing.
He thought baseball was the best sport for kids because most sports are pretty boring most of the time, certainly Little League, but in baseball every kid gets an equal opportunity to step up to the plate, be the center of attention, and have the chance to hit it out of the park. (Though he does think cricket is better than baseball. Just rounders, a girl game, doncha know?)
Equality, opportunity, achievement. Just like soccer. Riiiiight.
Soccer makes Canada's oldest sport, Curling, look exciting.
#17
DB, good German beer doesn't need the extra advertising ;-)
I think I'll take one last shot at American sports fans: When you watch hockey (a Canadian sport) on TV, do they still highlight the puck for you on the screen?
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/14/2006 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Couldn't say. We're all far too busy polishing our curling stones. ;->
#20
In one of the few TV advertisements for the oncoming World Cup, in a heavy French accent, a visibly aged Eric Cantona invites viewers to support America's team. The problem is, most Americans have no idea that this guy, who speaks to them from the TV screen in barely understandable English, used to be a world-famous soccer star.
Yeah, this'll fire me right up. Was Woody Allen busy?
#22
Yep--I'd much rather watch hockey too. At least hockey as some good hitting going on even if it can be as low-scoring as soccer. Plus the powerplay/penalty-killing situations make it more interesting when the teams aren't evenly matched.
I can't get into soccer because it's too low scoring, but conversely I can't get into basketball because it's too high scoring. Seems to me the only part of a basketball game worth watching is the last 5 minutes.
Posted by: Dar ||
06/14/2006 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#23
I think it's viewed as a child's sport in America. Millions of kids play it in elementary school (ergo, the "soccer mom" driving them to practice in the minivan).
That's because it is a child's game. I did like than chick flick tho, Bent Like Beckham.
#24
Rafael - howsabout those of us Americans who don't give a rat's ass in hell about pro sports, period?
Should we somehow care? Why?
For that matter, isn't is odd that people in other countries demand we love soccer and try to push it off on us, but we don't insist that other countries have to go ape about American football, basketball, ice hockey, NASCAR, and baseball? (Yes, I know some other countries play baseball, basketball, and ice hockey, but most don't.) I'm unaware of Americans demanding, for instance, that Europe other countries love American football, field their own teams, and stay glued to the TV during the playoffs.
What's with the soccer-empire-building? Isn't that a little hegemonic?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/14/2006 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#25
For that matter, Rafael, maybe you should be happy we don't care too much about pro soccer.
If Americans cared about pro soccer the way Americans care about pro football, we'd beat the pants off you just like we do in other fields.
So why not keep soccer to yourselves? Enjoy being best at something.
I mean that in the friendliest, non-sports-fan way, of course. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/14/2006 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Rafael,
In Sports Illustrated magazine about 40 years ago they did an article on why Soccer was not popular in the US. They summed it up with one quote from a Soccer broadcast (could've been the World Cup, I don't remember)
The quote?
"And Germany takes an insurmountable 1 - Nil lead!"
Personally, I can appreciate the artistry of soccer players in the same way I appreciate jugglers. How many times have you seen a great play with passing and dribbling end up in a shot 10 feet over the cross bar? Much ado about nothing. Probably 75% of all goals are dumb luck like the one England "scored" on an own goal header by the opposition. Yep, insurmountable 1-nil lead.
#27
Why can't the world appreciate the pinacle of athletic acheivement that is Football (not eurotrash football, or by it's proper name, soccer)? The four downs, the ability to actually pass the ball to make spectacular plays, the concept of accuracy and rioting only when your team wins the championship seems completely lost on them. Instead, one has a bunch of metrosexuals running around the field, kicking a ball endlessly and with such bad aim that they can't get it into a goal that must be 6 yards wide and 4 yards tall. For god's sake, the basket in basketball is barely wider than the ball? How can they have such terrible aim? They must have all been dropped on their heads as children to be enthralled by endless 1-1 ties. OOOHHH! But on special occassions they settle it with PENALTY KICKS! EXCITING! Shiny ... oh look a puppy!
And apparently they haven't discovered the magic of large clocks to keep the time (shhh, Yanks and Canucks, don't tell them about how they really work - it be like telling a kid that Santa doesn't exist). Apparently, they can't read the time so have to depend on the ref to do it.
