← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · PaleoconAvatar
Thread ID: 6352 | Posts: 69 | Started: 2003-04-27
2003-04-27 03:52 | User Profile
OD's toddbrendanfahey has beaten the press to the punch yet again. Find below his Sianews.com report on U.S. Iraqi Asset Tariq Aziz, and then see the "mainstream" press confirm it a month later. Both articles are posted below for study and comparison....
**[url=http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=782]Tariq Aziz Fingered Saddam Hussein for Death[/url]
by Todd Brendan Fahey 03/23/03 01:13 AM
Confidential Intelligence sources now report that Tariq Aziz, long-time aide to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and nominal "Vice Premier" of Iraq, was the finger-man behind the U.S. bombing raid on Hussein's safe-house.
Aziz was reported to have defected to Northern Iraq and/or Iran early in the U.S. campaign, by various news networks, including Fox News and MSNBC. The "defection" is now being viewed as a ruse by the Pentagon's disinformation outlets, to protect Aziz against repercussions by Iraqi insiders.
According to sources, Aziz divulged whereabouts of his boss in exchange for guarantees by the United States for his own personal survival.
Developing...
The only Christian in Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party Cabinet, and a vehement spokesman and champion of Hussein throughout the Gulf War of 1991, Mr. Aziz has held a rocky relationship with Hussein over the past 12 years. Demoted, fired, rehired, shuffled around and reassigned from and to various positions within Hussein's party hierarchy; the subject of abuse by Hussein's two sons--both believed to be dead--; Intelligence sources, speaking upon condition of anonymity to SiaNews.com, assert that Aziz accepted offers of personal security guarantees by the U.S. State Department and Department of Defense as early as March of 2002, in exchange for details leading to a "quick demise" of Saddam Hussein...
[related story, background and thread discussion on this [url=http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=785]white-hot leak and Scoop[/url]]
Fahey, a strategic writer stationed in South Korea, has served as aide to Central Intelligence Agency agent Theodore L. "Ted" Humes, Division of Slavic Languages, and to the late-Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief Lt. General Daniel O. Graham; to former Arizona Governor Evan Mecham (R-AZ), former Congressman John Conlan (R-AZ) and others.**
[url=http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/waziz27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html]Was Tariq Aziz the coalition's mole?[/url]
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 27/04/2003)
Iraq's former deputy prime minister, now in US hands, was the urbane public face of the Saddam regime. But he may have helped the allies to target his ex-boss, reports Con Coughlin
Saddam Hussein's security chiefs placed members of Tariq Aziz's family under arrest shortly before the start of the war to make sure that the former Iraqi deputy prime minister did not defect to the West, The Telegraph can reveal.
Concerns about the fate of his family - in particular his eldest son - if he surrendered to coalition forces was Aziz's primary concern during the lengthy negotiations that finally resulted in his decision to give himself up at the end of last week.
"Tariq was still terrified of what the remnants of Saddam's regime would do to his family if he surrendered to us," said a Western security officer. "Even if Saddam were dead, he knew that there were still Ba'ath Party loyalists who would want to exact revenge on his family."
As part of Aziz's surrender terms, coalition commanders agreed to place the Iraqi politician's immediate family under the equivalent of protective custody to ensure that they were safe from revenge attacks by Saddam loyalists.
But yesterday the favourable surrender terms agreed between coalition commanders and Aziz prompted speculation that Saddam's trusted foreign policy adviser may in fact be the Iraqi spy who provided the intelligence responsible for the cruise missile attack on the Iraqi dictator's bunker in southern Baghdad in the opening salvoes of the conflict.
Intelligence officials have claimed that the information they received that allowed them to target Saddam's bunker came from a "senior official" within the Ba'ath regime, and as one of the leading members of the ruling Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) Aziz would have prior warning that Saddam was planning to hold a meeting at one of his heavily-fortified bunkers.
"You get the feeling, now that Aziz is safely in American custody, that he will be getting re-acquainted with people he has known for quite some time," said a former CIA officer who specialises in Iraq.
"The information that enabled the coalition forces to target Saddam in the opening hours of the war could only have come from someone like Aziz who had access to Saddam's inner circle."
There has been intense speculation about Saddam's fate since the attack on the bunker in the early hours of March 20. At first it was reported that Saddam had been killed in the attack, then it was suggested that he had suffered non-life threatening injuries that had been treated by a specialist team of Russian doctors.
