. . . Published in Germany 13 months ago, "Ich Nicht" is a memoir by the late Joachim Fest, author of the best-known German study of Hitler and a co-publisher of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. It describes his father, his family and growing up in Nazi Germany.
The book is exceptional because it tells in a modest, believable, quietly bitter and totally proud way of the family's extraordinary decency - no ironically "good" Germans here - and its refusal to bend before Hitler.
The title packs it all in: Ich nicht, Fest's father's phrase, borrowed from the Book of Matthew. Others betray you, Ich nicht. The words are more powerful and less theatrical sounding in German than "Not I" in English (and less ordinary, exclamation point added, than the French "Pas Moi!", which is what the book is called in a translated version appearing in France this month). . . .
Fest has written with remarkable detail about being a teenager in that awful time, describing his father's unfailing resistance to the Nazis, how a family could work to learn of Germany's atrocities and mass exterminations, avoid having its middle son get pulled into the SS and keep its honor to the end. . . . . As Fest makes clear, nobody in Berlin in 1940 was listening to radio call-in shows debating whether the invasions of France and Poland were morally acceptable.
Rather: One night, Fest overheard his mother asking his father, the Roman Catholic, Prussian nationalist, and friend of Jews, can't you join the Nazi Party? We won't really be changing, she said, and lying is how little people have always dealt with the powerful.
"We are not little people," Fest's father shot back. "Not on this subject!"
Obviously, Papa Fest was a giant among men.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/16/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A parados. A number (not all) of the most notorious Nazis were raised as Catholics. But Satuffenberg was a Catolic, as were the White Rose people and as was this guy.
I have seen the map of Naai vote in the last ffere elections before Hitler's raise to power and it coincides exactly with a negative of proprtions of Catholics in the district. Ir is exactly as if through the netire land there had been the same proportion of Cathoplics and Protestsn voting for the Nazis and that it was the proportion of Catholics (or Protestants) who determined how strongh the Nazis were in district with Catholics being much less prone to vote for the Nazis.
#2
Instead of saying that Nazi vote was strong between Protestants it would have been more exact to say that it was strong beatween Non-Catholics. I don't have a district by district map about the proportion of Protestants and people without religion. It could be that it was the later who tilted the balance.
Note: We have a precise a map of Religion sin Germany because people pay a tax whose proceedings goes to the confession of their choice. If you declare to have no religion you still pay but the state keeps the money.
#3
Are you certain about that last, JFM? When we moved to Germany, Mr. Wife's company's Human Resources people registered us with the government as Jewish, perhaps assuming that only a Jewish man would marry a Jewish woman, which they knew me to be because of my pre-move concerns. In addition to the registration -- to which we objected on principle -- we would have had to pay a religion tax on top of the regular income tax. After arguing for ages with them, the HR people finally deregistered us, and the tax surcharge disappeared. I recall German friends commenting that it was worth paying the extra tax, despite their status as non-believers, so that their children could have picturesque church weddings and be buried in church cemeteries. But perhaps I misunderstood, or things have changed.
#4
I don't live in Germany and my sources are quite old. But I remember a novel "Death is my profession" where the main character (who ends commanding a death camp) at one point abjures religion, registers as without religion and he explicitly comments that his taxes will go to the state. So if the novel an my memoty are accurate then in the thirties you still paid the tax if you registered as without religion.
About accuracy of the novel. Its author was French, but he based in Rudolph Hoess (Auschwitz's commander) memories. Also, this kind of details (the part about the religion tax) is not the kind of details an author (specially a non-German one) would invent unless he found it in Hoess memories.
#5
"I recall German friends commenting that it was worth paying the extra tax, despite their status as non-believers, so that their children could have picturesque church weddings and be buried in church cemeteries." It's hard to me to get my head around this.
After I read this article I looked for a way to buy a German-language copy of this book in the USA, couldn't find one. Fortunately a nearby large-city library here in OH has a copy, which I'll borrow on inter-library loan. What I can remember of my college German language courses, and the internet, will help my plow through as much of "Ich Nicht" as I can.
#6
There are several illusions about Nazi Germany that need to be dispelled.
A major one has already been attacked, though it is far from certain that it has won the argument, that it was not the propaganda machine of Joseph Goebbels, the "Minister for Public Enlightenment & Propaganda", hypnotized the German people into hating Jews.
It did not. To a great extent, it was preaching to the choir, in that there had been a longstanding hatred and contempt for Jews in much of Europe for a thousand years preceding. And had the roles been reversed, Britain might have been as horrifically murderous to the Jews as was Germany. Certainly the French could have been. The liberalism in any of those countries towards the Jews did not extend deeply beyond the educated upper classes.
