September 2004

September 29, 2004

Support Your Local Veteran

Fewer than two-thirds of the former soldiers being reactivated for duty in Iraq and elsewhere have reported on time, prompting the Army to threaten some with punishment for desertion.

The former soldiers, part of what is known as the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), are being recalled to fill shortages in skills needed for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another indication of soldiers' reluctance to fight an immoral war is offered by the Center on Conscience & War:

After September 11, our organization was getting about one or two calls a week. Now, it's closer to two or three a day. One guy said: "I was pulling the trigger of my weapon and praying to God that I would miss, and I can't do it anymore." Another guy who was in Iraq said his commander ordered him to hold his boot over the head of a two-month-old baby to force his parents to talk.

Not only, "So much for Donald H. Rumsfeld's 21st Century military." But also, as this blogger has noted over and over, so much for, "With us or with the terrorists." So much for "Good v. Evil". So much for, "This generation's World War II." Nobody -- least of all those being compelled to kill, torture, and terrorise in your name; to be shot at, despised, and exposed to your radiological munitions -- wants your execrable wars, George; save for a very few fat-assed, uneducated, white, male, pseudo-religious, chicken-hawks incestuously connected with the oil and weapons industries. So go fuck yourself off, already. Or take your fucking circle-jerk "friends" and "advisers" and go live on the fucking moon. Anything. Just get your fucking Big Brother Government out of our fucking lives. Okay? (No, that's not an endorsement of John Kerry.)

"The numbers did not look good," said Lt. Col. Burton Masters, a spokesman for the Army's Human Resources Command. "We are tightening the system, reaching the people and bringing them in."

Democracy, or slavery? You decide!

Masters said most of the requests for exemptions are likely to be denied: "To get an exemption, it has to be a very compelling case, such as a severe medical condition."

But don't hold your breath, there, soldier: if a partially deaf 57-year-old with skin cancer and high blood pressure isn't quite compelling enough, then...well, you do the math.

Several of those who received recall notices have already been declared AWOL [Absent Without Official Leave] and technically are considered deserters. "We are not in a rush to put someone in the AWOL category," Masters said. "We contact them and convince them it is in their best interests to show up. If you are a deserter, it can affect you the rest of your life."

But of course some deserters can become President of these United States. It all kinda depends upon who you know.

...their names will be entered into a national criminal investigation database, and they could be arrested if, for example, they are stopped by a police officer for a routine traffic violation, Collins said.

Why not just ship them off to Guantanamo straight away? I mean, that's how fucking grateful they are, right?

"I expect a small percent to be approved for exemption. The cases are so varied. You've got medical. You've got financial hardship. You've got sole caretaker for children or parents."

Well, it's good to know the "family values" crowd still values families. Or something. But, hey, at least we can kill two birds with one stone: send those fucking welfare mothers to a place where they can actually do some good for a change, and let their kids starve to death so as we won't have to worry about them anymore. Works for me!

September 26, 2004

Is one of these groups of people what the Pentagon terms "anti-Iraqi forces"? Is one of these groups of people "planning and conducting anti-Iraqi activities"?

September 22, 2004

The Wacky World Of George Dubya

Bush vs. Bush
"I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence, and the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence." -- July 15, 2003

"The CIA laid out several scenarios. It said that life could be lousy, life could be okay, life could be better. And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like." -- September 21, 2004

"Listen, people join terrorist organizations because there's no hope and there's no chance to raise their families in a peaceful world where there is not freedom. And so the idea is to promote freedom..." -- June 24, 2004

Bush sketched a stark, almost apocalyptical view of the world, a battle between good and evil that will end only in the destruction of terrorists. He suggested terrorist attacks are not rooted in any cause or grievance... -- September 22, 2004

Fun With Language
...dignity is dishonored by oppression, corruption, tyranny, bigotry, terrorism, and all violence against the innocent. ... We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace. ... In this young century, our world needs a new definition of "security". Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind.

While we're at it, how about a new definition of "oppression, corruption, tyranny, bigotry, terrorism, and all violence against the innocent" which precludes us and our self-defined friends from committing such acts?