Posted by: General Bob Neyland ||
06/14/2006 15:01 Comments ||
Top||
#31
American high school women ignore soccer so the bulk of athletes in America also ignore soccer. Convince high school girls that soccer is sexy and maybe you'll change the American mindset, otherwise it won't happen.
One thing about soccer though, its the only sport to have started a war, however pathetic the soccer war was it happened.
#32
DB, I don't think he's Mexican, I think he's Brazilian.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/14/2006 15:10 Comments ||
Top||
#33
DB, I don't think he's Mexican, I think he's Brazilian.
(the sexist pig part of me comes out...)
Hey some of those painted Brazilian lady fans are really cute! And, we don't see fan calandar in the US the way the soccer folks have them. SI swimsuit edition doesn't even come close....
Then again we don't put up brothels for 50,000 with imported sex slaves to service our fans during the sports finals either.
(I still don't understand what that has to do with the sport.)
#37
Rugby is a hooligan's game played by gentlemen.
Soccer is a gentleman's game played by hooligans.
but HURLING is a hooligan's game played by hooligans. With sticks.
:D
#39
howsabout those of us Americans who don't give a rat's ass in hell about pro sports, period?
I don't give a rats ass about pro sports either. I make the exception every 4 years for soccer, and the olympics.
Should we somehow care? Why?
Well, with regards to soccer, you should. Your team has consistently qualified since 1990. Your team is getting better and better. Your trainers are one of the best (Germany has hired US trainers for this world cup). That's something to be proud of on the world stage.
we'd beat the pants off you just like we do in other fields.
Well now Barbara, see, you'd make the perfect soccer hooligan fanatic!! Now put that energy into supporting your team!! They played well vs. the Czechs.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/14/2006 18:25 Comments ||
Top||
#41
DB, they had a few good chances as I recall, the result is a bit mis-leading. I thought they played well considering they were up against one of the teams favoured to be in the final (vs. Germany). It's a tough group to be in.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/14/2006 19:04 Comments ||
Top||
#42
we have a team? what is this "soccer" you speak of?
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2006 19:43 Comments ||
Top||
#43
That's true Frank. I don't like the term soccer. I simply refer to it as The Beautiful Game.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/14/2006 20:33 Comments ||
Top||
#44
I'm with Rafael on this one. It's a beautiful game.
Posted by: Matt ||
06/14/2006 20:41 Comments ||
Top||
#45
Rafael, I actually do know America has a pro soccer team. I just don't care - any more than I care about other pro sports.
Richmond, Virginia, (where I live) has a pro soccer team - the Richmond Kickers (Rob Ukrop is one of their stars, and a very nice young man); D.C. has a team. I would suppose lots of American cities have them.
I. just. don't. care.
I'm glad people who like sports do care. They pump a lot of money into the economy, and it's a better hobby than smoking crack.
I personally just don't care.
On the other hand, very few of those sports fans give a rat's patootie about my interests, so we're even.
(Though I wish to god they'd SHUT UP, particularly during the various playoffs.)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/14/2006 20:41 Comments ||
Top||
#52
mcsegeek, what an idiotic website*, but thanks for the link.
Soccer apologists say the reason it is not popular in the US is because it wasn't invented in the US. First....Second, basketball was the creation of a Canadian, yet is very popular in the US. Third, football was the creation of a Canadian, yet is very popular in the US.
I knew the bit about basketball, but football??? Heh. Heh heh. Heh heh heh. :-)))
*proof: Soccer games count the time that has elapsed, rather than the time remaining. This is stupid for a number of reasons. First, soccer games don't refer to time anyway, so why even keep it? Second, why the concern on the past? The score already reflects all important information of what has already happened in the game. In soccer, this is most likely irrelevant anyway, since the score is most likely 0-0, er, nil, nil. The focus should be on the result - which depends on the future. Thus, time should count down. Can you imagine NASA counting up (from, say, when JFK made his speech about landing on the moon in a decade)? How stupid would that be? uh huh. whatever you say.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/14/2006 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#53
Rafael - most of us don't bear any ill will on the soccer nuts. What we are irritated about is the sneering "it's the game of the world. You should learn to appreciate it" attitude by room temp IQ "elitists". If Arabs et al don't like baseball or NFL football, no problem, I understand. I don't like soccer, and never will. No problem. But it's an extension of "progressive" and "tranzi" you may not get, not being here
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2006 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#54
Amers tried to like soccer, but just can't. Its a kid's game, its girls' game, its something most men play as a last resort when absolutely nothing else is available. 40,000 hookers coming to Germany in order to watch non-female women work their loins the PC = socially correct, non-prenup non-marital legal way while still earning a profit.