The second illusion, that has yet to be confronted, is the difference between Nazism and German nationalism.
For many Germans, the Nazis were seen as just another political movement, not particularly different from the Bonapartists of a century before who had propelled France to do exactly what the Germans were doing.
To place it all in context, Europe had been at war, more or less, for 1500 years. There was a nagging pessimism that there could ever be a lasting peace. In fact, after World War II, this finally resulted in the trans-European rejection of nationalism, national uniqueness and cultural differences.
They felt that only if Europe became a generic, pastel creation, would they ever avoid the differences they felt made war inevitable. This is why today, the EU strives to make Europe as homogeneous and bland as possible, and actively try to destroy both national and cultural identity.
Before World War I, the German states in Europe had been seen as a collection of ignorant peasants by the other European powers. When Germany was united by Bismarck, other nations suddenly realized that they now faced the dominant power on the continent. World War I was seen by the other European powers as much as "putting Germany in its place", as by the Germans "asserting themselves" to be the dominant European power.
After WWI, the average German had a great deal of smoldering resentment, not just in being put down from what they felt was their European throne, but also in not having accomplished a complete "trans-Germanification" in the first place.
This was why both the typical German was thrilled with conquering and integrating the German parts of other countries, but also one of the big reasons that Chamberlain was so hesitant to attack Germany for what could be considered "uniting itself".
So it *often* boiled down to a general German indifference to the Nazis. If they tried, they could just ignore them and accept the parallel *goals* of German nationalism. That is, they might have been willing to do what they did under *any* leader who did the same as Hitler and the Nazis.
They did so under Kaiser Wilhelm I, so had they still had a Kaiser, is it so unimaginable that they would not have done it again? A repetition of World War II, but led by a king, not Hitler and the Nazis.
#8
anonymoose, not arguing your points but didn't the Franco-Prussian war sort of bring the Germans to world recognition prior to WW1. I mean beating the French (the continents Great power) had to get some peoples attention.
#9
anonymoose, arguing about your points you are mixing apples and oranges. Religious antisemitism (eg Catholic Spain in XVIth centuty) and racial antisemitism (Nazism) are two different things (converts and new borns are safe).
Jews living in Pope's possesions were under Pope's personal protection while at the same time many bishops fanned the flames of antisemitism, often resulting in pogroms.
Spain expelled the Jews in 1492 or more exactly expelled those who didn't convert, and burned those who had falsely converted (BTW, the Catholic Church didn't burn people for being Jews or heretic but for the crime of falling a second time in "error" ie returning to their former religion after having embraced the Catholic faith)
But decades later people of Jwish ascendency were still getting to positions of prominence (eg Diego Lainez, cofounder and later General of the Jesuits). A century later, howere there are decrees of "cleanliness of blood" limiting employment for people who weren't "old Christians". In no small part because far too many converted Muslims had been found not only practcing Islam in secret but also starting murderous revolts and helping the Turks.
In France, there were many pogroms during the Medieval era but after that during centuries they had no special problems and then there is the affaire Dreyfus. But there were zero pogroms, and AFAIK no agressions against Jews. Notice, that the guy who "escape goated" Dreyfius was an Alsatian.
In Slavic countries, pogroms were frequent and a number of most atrocious massacres in WWII were made not by Germans but by local populations.
In Poland some of the most prominent savers of Jews during WWII were deeply antisemitic: they didn't like Jews, they wanted them out of Poland but they risked their lives for them.
Also Nazism was something special: while that when they had to count with local authorities they targetted the people of Jewish religion (ie for an idea you could renounce) when they had free hands they targetted the "race", ie for the crime of being born.
Oh, and while we are at it, I habe hard that in America the KKK often targetted Jews...
When the Democratic presidential candidates pause from beating Hillary with a stick, they join in unison to pronounce the Democratic pieties, chief among which is that George Bush has left our alliances in ruins. As Clinton puts it, we have "alienated our friends," must "rebuild our alliances" and "restore our standing in the world." That's mild. The others describe Bush as having a scorched-earth foreign policy that has left us reviled and isolated in the world.
Like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who insist that nothing of significance has changed in Iraq, the Democrats are living in what Bob Woodward would call a state of denial. Do they not notice anything?
France has a new president who is breaking not just with the anti-Americanism of the Chirac era but with 50 years of Fifth Republic orthodoxy that defined French greatness as operating in counterpoise to America. Nicolas Sarkozy's trip last week to the United States was marked by a highly successful White House visit and a rousing speech to Congress in which he not only called America "the greatest nation in the world" (how many leaders of any country say that about another?) but pledged solidarity with the U.S. on Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. This just a few months after he sent his foreign minister to Iraq to signal an openness to cooperation and an end to Chirac's reflexive obstructionism.