How about a new definition of "strive to resolve differences in peace" which includes spending more money on the military that the rest of the world combined, bombing a new Third World country to shreds every couple of years, arming and supporting military dictators, thumbing one's nose at multilateral institutions and abandoning treaty obligations, fantasising mortal threats out of mid-air, fabricating evidence and forging documents, dismissing overwhelming popular opinion as the natterings of an uninformed "focus group", etc.?

How about a new definition of "advancing rights of mankind" to include invading and occupying other countries, imprisoning and torturing their citizens, shutting down their media outlets, re-writing their economic laws, hand-picking their governments, blowing up homes, poisoning their environments with radioactive munitions, etc.?

The dictator agreed in 1991, as a condition of a cease-fire, to fully comply with all Security Council resolutions -- then ignored more than a decade of those resolutions. Finally, the Security Council promised serious consequences for his defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say "serious consequences", for the sake of peace, there must be serious consequences.

And when we say "ignored", we mean "complied with". And when we say "defiance", we mean "cooperation". And when we say "commitments", we mean, "It doesn't matter how many hoops you jump through, we're taking your fucking oil, bitch."

September 19, 2004

Fuck "Liberation"

The marines are "disillusioned".

"We're out here giving our lives for these people," said Sgt. Jesse Jordan, 25, of Grove Hill, Ala. "You'd think they'd show some gratitude. Instead, they don't seem to care."

Gee, wonder if that has anything to do with

Meanwhile, U.S. warplanes unleashed missiles on a main street in the center of Fallujah late Saturday, killing two people and wounding four, said Dr. Rafea Heyad of the Fallujah General Hospital.

Or maybe it has something to do with

The residents of Fazat Shnetir were later seen digging mass graves to bury the bodies in groups of four. A health ministry spokesman, Saad al-Amili, said that 44 people were killed and 27 injured in the Fallujah attacks with 17 children and two women among the wounded. The floor of the Fallujah hospital was awash with blood. Relatives cried out with grief and called for vengeance.

Oh, well. No matter: "We're not taking any chances: Shoot first and ask questions later." Well, that oughta make the ingrates feel better about their "liberators".

A few months ago, this blogger ridiculed Brig. General Mark Kimmit's admonition to "every person in this country" to begin "understanding their responsibility to provide us intelligence on those people in their neighborhoods who they believe to be participating in these attacks."

Their failure to "understand" their sacred duty to aid in their own betrayal is also a sore spot among the Marines:

Along with the heavy toll, the Marines cite other sources of frustration. High among them is the scarcity of tips from Iraqis on the locations of the roadside bombs that kill and maim Marines, even though the explosives frequently are placed in well-trafficked areas where bomb teams probably would be observed.

Can't say we didn't warn them. But interesting, isn't it, that by the evidence of the Marines themselves; the "dead-enders", "foreign terrorists", and "former regime elements" which comprise the Resistance encompass (if we include its support network) essentially "every person in this country"?

It's all good, though. We'll bring democracy to the A-rabs even if it means shooting them all dead and, uh, "asking questions" later.

September 13, 2004

The War Is Over

Another ominous sign is the growing number of towns that U.S. troops simply avoid. A senior Defense official objects to calling them "no-go areas". "We could go into them any time we wanted," he argues. The preferred term is "insurgent enclaves". They're spreading.

All right. So the "Multinational Force" "could go into" the "enclaves" from which the "insurgents" and "terrorists" operate "any time we wanted". That it doesn't go into them means, apparently, that it doesn't want to do.

In other words, it is (to use its own logic) "soft on terror". Or, the "senior Defense official" is lying.

Most likely the latter.

The Bush Administration would surely love to flatten the entire Sunni Triangle to smithereens with a series of 9-million-pound bombs (or whatever their maximum-bomb-tonnage is these days) -- but it fears the global outrage that would ensue. That's what we did in Korea and Vietnam, and nobody said a word. But times have, alas, changed. (Not that carpet bombing was able to win those wars, anyway....)