#55
Frank, I don't think that was the intent of the article (or my sneering), but I'll give it another read, in the original. People play whatever they want to play. I don't much care if you (or Barbara) don't care, but I reserve the right to counter some of the criticism laid against the sport. Like they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder...to each his own...or whatever.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/14/2006 22:04 Comments ||
Top||
#56
Interestingly, for all the trivia fans out there, the World Cup hosted by the U.S. in 1994 still holds the record for total attendance for the entire competition, and this was even before the expansion to 32 teams. Ironic. Or was it all those Brazilians and Latin Americans? ;-) ...or Mexicans
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/14/2006 22:18 Comments ||
Top||
#57
any criticism was teasing. Hell, I'm a NASCAR nut. I can't explain it to those not so inclined. We co-exist
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2006 22:18 Comments ||
Top||
#58
I thought the US lost to the Czechs 3-1? Apparently the Czechs were ranked 2nd, which I understand is pretty good. I saw bits of the game, but my nap was a higher priority, I'm afraid.
In the US soccer is a participation sport, not a watching sport (except for us soccer parents). While some of the trailing daughters' coaches were fathers who'd played team sports and learnt the rules of soccer just ahead of the girls, others had played themselves not so long ago and were passing down the joy of the game. We're spoilt for choice with professional, amateur and participatory sports in this country and, with people now continuing to play soccer for fun through university and in adult leagues well into their thirties and forties, there doesn't seem to be a need to pay to watch others. It's the same with the Olympics, to be honest; I don't think the share numbers were anything like they used to be, and I'm not at all certain the advertisers got their money's worth.
Barbara has the right of it: we like what we like and don't proselytize, and it's rude of others to push watching their sport as the epitome of worldliness. Not that I particularly care -- I don't watch anything unless I know at least one of the players personally.
#59
Well, Poland's out. Out of the remaining allies*...I choose...Ruuuuuuuuuuuule Britannia!
*heck, even Australia's in this one, first time in ages.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/14/2006 22:43 Comments ||
Top||
#60
Raph,
I played soccer as a kid. Had a damn good time at it to. Unfortunately in the states when I got into high school it was either football or soccer in the fall - no contest - I played football. Now, if soccer would've been a spring sport at the HS level I would've dropped baseball (I hated track) to play it - more running, more action on the field, actually would've helped my conditioning for football and wrestling the next year. If my family had the cash I prolly would've got into organized hockey - but that was privately financed when I was growing up in Michigan - though we played pick up a lot in the winters. The other sports were community sponsored and only cost my mom like 30 bucks for the enrollment, hockey was like hundreds of bucks for skates, equipment, and ice time. BTW - I'm watching the cup finals right now - no highlights on the puck anymore which I always thought was stupid. I'm actually pulling for Edmonton even though they beat my Wings. I can't stomach pro hockey teams south of the mason-dixon - sacrilege.
As for soccer, a lot of Americans (who never played it) actually got into the women's team a couple years back but overall there is just not enough interest in it. The rest of us who have played it appreciate the stamina it takes to go that long but I certainly don't want to be belittled by the foreign press for not being more into it. We "get it", we also get F-1, and tennis but we're not so into it. We are glad you enjoy it but maybe we enjoy more "gladiatorial" contests - oh well. Baseball could be considered as slow as soccer but most of us are raised on it & we understand the dynamics and are more willing to sit through a three hour game.
Frank - is Biff gonna take the checkered at Brooklyn this Sunday? My boy Gordon is snake bit.
One final thought - my favorite all-time sport is actually professional wrestling because it's the only real true sport left. I mean, if Vegas doesn't lay odds on it you know it's legit. ;)
#61
Biffle's having a tough year. Next is at Michigan - I'm a sentimental Mark Martin fan, but I'd say Kahne or Kenseth has been making a move up
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2006 23:07 Comments ||
Top||
#62
I can't stomach pro hockey teams south of the mason-dixon - sacrilege.