That's France. In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder is long gone, voted out of office and into a cozy retirement as Putin's concubine at Gazprom. His successor is the decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel, who concluded an unusually warm visit with Bush this week.
All this, beyond the ken of Democrats, is duly noted by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who in an interview with Sky News on Sunday noted "the great change that is taking place," namely "that France and Germany and the European Union are also moving more closely with America."
As for our other traditional alliances, relations with Australia are very close, and Canada has shown remarkable steadfastness in taking disproportionate casualties in supporting the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Eastern European nations, traditionally friendly, are taking considerable risks on behalf of their U.S. alliance -- for example, cooperating with us on missile defense in the face of enormous Russian pressure. And ties with Japan have never been stronger, with Tokyo increasingly undertaking military and quasi-military obligations that it had forsworn for the last half-century. So much for the disarray of our alliances.
The critics will say that all this is simply attributable to the rise of Russia and China causing old allies to turn back to us out of need. So? I would even add that the looming prospect of a nuclear Iran has caused Arab states -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, even Libya -- to rally to us. All true. And it makes the point that the Bush critics have missed for years -- that the strength of alliances is heavily dependent on the objective balance of international forces, and has very little to do with the syntax of the U.S. president or the disdain in which he might be held by a country's cultural elites.
It's classic balance-of-power theory: Weaker nations turn to the great outside power to help them balance a rising regional threat. Allies are not sentimental about their associations. It is not a matter of affection, but of need -- and of the great power's ability to deliver.
What's changed in the last year? Bush's dress and diction remain the same. But he did change generals -- and counterinsurgency strategy -- in Iraq. As a result, Iraq has gone from an apparently lost cause to a winnable one.
The rise of external threats to our allies has concentrated their minds on the need for the American connection. The revival of American fortunes in Iraq -- and the diminished prospect of an American rout -- have significantly increased the value of such a connection. This is particularly true among our moderate Arab allies who see us as their ultimate protection against an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis that openly threatens them all.
It's always uncomfortable for a small power to rely on a hegemon. But a hegemon on the run is even worse. Alliances are always shifting. But one thing we can say with certainty: The event that will have more effect than any other on the strength of our alliances worldwide is not another Karen Hughes outreach to the Muslim world, not an ostentatious embrace of Kyoto, or even the most abject embrace of internationalism from the podium of the UN. It is success or failure in Iraq.
#1
Such elitists only see and only care about the opinions of other elitists. So when they say the US is "reviled and isolated abroad", they mean by their peers in other nations.
Tit for tat, I suppose that EU elitists say that Germany and France are "reviled" by the United States, because mutts like Kerry, Kennedy, and Dennis Kucinich sneer at Merkel and Sarkozy, because of their conservative leanings.
US elitists the quote at length from the groveling leftist European press to "prove" their point, which is like Europeans could "prove" their point by quoting the Daily Kos and Moveon.org
#2
Compare wid OP-ED NEWS > THREE BIGGEST LIES YOU NEED TO KNOW. (1) Amer is the world's "leading democracy". Author says Amer goin downhill -USA is now a used-to-be/also-ran under Bush-Cheney + Patriot Act; (2) Free market/Capitalism solves everything. Author claims or implies USA > now has SOCIALISM-GOVTISM = WELFARISM-PROTECTIONISM? FOR THE RICH, SURVIAL OF THE FITTEST FOR EVERYONE ELSE??? Lastly, collectively, author seemingly implies Amer is NOT a free country nor a land of diversity-tolerance??? NO WORK ETHIC ANYMORE, ONLY NEPOTIST-SPECIAL INTEREST LAZINESS???
#3
Lots of people would like to think the U.S. is going downhill, or that the hill is really a valley. I'm sure Dr. Krauthammer would have a diagnosis for their mental condition.
One notices odd things when in Iraq about the American political situation back home:
1. Iraqis associate cynicism, even anti-Arabism not with hard-nosed Republicans, but with liberal, supposedly idealistic Democratic liberals, whose serial trashing of them is constantly aired in Iraq;
2. that the Democrats are serving, rightly or wrongly, as sorts of useful idiots in being referenced as a valuable "bad cop" foil to warn the Iraqis to speed it up, lest the domestic forces they fear all too well will cut off funds;
3. invested as it is in the defeat of the US, the leftist base won't let Democrats get out on front of the changing battlefield in Iraq: the result is a "reform" team of brilliant officers in Iraq who are winning the war, and whose commander the Democrats gratuitously trashed rather than claimed credit for by demanding changes in policy. Before they once claimed they wanted changes at DOD and Centcom to shake things up; they got their wish; and now turned on their once favorites like Petraeus-while giving Republicans sole stewardship for the changed and improving circumstances of the war.