Coalition officials appeared to confirm that Saddam had survived the initial strike when they bombed a restaurant complex in central Baghdad on April 7 at which the Iraqi dictator had been seen arriving with his younger son, Qusay, and other Ba'ath Party officials.
At the end of last week, however, President George W Bush said he believed that Saddam had either been killed or critically injured in the March 20 attack, and paid tribute to the "brave soul" who provided CentCom with the intelligence that enabled the attack to take place. Asked if the Iraqi spy was still alive, Mr Bush replied: "Yes he is. He is with us. Thank God."
Whether or not Aziz was responsible for providing intelligence about Saddam's whereabouts during the conflict, there is no doubt that the Iraqi dictator had become deeply suspicious about his deputy prime minister's intentions.
Relations between the two men had become strained in the aftermath of the Gulf war in 1991 when Saddam became concerned that Aziz, who was then his foreign minister, enjoyed too much popularity among Iraqis as a result of his well-publicised international diplomatic activities.
As the only Christian among the Sunni Muslim clique that controlled the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, Aziz has always been regarded as an outsider since he came to Saddam's attention in the 1970s for his staunch anti-Communist views, which he regularly aired in the columns of al-Thawra (The Revolution), the Ba'ath Party newspaper that he edited.
In recent years Aziz had been sidelined following his appointment as deputy prime minister, although he managed to retain his position on the all-important RCC, the Ba'athists' main decision-making body.
The only reason that Aziz managed to survive this period is that Saddam continued to rely on his expertise in foreign affairs, where his urbane charm enabled him to make an impact in countries that were eager to develop lucrative trade ties with Baghdad.
In the late 1990s, when Aziz failed to persuade the United Nations to lift the sanctions imposed on Iraq at the end of the Gulf war, Saddam briefly imprisoned the politician's eldest son as punishment.
In the weeks preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam ordered the detention of several members of Aziz's family following suspicions that he was preparing to defect to the West.
When, shortly after the conflict started, however, Washington officials dropped heavy hints that the Iraqi official had defected, Aziz appeared before journalists in Baghdad angrily denouncing the claims, saying that he would "rather die" than be taken into custody by the Americans.
Aziz's surrender is undoubtedly an enormous propaganda coup for coalition commanders as he would never have contemplated surrendering if he thought there was any chance that Saddam or his two sons, Uday and Qusay, could continue to pose a threat.
Indeed, given his proximity to the regime, coalition commanders will be hoping that Aziz will be able to provide them with details of the fate of Saddam's family.
Whether he can bring any light to bear on the all-important issue of where Saddam's weapons of mass destruction arsenal is located is another matter.
Throughout the 30 years that Aziz worked for Saddam, he was never a member of the Iraqi dictator's inner circle and it is unlikely that he enjoyed a detailed knowledge of Saddam's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programmes.
Con Coughlin is the author of Saddam: The Secret Life (Macmillan).
2003-04-27 05:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Apr 27 2003, 03:52 At the end of last week, however, President George W Bush said he believed that Saddam had either been killed or critically injured in the March 20 attack, and paid tribute to the "brave soul" who provided CentCom with the intelligence that enabled the attack to take place. Asked if the Iraqi spy was still alive, Mr Bush replied: "Yes he is. He is with us. Thank God."
Wonder what he thinks about the mercurial souls that kept trying to out this spy for their own ego's or prestige of a scoop. I still don't understand this side of journalism, or what purpose the publisher of this information was serving by putting this information out there. A lot of people on the television I heard wondered what it was doing out there too.
Todd himself said "these are good questions, which deserve answers"
[url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_international&Number=519045&Forum=All_Forums&Words=Okiereddust&Match=Username&Searchpage=11&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=517387#Post519045]Re: Fahey Scoop[/url]
2003-04-27 05:20 | User Profile
Okie: I just rub you the wrong way, don't I?
Can't figure out why that is.
But to answer your question:
1) If you're a neocon and support the War on Iraq, why wouldn't you also wish for Tariq Aziz, who hung by Saddam lo these many years, to be executed along w/ Hussein himself?
2) If you're a champion of truth and transparency in a free press, what objection could you possibly have to naming Tariq Aziz as the CIA's b*tch? I don't operate under any "non-disclosure agreement"; I have no reason not to write the truth. Do you object to the truth being written of? Would you prefer a masquerade of lies?