Yeah no kidding. Raleigh a hockey town? C'mooon. But looks like it's gonna be Raleigh, because no team ever came back from a 3-1 deficit since Toronto did it in the '40s(?).
I've been slowly re-discovering soccer probably since 1994, around the time the pro teams in Toronto started sucking (baseball, hockey). Maybe it's the age, but there's also no connection with the players nowadays. I mean, Wendel Clark was Wendel Clark back then. Felix Potvin. Doug Gilmour. Smithie. Don't know any of the guys now.
MLS is expanding to Toronto next season. I don't expect tickets to be in the $100 range, so I'll gladly see more games.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/14/2006 23:36 Comments ||
Top||
#63
Raf,
Since you follow soccer you prolly know we got an MLS down here now - DC, LA, KC, etc. I'm not sure on how those players stack up against any euro premeire leagues but it does seem to be getting more popular if slowly. Heck, if the WNBA can get on regular t.v. you know it's only a matter of time for soccer. Actually, indoor soccer is kind of a big thing up in the northern U.S. - my buddies back home even belong to an after-work league. I played once while I was on leave, that's kind of a cool cross between hockey and soccer, good physical training session - that's for sure.
As the civilized world justly celebrates the long overdue killing of Abu M al-Zarqawi, it must recall that his death was brought about by what has come to be known as "targeted assassination" or "targeted killings." This is the same technique that has been repeatedly condemned by the international community when Israel has employed it against terrorists who have murdered innocent Jews.
When Israel targeted the two previous heads of Hamas, the British foreign secretary said: "targeted killings of this kind are unlawful and unjustified." The same views expressed at the United Nations and by several European heads of state. It was also expressed by various Human Rights organizations.
Now Great Britain is applauding the targeted killing of a terrorist who endangered its soldiers and citizens. What is the difference, except that Israel can do no right in the eyes of many in the international community. Surely there is no real difference between Zarqawi on the one hand and terrorist leaders from Hamas and Islamic Jihad on the other hand. If it is argued that Sheik Yassin was merely a spiritual leader of Hamas (a total lie since he explicitly authorized numerous terrorist acts), then it must be noted that one of the people targeted by the United States was Sheik Abd-al-Rahman, who was also described as a "spiritual advisor."
When the United States and British forces have engaged in targeted killings of terrorists, there have often been collateral deaths of non terrorists, as there apparently were in this instance as well. The military announced preliminary findings that a woman and a child were among the dead. Collateral deaths are inevitable when terrorists hide among civilians and use them as shields. Both Israel and the United States make great efforts to reduce the number of collateral deaths and injuries but they do not always succeed.
I applaud the targeted killing of Al Zarqawi. His death will save many innocent lives. But I also applaud the targeted killings of anti-Israel terrorists whose deaths save numerous lives. All decent people must insist on a single standard of judging tactics such as targeted killing. It is nothing short of bigotry to approve this tactic when used by the United States and Great Britain but to condemn it when it is used by Israel.
Whacking Zarqawi actually was a little different than that of Yassin (for example): in the former, we had troops on the ground, and we actually started providing medical care before he muttered 'rosebud' and departed on his visit to Himmler. Yassin got no such courtesy.
Nevertheless, Dershowitz is absolutely right: removal of terrorist leaders is either okay, or it isn't, and you can't choice some and not others just because you don't like the evil Jooooz. Both apply careful, targeted force at men who are clearly responsible for the violence created by their organizations.
Some might argue that there is a difference: we're at war in Iraq (like it or not), so terrorist, insurgent, and opposition-government leaders are fair game (Zarqawi=Uday). Israel is not 'at war' with the Paleos, so this reasoning goes, and because of that the Israelis are required to use only law-enforcement and juidicial means of fighting their opponents. That Hamas is not similarly required to fight with one-hand tied is glossed over. I suspect most of us at Rantburg would recognize that Israel is, and has been, at war with the Paleos since about 1948 (at least). To claim that the Palestinians can't be 'at war' because they don't have a legitimate government (until recently) is to split hairs. The Israelis see their citizens dying from an outside group of armed, dangerous people. That's war, regardless of the nicieties of international law.
One simply cannot claim that the Israelis are required to fight with one arm tied while Hamas is not similarly constrained (the latter, of course, demands the destruction of the former). Whether this is 'war' or not, the Israelis retain the right to find and kill the leaders of the people trying to kill them. Dershowitz correctly understands this.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/14/2006 11:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm always suprised where Anti-Israeli sentiment raises it's ugly head. I always assumed, quite mistakenly, that there was alot more sympathy toward the Israeli's problems.