4. The result: if the Democrats don't wise up, its leadership will have done the impossible. As bad cops they alienate the Iraqis and make the Republicans look statesmanlike while giving them leverage in pressuring the government to make changes (e.g., Look you sheiks! it's us-or the unhinged Harry Reid); and two, leave a loud trail of defeatism that somehow amplifies in direct proportion to improved news from Iraq.
In short, their loud cut-offs and timetable talk will strengthen our poker hand in Iraq while earning Democrats the charge of fickleness and cynical illiberality; they shunned natural allies like the PhD Petraeus, and his sophisticated highly educated colonels, whom they once in 2004 in fact claimed needed to be listened to; and will now have their clips played all during summer 2008 as defeatists even as the news from the front continues to improve.
It's like watching Oedipus Rex around line 700-a tragedy that cannot be averted given it was someday inevitable once they mortgaged the party to fringe extremism.
#1
Iraqis associate cynicism, even anti-Arabism not with hard-nosed Republicans, but with liberal, supposedly idealistic Democratic liberals, whose serial trashing of them is constantly aired in Iraq;
If the Iraqis are able to realize this, how is it that so much of the American public cannot see through the political farce that is the democratic party?
a tragedy that cannot be averted given it was someday inevitable once they mortgaged the party to fringe extremism.
Testimony to a rather stark contrast between the republican party's Christian moral bedrock as opposed to how the democrats' base of untethered liberal fanatics are almost totally without any anchor points. Nebulous liberal platforms like Political Correctness and Multiculturalism are but smokscreens for far more deadly agendas, much of them socialistic in nature.
#2
Further, it is hard to imagine that many of the Republican military who went to Iraq have seen reason to change whereas it is hard to believe most of the Democrat military have not considered it. The military, particularly the professional lifers, must be as one party oriented as ever they have been.
It is just hard to believe that a national party would go so far to alienate the military it hopes to command in the future. But they've done it in spades.
#3
The Democrats lost their honor around the time of the 1968 Democratic national convention when the precursors to the Kos kiddies took control. Since that time progress has occurred in America in spite of their efforts.
Today their main function is to act as the mote of dust at the center of the giant oyster, America.
Today, I put a note on a bomb. To be specific, I took a jet black marking pen and inscribed a 500-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition — JDAM, in the jargon.
Perhaps putting a note on a bomb strikes some as either romantic, foolish or vicious — or a combination of the three. The act certainly has shades, colors and dollops of all these characteristics, and a harsh dash of steeling sentimentalism. These are the predictable psycho-babble carps. But let's get to the tacks: In my case, the act is motivated by a megaton of deserved anger. . . .
Hit the link, and read the whole thing. The punchline is great.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/16/2007 12:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Osama's bid has gone belly up, and Iraq is the battlefield that killed it" > I must disagree. Again, the Osama I know desires and believes that any Islamic = Islamist "Apocalypse", espec vv USA-West versus Iran-World Islam, will and MUST BE FOUGHT IN IRAN. TO THAT END, I am certain that Osama will consider and resort iff need be to any and all "AMER HIROSHIMA" options, including inducing ANTI-US GREAT POWER MILITARY CONFRONTATIONS [Mutual Destruction] ala Radical Mullahs. OSAMA > A "LULL" IN FIGHTING DOTH NOT MEAN DEFEAT OR PEACE. World Islam/Islamism will live or die after its victory/defeat in the Iranian Apocalypse, NOT before.
We live in an age of documents. There are no more secrets, only deferred disclosures. Saddam Hussein's secret documents are measured by the shelf-mile and stored inside a secure but dusty facility near U.S. Central Command Headquarters in Doha, Qatar, and in several subsidiary sites. Armed guards protect the unread dossiers. Three shifts of two hundred translators each work around the clock. Perhaps 5% of these captured documents have been studied so far, but their contents are about to shatter much of the conventional wisdom concerning Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
The absolutists on either side of the WMD debate will be more than a bit chagrinned at the disclosures. The documents show a much more complex history than previously suspected. The "Bush lied, people died" chorus has insisted that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever after 1991 - and thus that WMD was no good reason for the war. The Neocon diehards insist that, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the treasure-trove is still out there somewhere, buried under the sand dunes of Iraq.[1] Each side is more than a little bit wrong about Saddam's WMD, and each side is only a little bit right about what happened to it.
