 |
| Blog |
 |
| Archive |
|
|
|
|
| Blog |
| To find an archived article, simply click on Index and scroll the subject titles, or do a Ctrl-F search |
|
|
| Blog |
|
|
| Archive |
|
|
|
|
| Blog |
| To find an archived article, simply click on Index and scroll the subject titles, or do a Ctrl-F search |
| LETTERS TO/ABOUT THE TALLRITE BLOG Write to blog@tallrite.com |
||
|
Re : Nine-Eleven Remembered With Hatred The pictures of the people trapped on
the top of the WTC are disturbing. By that I mean, I stare at them with a
morbid fascination but never really understand what it must be like.
I accept that it happened but do not quite believe it. 
| how many people, innocent or otherwise, have died in the American response, the so-called "war on terror" | |
how many more people will die? Islamic militancy is on the rise faster than ever. The US has flouted international law and made the UN irrelevant. They are riding the whirlwind. Where will it all end? |
|
how many people have died in the numerous little dirty wars in the previous American campaign against communism? Sept 11, 1973 is a good example. I once flew over Angola, concious of the dirty war in progress below. One town below was named Huambe. Has anyone ever heard of Huambe? This was a proxy war fought on behalf of the Super Powers and people were dying in the millions. |
Lest people forget, history has a strange way of repeating itself but in reverse. In the early days, Christians were persecuted and in time they became the Persecutors. Jews were slaughtered wholesale by the Nazis but only 50 years later it is hard not to see Nazi tendencies in the government of Ariel Sharon.
In time, the US will not be quite so powerful. What will happen then? What of the Geneva Convention and International Law then? Their tanks and planes won't run without oil. Was that what Iraq was really about?
Maybe that fateful day is sooner than you think.
Joseph
Re : Violent Religions
Tell me, Tony, are they really still teaching this stuff in Sunday school in Dublin? 'Cause over here in the U.S., we generally get a substantially less provocative (and more accurate) version. (Psssst! The Romans did it!)
You wrote:
<quote>Judaism is thousands of years older than Christianity, and when the Jew Jesus Christ appeared on the scene, it was a pretty brutal faith that didn't hesitate to torture him to death for disobeying its rules.</quote>
All sarcasm aside, I'd really be
interested in what led you to write that
sentence and whether you really believe it. Because that particular
notion, while historically just plain wrong, has gotten an awful lot of
people brutally killed over the centuries.
Lynn, USA
She is also a blogger; check her out at incontext.blogmosis.com
Response :
Lynn is correct that it was the Romans not the Jews who carried out the crucifixion, on the orders of a reluctant Pontius Pilate. He was acceding to the demands of the Jewish High Priests and mob.
Does this make the Judaism of the day less bloodthirsty? Hardly. Only Roman Law prevented them from doing the job themselves. And there are plenty of other examples of Jewish bloodthirstiness in the Old Testament.
The point of mentioning it, and Christian bloodthirstiness, is to show how this behaviour no longer has any place in the respective religions. Islam has yet to reach that sublime state.
My error was due to a bit of editorial sloppiness and I've therefore corrected the sentence to read, “it was a pretty brutal faith that didn't hesitate to get the Romans to torture him to death for disobeying its rules.”T o n y
Re : The Public Bullying of David Kelly
I don't agree that David Kelly is “poor man”. Why are you propagating so surely that he committed suicide? It's a shame a country that had world wide idols as Sherlock Holmes, writers as Edgar Wallace, Agatha Christie....and Scotland Yard, make such a haste judgment. on an improbable policial (or I would say political) occurrence.
It's Blair spirit riding again: “If
it's not complete, if it's not
sure ... let's bluff AND afterwards copy Hitler politics of 'fait
accompli'”
David Kelly it's another Iraqi revisited.
Marcus, Brazil
Although the circumstantial evidence of suicide is pretty convincing (slashed wrist, knife, painkillers) and the police don't seem to have any doubt, I agree the possibility of murder should not be entirely discounted until after the post-mortem and judicial enquiry.
T o n y
14 July 2003
Re : No Americans in Normandy in 1944
Click here to read the response from the Mayor of Bayeux , which prompted an apology from me.
Re : Celebrity Politicians and Anti-Zionism
The Centre is a very unassuming (and surprisingly small) building set back from one of the main roads out of the town. We pass it regularly on our way to the golf club, and have often joked about its name, wondering just what they were supposed to be coordinating and following up! Perhaps you have unveiled the unwelcome truth?
Graham, Abu Dhabi
Re : The UN Must Re-earn its Right to be Involved
(1) "In a stunning military performance of unparalleled virtuoso by America and Britain," STUNNING for its victims only. It was a turkey shoot of a defenceless conscript army.
(2) "an unprecedentedly small number of their own and of non-combatant casualties" THE BODIES have not yet been counted. The 30000 or so "military" casualties need to be counted to.
(3) "UN incompetence has prevailed in Iraq, where for 12 years it failed to deal with Saddam beyond issuing 17 high-minded Resolutions, which it then failed to implement." IT IMPOSED VICIOUS SANCTIONS sustained chiefly through US pressure.