I guess I was wrong.
#3
When a leader specifically issues threats against the safety of your country and the lives of its citizens, you take them seriously or you dismiss them as just looney talk. If you ever had a threat against your person or your family, then you assume the worst and plan for it.
When someone like Adminidajad of Iran, or any Mad Mullah goes public on TV, recruits suicide bombers and/or calls on people to kill your country's citizens, then, as far as I am concerned, it is an act of war. The question is: what is the response? It must be appropriate.
My suggestion is that the perpetrators and instigators of the threat or actual violence are fair game and a legitimate target. They also have to realize that they are targets NO MATTER WHERE THEY WILL BE. That means that hiding in an apartment complex is not going to save them. People around them must realize that they are putting themselves at risk by being around this terrorist target. A few of these targeted assassinations and people around the world will realize that the civilized world means business. They will start treating these instigators like lepers. The instigators will also realize that THEY AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILIES will also be targets. That should put an end to most of it.
There is no way to be nice about this business. However, it must be kept in mind that violence instigated must be appropriate and measured. So put your nukes away, folks, at least for now.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/14/2006 18:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
no need for nukes AP - a 250 lb JDAM guided chunk of concrete (or better yet blue "ice" from a jetliner toilet) would do the trick
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2006 19:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Targeted killings are bad.....but only if you miss the target.
#6
Can alleged asymmetric "People's War of Resistance" against US "imperialism", terrorism, and bellicosity > simul also a Regional-Global Radical Islamist-Iranian Revol War for Empire??? IONews, SPACEWAR.com reports that US official believe Zark's successor MAJAHER is also AL-MASRI, an Eqyptian and Zarkey's right hand man.
The Washington Post
Wednesday, June 14, 2006; Page A23
In regard to nuclear proliferation and arms control, the fundamental problem is clear: Either we begin finding creative, outside-the-box solutions or the international nuclear safeguards regime will become obsolete.
For this reason, I have been calling for new approaches in a number of areas. First, a recommitment to disarmament -- a move away from national security strategies that rely on nuclear weapons, which serve as a constant stimulus for other nations to acquire them. Second, tightened controls on the proliferation-sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. By bringing multinational control to any operation that enriches uranium or separates plutonium, we can lower the risk of these materials being diverted to weapons. A parallel step would be to create a mechanism to ensure a reliable supply of reactor fuel to bona fide users, including a fuel bank under control of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The third area has been more problematic: how to deal creatively with the three countries that remain outside the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): Pakistan and India, both holders of nuclear arsenals, and Israel, which maintains an official policy of ambiguity but is believed to be nuclear-weapons-capable. However fervently we might wish it, none of these three is likely to give up its nuclear weapons or the nuclear weapons option outside of a global or regional arms control framework. Our traditional strategy -- of treating such states as outsiders -- is no longer a realistic method of bringing these last few countries into the fold.
Which brings us to a current controversy -- the recent agreement between President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh regarding the exchange of nuclear technology between the United States and India.
Some insist that the deal will primarily enable India to divert more uranium to produce more weapons -- that it rewards India for having developed nuclear weapons and legitimizes its status as a nuclear weapons state. By contrast, some in India argue that it will bring the downfall of India's nuclear weapons program, because of new restrictions on moving equipment and expertise between civilian and military facilities.
Clearly, this is a complex issue on which intelligent people can disagree. Ultimately, perhaps, it comes down to a balance of judgment. But to this array of opinions, I would offer the following:
First, under the NPT, there is no such thing as a "legitimate" or "illegitimate" nuclear weapons state. The fact that five states are recognized in the treaty as holders of nuclear weapons was regarded as a matter of transition; the treaty does not in any sense confer permanent status on those states as weapons holders. Moreover, the U.S.-India deal is neutral on this point -- it does not add to or detract from India's nuclear weapons program, nor does it confer any "status," legal or otherwise, on India as a possessor of nuclear weapons. India has never joined the NPT; it has therefore not violated any legal commitment, and it has never encouraged nuclear weapons proliferation.