The gist of the new evidence is this: roughly one quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990's. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990's. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003, but were stolen from under the AmericansÂ’ noses and sent to Syria. Syria is one of eight countries in the world that never signed a treaty banning WMD, and now is the storehouse for much of what remains of Saddam's WMD Empire. This was the target of the recent Israeli air strike.
There are only a few people in the world who were close to being right all along about Saddam's WMD. One of them was Yossef Bodansky, a noted intelligence analyst and former director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.[2] On page 496 of BodanskyÂ’s book, "The Secret History of the Iraq War" he makes the astounding assertion that:
".. .The United States had long known that Saddam moved virtually all production capabilities to Libya and Sudan somewhere between 1996 and 1998. Subsequently, in the summer of 2002, with Tehran's consent, the residual chemical weapons production capabilities were shipped to Iran..."[3]
In other words, is Bodansky is right (and he usually is) as late as 2002, Saddam still retained a CW production capability and then sold it to the Iranians on the eve of war.[4] The CIA has now acknowledged that they had a highly-placed spy in Saddam's cabinet who agreed that Saddam had gotten rid of all of his production facilities, but the super spy claimed that Saddam still retained a lethal stockpile of finished chemical weapons in early 2003. The latter information, about the remaining CW stockpile, turns out to have been incorrect, but neither the CIA nor their Iraqi super spy knew it at the time.[5]
After Saddam's brother-in-law Kemal Hussein defected to Jordan in the mid 1990's and exposed some (but not all) of the numerous Iraqi WMD programs, Saddam started over from scratch on WMD production, using a small and secret cadre of new program leaders. Among the newly-disclosed documents are Saddam's actual tape recordings of the meetings of this special group for WMD.
The National Security Agency has confirmed[6] that the tapes are authentic and that the voiceprints are unquestionably those of Saddam and his elite WMD advisers. The CIA's super-spy, excluded from this working group, apparently did not know that it even existed. (His voice appears nowhere on the tapes.) He simply could not have known what Saddam was doing with his WMD programs, let alone with his CW stockpile.[7]
Most of the audio recordings of the secret WMD group are undated, as the CD on which they were found is a compilation of tapes of various WMD meetings stretching over a decade. But their tone is consistent not only with other recorded WMD meetings but with the newly-released document intelligence archives, many of which are revealed here for the first time through the assistance of author and geopolitical analyst Mr. Ryan Mauro.[8] Mauro cautions that "the recently declassified documents have the potential to shatter any conclusions or judgments about what Saddam Hussein's regime was up to. Until all these documents are translated and analyzed, it is premature to reach any conclusion."
Translating shelf miles of documents, however, may take decades. In the meantime, enough of Saddam's secret files have been translated to illustrate one clear trend over time: through the time of Hans Blix and the run-up to the invasion, Saddam had absolutely no intention of destroying his WMD.
In the last year of his regime, Saddam was in fact still trying to expand his chemical weapons capability. In January 2002, his advisors discussed research into a precursor for Sarin nerve gas.[9] In September 2002, for example, only seven months before the war, Saddam's Military Industrial Commission approved the illegal production of the precursor chemicals used to make Tabun nerve gas.[10] Four days later, another office discussed plans to import a banned compound, phosphorus pentasulfate. The UN had required Iraq to prove that it had destroyed all of its stocks of this chemical, which is a precursor for VX nerve gas. Instead, they were importing more of it.[11] In October 2002, Saddam's Director of Planning ordered more than forty tons of various chemicals which, when mixed together, would make Zyclon B – the poison gas used by the Nazis to kill millions of Jews during the Holocaust.[12] Saddam's scientists appear never to have met a poison gas they did not like.
The secret planning for banned chemical weapons in 2002 was no last-minute decision of desperation on the eve of war. Rather, it typified Saddam's long, well-thought-out plan to deceive the UN – an ongoing project that went back more than a decade. For example, Saddam's intelligence service sent out a memo in 1997 ordering his staff not to destroy any WMD but to conceal prohibited materials, "hide equipment and documents....make sure that labs are cleaned of any traces of chemical or biological substances."[13] That was the real Saddam: hide the WMD documents, clean up the tell-tale evidence.
Beginning in 1998, Saddam’s staff went into overdrive to conceal their illegal WMD programs: "The researchers [sic] that cannot be declared and that is related with the previous prohibited programs of WMD and how to make sure that information about these researchers will not leak to the outside world."[14] Files from 1999, marked “Top Secret”, confirm that the Iraqi army had a "chemical platoon" that was undergoing training in every form of illegal chemical weapons.[15] By 2001, the regime ensured that their chemical platoons had mobile shower vehicles for decontamination.[16] Similarly, the production of mobile labs (which the Duelfer report concluded had ended in 1997) were still being manufactured in 2002.[17] Rest at link.