(4) "As a result, Saddam was able to continue murdering his civilians at a rate of 5,000 per year as well as financing every suicide bomber in Israel and hanging on to his WMD." I have seen it argued that the Sanctions tightened Saddam's grip. As to his WMD, they seem to have all gone...
(5) "When he didn't disarm, the UN pretended that "serious consequences" didn't mean war" -- not pretended, the code for war is "all necessary means" and apparently war cannot be threatened in advance by the UN according to its own rules.
(6) "more resolutions, more inspections, more troops on the border with orders not to invade" -- which would have been more than adequate as we now see, for WHERE ARE THE WMDs.
(7) "The USA has once again had to go to war to rescue others" -- but that was not the issue! And the primary motive of the war was not the rescue of Iraqis but the appropriation of Iraq oil for geopolitical purposes, as well as permanent access to military bases in Iraq.
(8) "In all the other major international confrontations with totalitarian regimes, the UN has shirked its responsibilities and left the dirty work to America while simultaneously disapproving and trying to prevent it." Hmmm, where has postwar America undone totalitarian regimes and replaced them with democracy? Generally it has rather tried to do the opposite. Perhaps the Sandinistas were as "totalitarian regime" and the Contras represented "democracy"?
(9) "Only America has the ability to lead and co-ordinate this reconstruction, and - through war - the authority to do so." Colonialism means that force of arms gives you the right to administer conquered territories. But I thought we were supposed to have got beyond that and to be constructing a world order based on International Law?
(10) "The UN can serve a worthy and useful role by offering to America its services, such as humanitarian assistance." That would suit America fine; it has always sought to weaken the UN in order to put International Law at the service of its neocolonial designs. The Rule of Empire is perhaps easier to arrange than the Rule of Law. If the US would put its imperial power behind the Rule of Law it would indeed be making the world a better place. But we have seen it contemn international law again and again.
(11) "Nevertheless, the better the UN performs, the more responsibility it should be given in the months and years ahead." Performs as docile, uncritical boy scouts? But that would be a betrayal of what the UN stands for: the Rule of Law.
(12) "And who knows, at some point in the (distant ?) future, it might once again be trusted to take a leading position in a delicate and difficult international situation. But not yet. It must re-earn its spurs." SUCH CONTEMPT for the rule of law has delegitimized the US in the eyes of the world. It is the American Empire not the UN and International Law that is now coursing to collapse.
JS II, France
Re : The UN Must Re-earn its Right to be Involved
Your
newsletter is a pleasant an interesting read. As a somewhat conservative
American, I am intrigued to encounter the conservative perspective of a
European.
Howard
Re : A New & Disturbing World Order
You are pretty much full of the crap you have imbibed from the religious fanatics and the right wing political extremists. The only way to have peace in this world is to treat all nations and all peoples with justice, fairness and equity. War may be necessary, but it is not the first choice of reasonable, sensible people.
Mitchell
The millions who demonstrated against a
war with Iraq may be accused of well meaning naivety or misguided actions.
But in truth I do not think they were all there to demonstrate against a
war with Iraq, they were there to demonstrate against WAR. And I guess
that amongst the other millions who did not actively demonstrate there are
a great majority implacably opposed to WAR. In fact I am sure that if a
poll were taken amongst the 200,000 soldiers sitting at the Iraqi borders
many of them would be opposed to WAR.
But I think the semantics are all
wrong. This is not a war with Iraq. There is no argument with the Iraqi
peoples. There is no extremist, ideological and corrosive political force
such as fascism or communism alive in Iraq. Iraq is a country being held
to ransom by a tyrant and his gang of thugs. A venal, corrupt, ruthless
criminal.
In any society, if a criminal holds
hostage his family or other innocents, threatens and executes violence
against his neighbours, poses a threat to his locality then he faces the
full power of the police force who will surround his property, do their
level best first to reason with him, persuade him to discard his weapons
and surrender peaceably. If after a period of time, when it becomes clear
that his hostages lives are all but lost if they do not take action the
police will storm the building, protecting the lives of the hostages as
far as possible, then apprehend the criminal.
On a far greater scale this is
precisely the situation with Iraq. The American and British armed forces
are acting as world policemen. With, we hope and trust, the full authority
of the United Nations they will execute their policing duties, release the
peoples of Iraq held hostage and apprehend the master criminal and his
gang of thugs. How can anyone demonstrate against police carrying out
their duty?
There is another and interesting aspect to the mass demonstrations. The scale of the demonstration is a relatively new phenomenon. It is a result of the tremendous power of the internet. The organisers were, apparently, a small and dedicated band, yet through the internet they were able to mobilise and organise on such an extraordinary scale. What does this bode for the future? I am sure the implications are a source of debate.
Michael
Re : Gerhard Schroeder
Gerhard Schroeder will go, and he will
go early. Your blog covering his recent antics paints a picture of a vain
man who will twist and turn in search of the policy that wins him support.
Why? Because he has no beliefs or convictions, he is a pastiche of “liberal”
thinking since the second world war. This was illustrated perfectly today
(18th Feb) with a report that his retort to the fact that many people will
die in Iraq if Saddam Hussein is allowed to stay was “many
people are dying in North Korea too”.