Also, it is important to consider the implications of denying this exchange of peaceful nuclear technology. As a country with one-sixth of the world's population, India has an enormous appetite for energy -- and the fastest-growing civilian nuclear energy program in the world. With this anticipated growth, it is important that India have access to the safest and most advanced technology.
India clearly enjoys close cooperation with the United States and many other countries in a number of areas of technology and security. It is treated as a valued partner, a trusted contributor to international peace and security. It is difficult to understand the logic that would continue to carve out civil nuclear energy as the single area for noncooperation.
Under the agreement, India commits to following the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an organization of states that regulates access to nuclear material and technology. India would bring its civilian nuclear facilities under international safeguards. India has voiced its support for the conclusion of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The strong support of both India and the United States -- as well as all other nuclear weapons states -- is sorely needed to make this treaty a reality.
The U.S.-India agreement is a creative break with the past that, handled properly, will be a first step forward for both India and the international community. India will get safe and modern technology to help lift more than 500 million people from poverty, and it will be part of the international effort to combat nuclear terrorism and rid our world of nuclear weapons.
As we face the future, other strategies must be found to enlist Pakistan and Israel as partners in nuclear arms control and nonproliferation. Whatever form those solutions take, they will need to address not only nuclear weapons but also the much broader range of security concerns facing each country. No one ever said controlling nuclear weapons was going to be easy. It will take courage and tenacity in large doses, a great deal more outside-of-the-box thinking, and a sense of realism. And it will be worth the effort.
The writer is director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He and the agency won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by: john ||
06/14/2006 16:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Either we begin finding creative, outside-the-box solutions or the international nuclear safeguards regime will become obsolete.
It is already obsolete. The Norks and Iran walk away from any controls and short of some kind of military action, there is nothing that we can do. That is a fact.
India, Pakistan, and Israel are not the problem, O recipient of the Dynamit Nobel prize. Israel and India are responsible nations. Pakistan probably has enough oversight from the US now to contain the damage that it has caused (Cat's out of the bag). The biggest problems facing nuclear proliferation are rogues like the NORKS and Iran. They CANNOT be allowed to have nukes. If the NORKS already have nukes, then they must realize that passing them on will have catastrophic consequences for the regime.
The real issue is how to deal with rogue states with nukes. Agreements made between entities are only as good as the honesty of the entities. Trust but verify. Rogues will not let you verify, witness Iran and Nork. All the agreements in the world will not protect you from liars, Mr. ElBaradei.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/14/2006 21:19 Comments ||
Top||
The men are in solitary confinement, locked in 8'x8' cells at San Diego's Camp Pendleton, as investigators probe an April 26 incident involving the 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment, 1st Marine Division. They are behind bars 23 hours a day; family members can only see them through inch-thick Plexiglass. Military blabbermouths have told the press that the service members are suspected of kidnapping and shooting a man in the Iraqi town of Hamandiya. The Iraqi man's family reportedly came forward seeking payment for his death as media hysteria set in over the separate alleged atrocity in Haditha.
The national media ignored a protest by supporters outside Camp Pendletonover the weekend. "I want the Marines to know that they are not forgotten, that people are out here thinking of them," said one attendee. The father of one of the men in custody, Pfc. John J. Jodka, worried: "It appears to me that this is the reaction of some senior people to show 'We're in charge, we're cleaning up our act."
Not a peep heard yet from the American Civil Liberties Union. The website of the self-anointed crusaders for individual rights contains hundreds of articles on the rights of al Qaeda suspects and an indignant press release on the suicides of Guantanamo Bay detainees. But no mention of the Camp Pendleton 8. For their part, human rights groups were too busy shedding tears for the Gitmo terrorist suicide squad and lionizing them as "heroes" in the words of William Goodman of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Editorial cartoonists have been preoccupied desecrating the Marine Corps logo and tarring troops as baby-killers.
A clarion voice stepped into the fray this week to push back against the global rush to judgment against our troops. Ilario Pantano, a Desert Storm vet-turned Wall Street banker and new media entrepreneur-turned reenlisted Marine from Hell's Kitchen, launched his gripping book "Warlord: No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy" this week, which recounts his harrowing ordeal as a Marine smeared and cleared. Last spring, he faced the death penalty for defending himself and his men in the heat of battle and killing two Iraqi insurgents. He was accused then, as Marines are being accused now, of wantonly executing Iraqis to send a message. His family and friends' defense of Pantano was met, as those of Marines are being met now, with incredulity or apathy.