#1
"The gist of the new evidence is this: roughly one quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990's. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990's. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003, but were stolen from under the AmericansÂ’ noses and sent to Syria... This was the target of the recent Israeli air strike."
Interesting.
"Three shifts of two hundred translators each work around the clock."
I'm wondering if we don't have better uses for 200 translators.
#2
That's me. Lost my cookies. Anyway, another installment of the never ending the saga of the chem/bio/nuc weapons. Look for the next chapter at an airport or stadium near you.
Syria is one of eight countries in the world that never signed a treaty banning WMD, and now is the storehouse for much of what remains of Saddam's WMD Empire. This was the target of the recent Israeli air strike.
Posted by: ed ||
11/16/2007 9:29 Comments ||
Top||
"Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent."
Even the 'degraded' military sarin would have been far more lethal than the home brewed stuff put together and released in the Tokyo subway system. Anyone care to have it stored in their basement? Their neighborhood? Their city while it awaits destruction? Care to be downwind when it is?
#6
Whenever people say "Bush lied, people died! There were no WMD's. We never should have gone into Iraq", I always ask them how long BEFORE the invasion of Iraq did you realize that there were no WMD's? Saddam was required by the cease fire agreement and UN resolutions to account for and destroy all of the WMD's. The UN resolutions did not say that he could play hide and seek with them, and if the UN inspectors couldn't find them, they didn't exist. The resolutions said that Saddam was to account for them. We knew he had them before, since he used them on the Kurds. We didn't know what happened to them. Therefore we were justified in going in to find and remove them. Because we fiddled around trying to get UN approval, Saddam had the time to hide the WMD's and ship them to other countries.
#7
According to the Doeffler (?) report, which I read the summary, even Uday and Kusay thought Daddy had WMD's, which they wanted to use on the advancing American troops.
Or did I just dream that?
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/16/2007 17:21 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"Sold another quarter to his Arab neighbors" > Lest we fergit, the Russians themselves publicly claimed that Saddam gave a large quantity of his WMD caches to his former enemy IRAN. They believed the caches were mostly BW + CW [are still "WMDS"], but the Russ could not confirm or deny Radiologicals/NucMats were also given to Iran or other. TRUCKS WERE OBSERVED GOING OVER IRAN BORDER AREAS, WHILE AIR TRANSPORT PLANES ROUTED THRU TEHRAN OR OTHER IRAN PORTS/BASES.
The establishment media is seemingly obsessed with “grim milestones” in the War on Terror, as the Associated Press reminds us this past weekend. But in the next week those same establishment media outlets will probably stand mute when yet another “grim milestone” is reached – the10,000th attack by Islamic terrorists and militants since 9/11, which is responsible for approximately 60,000 dead and 90,000 injured.
The chronicler of this bloody tally is Glen Reinsford, editor of TheReligionofPeace.com, who began compiling and updating daily a detailed list of reported incidents of violence and terrorism around the world targeting non-Muslims and Muslims alike. Because of space limitations he only posts the past two months worth of attacks on his websites main page, though he has archived all of the incidents from past years (2001-2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007). He also maintains a banner graphic with the updated number of attacks, which people can post on their own websites.
When asked what prompted him to begin such a labor-intensive undertaking, Reinsford identifies the tepid response to Islamic terrorism by otherwise outspoken Muslim groups, with one organization particularly in mind:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations. After 9/11, I kept an eye on them and was quite disgusted by their lack of moral perspective. They complain about issues that affect Muslims which are quite trivial, on average, compared to what is happening in the name of their religion. They do occasionally denounce terror in a general, somewhat ambiguous, sense but there is an obvious lack of passion. Their real interest is themselves.
Reviewing the list of recent incidents, it is surprising how many “smaller” attacks occur daily, which the establishment media pass with only a casual mention. While high profile attacks, like the one last week in Baghlan Province, Afghanistan that killed 75 and wounded at least 100 (many of them school children), receive plenty of attention, smaller incidents, such as the attack last week on a hotel in Baramulla, India that killed one, rarely register with the Western media. Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
11/16/2007 11:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
I regularly have occasion to drive on MadisonÂ’s isthmus, which is home to the worst liberal bumper stickers on the planet. Below, I have listed the top ten most egregious. I originally planned on ranking them from least to most obnoxious, but that was simply too difficult. Therefore, we have a ten-way tie for the title of Most Obnoxious Bumper Stickers I Have Seen In Madison.