A Fallujah- or Najaf-style siege would result in not only significant American casualties, but more PR headaches. The Bush Administration has already announced that it's not willing to risk such a maneuver before the election.

The Bush Administration would surely love to expedite the "Iraqization" process, but acknowledges that its puppet military force is nowhere near ready to take on the Resistance without the help of the American military (not to mention that most of those recruited into the puppet force are unwilling to fire on their countrymen).

The Bush Administration probably wouldn't even mind leaving the "enclaves" to the "insurgents" to do in as they please -- so long as they would leave the oil pipelines alone. But they're not leaving the oil pipelines alone.

So, again we say: the war is over. The Bush Administration has lost. The only thing it can do now is bring more death and destruction.

Or get the fuck out, apologise, and pay reparations.

September 10, 2004

Rumsfeld Back In Midseason Form

"And my guess is they [the Iraqi Resistance] see they're losing. Does that mean that the pain is going to go down? Not necessarily. It may mean that it'll go up."

Attaboy, Donald H.!

While it's difficult to say for sure what the Resistance sees (although at least one site dedicated to the Resistance "sees" lots and lots of dead American soldiers and destroyed American military craft), we can be sure that the "Multinational Force" sees a "jump in attacks", increasing numbers of soldiers both killed and wounded, and an ever-increasing proportion of Iraqi real estate off-limits to both the "Multinational Force" and the fledgling Vichy police force.

September 07, 2004

Attack of the Killer Drones

Remember that really funny story about Iraqi drone aircraft flying 6000 miles to drop chemical and biological weapons on U.S. cities? The one that sounds like it came straight from the pages of a Saddam Hussein novel? The claim President Bush actually made at his October 2002 Cincinnati speech?

Well, that was bullshit, too. On page A28 of the Sunday Post:

The United Nations' chief weapons inspector has concluded there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein's government ever developed unpiloted drones capable of dispersing chemical and biological weapons agents on enemy targets.

September 02, 2004

Threat-O-Meter Update

The United States has condemned Iran as a threat to global peace with its plans to process 37 tonnes of raw uranium, which one nuclear expert says could eventually yield material for five atomic bombs.

So, let's update our threat stats.

Nuclear Weapons "Stockpile":
Iran -- 5 (pending)
USA -- 10,455

Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted:
Iran -- 0
USA -- 1,054

"Useable" Nuclear Weapons Programme?
Iran -- No
USA -- Yes

Used Nuclear Weapons in Combat?
Iran -- No
USA -- Yes (additionally, uses Depleted and/or non-Depleted Uranium munitions in combat)

Regularly Uses other Banned Weapons in Combat?
Iran -- No
USA -- Yes

Nuclear "Posture":
Iran -- "Tehran insists the only purpose of its nuclear programme is the peaceful generation of electricity."
USA -- "Nuclear weapons play a critical role in the defense [sic] capabilities of the United States, its allies, and friends. They provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats [sic], including WMD and large-scale conventional military force. These nuclear capabilities possess unique properties that give the United States options to hold at risk classes of targets [that are] important to achieve strategic and political objectives."

Major Military "Interventions", January 2001 - Present:
Iran -- 0
USA -- 2 (does not include Colombia, Venezuela, Haiti, Philippines)

Major Military "Interventions", August 1945 - Present:
Iran -- 0
USA -- 8 (Depending upon one's definition of "major". Let's call it: Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq.)

Major and Minor Military "Interventions", August 1945 - Present:
Iran -- 0 (including 0 against USA)
USA -- 74, give or take (including 5 against Iran)

People Killed in Military "Interventions", August 1945 - Present:
Iran -- 0
USA -- Several millions

Fiscal 2004 Military Expenditures:
Iran -- $4.8 Billion (2001 funding)
USA -- $399.1 Billion (depending upon how you're counting)

Foreign Military Bases:
Iran -- 0
USA -- 58 countries

"Axis of Evil" Shit-List?
Iran -- No (USA is not on list)
USA -- Yes (Iran is on list)

We will update these stats as events require.