There were no pleas to withhold judgment against Pantano from the New York Times then. No Oprah sitdowns now with the wives and children of accused troops.
As an agitated, condescending Ann Curry of NBC's Today Show tried to paint Pantano Monday as a callous thug, he replied with quiet dignity: "I don't think it's helpful to national security to have this kind of self-flagellation before the facts are actually disclosed."
Innocent until proven guilty? Justice for all? Benefit of the doubt? These are apparently foreign concepts when it comes to Americans in uniform being held on American soil. Perhaps if they proclaimed themselves "conscientious objectors" and converted to Islam they might start getting some sympathy. Much more on Michelle's blog.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/14/2006 12:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Must be in the Wen Ho Lee wing of the facility.
#3
OK, that sent my blood pressure into quadruple digits.
The best thing these young men could do would be to convert to Islam for the duration. Then they could bitch about desecration of their Q'urans, etc. Human Rights Watch would be on the case in a New York second.
Posted by: Matt ||
06/14/2006 20:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
there were 150 protesters outside Pendleton's South gate last saturday, and they're doing the same this Saturday. Roger Hedgecock on KOGO600 AM (streams at 3PM PST) has taken up the cause locally. These men should NOT be treated to solitary and shackles before charges are applied. Gitmo Arabs get better treatment. Raise the pressure. Call your Representatives
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2006 20:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Michael Savage is fired up on this like flies on sh*t. He has been having people on like one of the wives and a defense attorney for one of the Marines.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/14/2006 21:21 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Unfortunately, one of the core charges against these servicemen is that they willfully plagiarized or falsified military combat reports to cover-up an alleged act(s) of alleged cruelty/atrocity to alleged Iraqi civilians. Their Mil-Civie atty(s) must present convincing physical evidence of innocence or potential "non-felony guilt/accessory" iff they are to receive better treatment, i.e. remain in jail until court(s) martial but with no shackles. THe Mil Courts will follow the UCMJ and Fed-Mil caselaw, NOT the MSM - the sooner the lawyers present the evidences of no-guilt or non-felony guilt, the faster the shackles can come off.
#8
One of the Marine's father - Terry Pennington was on H/C tonight. Pretty much bitch slapped alan colmes around. The only time you put someone in solitare is after they've been charged for a real serious felony, have multiple UA's, drug conviction, or are a no-shit flight risk. I doubt these guys fall into any of that category though I've not seen the evidence either way. This is prolly more Iraqi stories. That's their new way of hamstringing our forces - claim war crimes and watch the msm & now the politicos in uniform along w/that fat disgusting pos jackie murtha dance like finger puppets. I trust the Corps though above all else and the right thing will prolly be done soon along w/a formal apology if something was dicked up.
#9
Happened to be listening to Sean this afternoon (in the car at that time) and this father he had on his show tonight, just called in to Sean. Producer was smart enough to take the call.
Point being, Sean has Cheney on his radio show tomorrow, and promised this father, he would bring this up to our VP -- why are these kids being treated like this?
And Cheney just might make a difference with this. Here's hopin'.
Care of Memri
They are perpetrating in the name of human rights, the worst tortures of the Middle Ages, in full view of the cameras.â
âMahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran
#1
If we did execute our military campaigns like the Great Khan, you wouldn't be around to be talking. You all keep this up and there will be no reason in the future not to follow the model of warfare and occupation established by the Mongols. If you're going to be tagged with the rep, no matter what you do, you might as well do the deed.
#6
Some thoughts on the Iranian Nuke Threat:
A friend of mine who spent his career on US nuclear subs pointed out:
1) US Polaris subs (with 16 X 1Meg warheads) = all the shells, bombs and bullets fired by all sides in WWII including Hiroshima and Nagasaki
2) US Trident subs (with 24 X 16 X 1Meg MIRV warheads) = 24 times the destructive power of WWII
3) One US Trident sub can turn 35 - 40% of Iran into basalt/glass within 6 minutes of being given the order to fire.
4) We have several Trident subs in our inventory.
5) The hardest problem facing George Bush is what part of Iran not to destroy.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
06/14/2006 16:04 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Well, he acts like Caligula. Hopefully he will declare himself to be a god, too.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