Hit the link for the list of winners--oops, I mean losers--er, that is, things that appear on cars driven by losers.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/16/2007 12:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I saw one the other day that was new to me: nestled between an "Obama '08" and "Deval Patrick" (aka Gov. Zero) was this pathetic lament: "I miss Bill".
#2
Hah!
The one here in Kansas is, "Kansas, as bigoted as you think." (a play off of our traditionally aweful state promotion office of 'Kansas, as big as you think.').
This is seen all over east blue Kansas, Lawrence liberals in particular. Not only is it a pale 'sunflower' yellow with turd brown lettering gawd aweful ugly, but what does it mean? Me, I don't think the west part of the state is as bigoted as assumed (I'll get back to this). Dodge City has an incredibly diverse ethnic community which interacts quite well. In fact more cosmopolitan than Lawrence IMO for the simple fact it is not a white majority and has a large percentage of asians (at one point Vietnamese in particular now Chinese with some Thai) along with Mexicans. Downtown Lawrence is nearly all white shoppers - I would say a very segregated community (you have your white bars, black bars, native american hangouts - overall not much interaction. In Dodge City there are bars where everyone goes to. It may be out of necessity because of a general lack of bars to go to, but everyone more or less gets along for a place with the reputation Dodge City has).
The fact is in these smaller communities we work together on a more personal level if for any reason at all because if we do not, nothing would get done. West Kansas people like to work as a general rule so we get to know each other. Inevitably we end up playing together as well - Dodge City days and Rodeo are great examples of this. Lawrence is very segregated when it comes to public hangout places.
If I were to strike up a conversation with said sticker protester I explained that concept, as I have with my liberal friends, I am told that I am wrong and that is not what the bumper sticker means. Really I ask? Well what it means is that my interpretation is different from theirs so I am wrong. So who is the bigot?
Besides, it is a butt ugly bumper sticker, usually next to a faded Kerry/Edwards '04, on a piece of shit car so undermaintenanced it is easier to breathe the feedlots of Dodge than get stuck behind one of those sticker sporting fools.
#3
I knew some wits who discovered that you can buy blank bumper stickers, then sketch your own message. They put such handmade bumper stickers on the cars of Moonbats, and get all kinds of evil glee from them.
The all time #1 bumper sticker, the nuclear weapon of bumper stickers, is simply "NAMBLA"
(They said that a car with a NAMBLA bumper sticker may either get rear-ended or pulled over by a cop red-eyed with rage. So they reserve it only for really nasty Moonbats.)
#2, in California, is actually illegal. It says: "Homosexuality Is A Hate Crime". This is hilarious, because *saying* that homosexuality is a hate crime, in California, may actually *be* a "hate crime". This could ruin a Moonbat, even if he denies that it is his bumper sticker on his car.
Others are dependent on where you live. Everything from "Wetbacks GO HOME", "Driver Is Armed", "Allah Akbar", "Zionists Against Palestine" (with a star of David, natch), "Mission Accomplished (with American flag)", "Legalize Meth", "Hitler Was Right", etc.
#8
"The South Shall Fall Again" can cause problems anywhere south of the Mason Dixon line...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
11/16/2007 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
#9
One of our neighbors bought the make your own bumper sticker and drew a great picture of high voltage lines running from a nuclear plant with the slogan
#10
I agreed with everything the guy said until he started picking on Peace through Music. I believe in peace through music. Music is a civilized endeavor, like art. If people play music and find out how much fun it is they might realize they have better things to do than killing or being killed. It might help some of these frustrated, angst ridden types meet girls too which might also help them to understand they have better things to do than attempting to conquer other countries. Hope I don't sound like a draft dodger for saying so. I understand that sometimes we need to defend ourselves. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other things that are more fun.
#12
Ebbang Uluque6305: Peace through music is laudable, but if you think about it, many of those we are fighting *hate* music. They say it is inherently evil, a tool of Satan, a corrupter of youth, and a western invention. If they see a musician, they will want to kill him.
Peace, in those circumstances, can only come when such people are either powerless or dead.
#13
EU 6305 / Moose: I've always thought that if you hated music (aside from swing and jazz, perhaps the two most pretentious forms of music yet to be created), then I've always thought something was seriously wrong with you. If you can persuade them, all the better. But like Moose kinda sez, some types are beyond persuasion. Fuck them.
#16
Swing is for dancing to, jazz... which style did you have in mind? Jazz is for dancing, for singing, for playing... There are those who do it pretentiously, I suppose, but it's not inherent in the music.