This is similar to the argument that, although the atrocities are
sometimes as bad, and numbers killed as high, the West - or specifically
the US - is not intervening in African trouble spots (see Letters
on your very own Blog). Although I have no trouble refuting the theory
behind such an argument, I treat it pretty much as the playground argument
“my
dad is bigger than your dad”
type of response - annoying and irrelevant. The point about
Schroeder is that he is a world leader, and the best he can do to counter
evidence that Saddam is an appalling ruler is refer to North Korea. OK, so
what if America HAS got plans to "sort out" the North Koreans?
Will he agree to invasion then? I speak to Germans daily, and to say they
are embarrassed by their leader is putting it mildly. Frankly, if he
supports a position, you can guarantee that even people who would
naturally adopt a similar stance will find themselves questioning their
view.
And to the person who mentions African trouble spots, using that to
counter the argument that Saddam should be removed: do you remember
Mogadishu? Does the film Blackhawk Down ring any bells? I respect the view
of the peaceniks that war is ghastly, but not one of them has convinced me
that after the “peace”
is achieved (ie America stands down and inspections continue) that there
is a formula for continued peace around the world. Instead I get the
impression that there is an immense amount of anti-US feeling, but no one
has thought through the consequences. Have any European leaders pointed
out the cost of building up our armed forces to the point where they can
stand alone? Or the cost of research and development just to stay with the
cutting edge in technology. 70% tax anyone?
Jocelyn
Re : France and Iraq
Is France's reluctance to support intervention into Iraq a possible fear of exposure to what they may have sold to the Iraqi's - breaking sanctions ?
Michael
Re : Iraq
In the book The Seven Pillars of Wisdom,
Lawrence of Arabia wrote...
"The Kingdom of Heaven is based on souls, The Kingdoms of the
World are based on Oil, and the Arabs have Oil...."
That was in 1927.
There are a dozen countries in Africa with regimes far worse than Mr.
Sadam's but nobody is talking about sorting them out 'cause there's
nothing in it for anybody apart from doing the MORAL thing.
It's no coincidence that a huge lump of the US arms industry is located in
Texas. War is GOOD for business.
The state of Israel founded on the shame and embarrassment of the nations
of the world after the World War 2, who did almost nothing to help,
support and take in the Jews of Europe, is a failed entity bouyed up by a
US government that pumps $4 billion worth of aid into that place each year
- why because they look at it as a kind of Alamo and outpost of freedom in
a land of robed fanatics. If any Irish man or his family was walled
up for 3 generations in the hopeless ghetto-like conditions that is the
lot of a million palestinians - he would turn lunatic - lunatic like a
caged beast - lunatic like someone starving to death, like starving
to death in a ghetto? Lunatic because although everyone appears
sympathetic to their cause nobody ever seems to do anything???
If there was no oil in the middle east - there would be for
sure a state of Israel that found a means long ago to to cooperate
and live in peace or relative peace with their Arab neighbours their
christian and muslim Arab neighbours...
However,
there are 10,000 + illegal Irish immigrants in the US;
we begged on our knees for extra Visas for our people in the 80s;
we have +750 US based multi-nationals in Ireland who 'walked' jobs out of
the USA to Ireland and whose status could be changed very quickly by
minor, protectionist alterations of the US tax laws;
without the interest of the USA there would have been no peace settlement
in the North;
nobody on this island wants to be without petrol;
nobody on this island wants to pay 5 euros a litre for petrol;
I don't want to be without petrol or to pay 5 euros a litre for it;
We never sold out to the british or the americans or anyone else with whom
we made contacts from this island both we bought into a lot of stuff and
now it's pay-back time.
And I and all of us should have thought about all of this a long time ago.
And I am going to go along with it - sick to my stomach because I have an
awful feeling that something new is about to begin in the world, something
sinister that as of now has no dimension, no form, and all the
opposition has been bought somehow or other, and the real crunch
will surely come in another context maybe many years from now when a new
China with an unstoppable economic momentum finds that more and more it is
able to provide say 75% plus of the needs of the rest of the world,
cheaply, very cheaply, and they are accused of manipulating the markets,
of using cheap labour of not playing ball with the West or with 'someone'
in the West etc., etc. and there are real reasons for placing serious
embargoes on China you know, because there's no freedom there and there's
no democracy and lets sets them free.....
... and I am buying into all of this because I don't want to be without
petrol....but that doesn't prevent us from singing
AFTER ME, 1,2..
When you're happy and you know it bomb Iraq
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it'a ll the proof I need to
Bomb Iraq.
If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad) then,
Bomb Iraq.
If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.
Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.
Regards,
Allen
Re : Why
Must US Action on Iraq Go Through the UN ?
The only difference [between your eight examples of countries going to war
without going through the UN] is that USA and Britain attack counties THAT
ARE NOT NEIGHBOURS.
USA attacked Corea, Vietnam, which is xxxx miles away
USA attacked Panama, Granado, Lybia, were xxxx miles away
The only analogous war USA should make, MUTATIS
MUTANTIS, would be against Canada and
Mexico.