In order to have socialism in America, the system has to crash and burn and be rebuilt. Beyond the great Depression and the New Deal. It calls for an entire restructuring of how things work in this country.
OR, you could just go live somewhere else. Their montra is 'I'm not winning, so I'm whining.'
#2
100 million dead in the 20th century and historians are still doing the accounting. You know if you pause for a moment and 'think', it may imply that there is something fundamentally flawed with the concept. However, there are quaint eccentric people who still believe in reviving monarchies and slavery too, none of whom get tenured chairs at "institutions of higher learning".
#3
Tickets get your tickets, north korea is modern socialism in action, it has need,s which all the modern socialists thinkers here should lend immediate support, rally round one of thier own. Why not introduce legislation to export our socialist talent to help those of like mind? Free tickets and extended visas, 20 years should do it, i'd consider it as a humanitarian effort to augment our state departments previous attempts to augment the north.
There is obviously a talent gap in north korea, where all the high bandwidth, US socialists could step in to fill. This action and the results of their applied industry, could be the true test case for determining fitness to contribute solutions elsewhere in the world. Test and verify, north Korea would seem like a paradise, its foundation is set, let the geniuses go in and move it forward.......
others like china, found solutions elsewhere, but that is just them. lets empty our universities, and allow all of our geniuses to apply their talents to purpose.
#4
There is obviously a talent gap in north korea, where all the high bandwidth, US socialists could step in to fill.
Great point, Spiny GI. These DUers should offer the DPRK their experience in womyn's studies, interpretive dance and street protest puppetry. Sadly, even these skill sets might increase the DPRK's productivity.
#5
Should be mandatory. If it doesn't work out, the NorKs will have a new well fed food source.
Posted by: ed ||
11/16/2007 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If he thinks he's the only DUer who sees socialism as the only viable future, then he either has some kind of attention defeceit thing or he's a friggin moron...
#7
DUer sees socialism as "the only viable alternative."
Sun rises in east.
Water flows downhill.
Dogs bark.
Salmon swin upstream to spawn.
The physical universe has three dimensions.
I could go on, but I think the point is made.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/16/2007 12:42 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Socialism has so far failed miserably every time it has been attempted. What Socialism really needs is purity. The good socialists in the US should move to Europe (Sweden perhaps) and the nasty capitalists in the chosen nation should come to the USA. Lets give socialism and capitalism a real chance without the stab-in the back nonsense we've seen all the time.
Come on socialist, make it work, vote with your feet. Prove the capitalists wrong. Besides, Sweden is peaceful and the babes are hot. Move.
#10
"System has to crash, burn, and be rebuilt" > Mainstream Amers "choice" is between UNILATERAL = VOLUNTARY US SURRENDER-APPEASEMENT, versus
"WAR IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT DESIRED" anti-US War + Mutual Destruction, ala Russia-China etc. and Year 2015-2020??? The good news is that PLanet X will start showing itself come 2009, and a large comet will knock the earth of its orbit after 2012, 2012 "Global Quake" or "Quake heard/felt 'round the World", to save the Earth from our Sun, Moon and 2030, ......@etal. IFF SWEDEN WANTS TO DEVOLVE FROM HOT BIKINI BABES TO A GLORIFIED WENDY'S "VERY NICE" COLD WAR COMMERCIAL, WHO ARE AMERS TO STOP THE SWEDES???
D *** NGED PICARD/NEXUS, WHERES A SUN-DESTROYING MISSLE WHEN YOU WANT ONE???
Interesting Interview with Kurt Loder
[WeeklyStandard] Just posted at Reason magazine's new reason.tv is a segment with Kurt Loder, who was once the editor of Rolling Stone and has been a news anchor at MTV for as long as I can remember. He is also a veteran of the Army. In the course of a discussion with Reason editor Nick Gillespie on "technology and freedom," Loder brings up the New Republic's Baghdad Diarist:
"Blogging and the internet has changed that entirely, it's broken up the monopoly on information. Just for one example, the Baghdad Diarist at the New Republic, which was a total fraud, was exposed by military bloggers, who came out and said this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, this is a lie, it's a smear on all soldiers. That wouldn't have happened 20 years ago."
The Beauchamp bit comes at about six and a half minutes into the video. Look for the editors at the New Republic to denounce Loder as just another in a long line of "ideologically motivated" critics.
#1
Look for the editors at the New Republic to denounce Loder as just another in a long line of "ideologically motivated" critics.
That would be a crock. I've always thought of Loder as a member of the Left; I suppose the editor stint at Rolling Stone means he's a Rupert Murdoch foot soldier...
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.