3) If you're a Christian (not saying you are or aren't, or need to be, or anything else), but if you are, then Tariq Aziz' assist in the fall of Saddam is a testament to goodness of the Christian faith over Islam.
I could go on and on.
The only argument I see for PROTECTING Aziz, is to further the cause of black-ops and media and government lies.
So, what's your real objection? I can't quite figure you out.
2003-04-27 06:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Apr 27 2003, 05:20 ** Okie: I just rub you the wrong way, don't I?
Can't figure out why that is, especially as I took great pains to get you into EtherZone's stable of writers.
But to answer your question:
1) If you're a neocon and support the War on Iraq, why wouldn't you also wish for Tariq Aziz, who hung by Saddam lo these many years, to be executed along w/ Hussein himself?
2) If you're a champion of truth and transparency in a free press, what objection could you possibly have to naming Tariq Aziz as the CIA's b*tch? I don't operate under any "non-disclosure agreement"; I have no reason not to write the truth. Do you object to the truth being written of? Would you prefer a masquerade of lies?
3) If you're a Christian (not saying you are or aren't, or need to be, or anything else), but if you are, then Tariq Aziz' assist in the fall of Saddam is a testament to goodness of the Christian faith over Islam.
I could go on and on.
The only argument I see for PROTECTING Aziz, is to further the cause of black-ops and media and government lies.
So, what's your real objection? I can't quite figure you out. **
First, hearty congrats on your scoop, although I share OK's reservations about it.
I agree with PJB that once troops are committed to action our protests must take on a different tone.
While we don't quit speaking out altogether (our committment to the Truth supercedes even our love of country), our tactics must change once American troops are in harm's way. With our guys' young asses on the line, we must take heightened precautions to ensure that we don't place them in danger or otherwise compromise their mission. Until they're home safe, and then we go balls-out again.
I'm a veteran, Todd. I served in the Persian Gulf during the Hostage Crisis 20 years ago. I had serious reservations about the mission then (I'd read about the CIA's putting the Shah into power and the brutality of his regime), but I sure as hell would never do anything against my shipmates.
Walter
2003-04-27 06:52 | User Profile
Our debt is paid to veterans such as yourself. I'm not "anti-military"; far be it.
I'm anti-lies (such as the hamstringing that the Perfumed Princes foisted upon our Vietnam troops, putting them in harm's way and negating certain victory and ensuring the subsequent fall of Saigon and South Vietnam).
& in this spirit, not knowing who's who, I'd rather just out with the Truth.
& now that the "combat phase" of Iraq is over, and as all indications are pointing to now, I'm owed a National Scoop on the Tariq Aziz story. I broke it. Wuz the first to do so.
Okiereddust has a problem with that, but I don't agree w/ his assessment of things (as he's not been clear as to WHY he wishes Aziz to be protected). I received a fat pipeline Scoop 5 weeks ago, which Drudge and FreeRepublic and Fox/CNN/NBC/CBS/ABS/PBS ignored (or, cowered from) utterly. Now the truth is coming out, and a hearty huzzah is owed (but will never be paid) to a lone-voice w/ Intel connections and a modest Intel background.
That's all.
Am very glad we lost only a hundred or so of our own in the latest battle. No malice intended. But the truth, in my book, comes before politics.
Best, TBF
2003-04-27 07:55 | User Profile
Aziz divulged whereabouts of his boss in exchange for guarantees by the United States for his own personal survival
That sentence places no American serviceman in harm's way. But it does harshly illuminate what 'regime change' is all about. This was a hit; a contract killing.
Absolutely no difference between Operation Iraqi Freedom and John Gotti's ascension to the throne. Except Gotti didn't keep hiding behind God the way Bush does.
You done good here, TBF. Tune out the nitpickers.
2003-04-27 11:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Apr 27 2003, 06:52 ** Our debt is paid to veterans such as yourself.ÃÂ I'm not "anti-military"; far be it.
I'm anti-lies (such as the hamstringing that the Perfumed Princes foisted upon our Vietnam troops, putting them in harm's way and negating certain victory and ensuring the subsequent fall of Saigon and South Vietnam).
& in this spirit, not knowing who's who, I'd rather just out with the Truth.
& now that the "combat phase" of Iraq is over, and as all indications are pointing to now, I'm owed a National Scoop on the Tariq Aziz story.ÃÂ I broke it.ÃÂ Wuz the first to do so.
Okiereddust has a problem with that, but I don't agree w/ his assessment of things (as he's not been clear as to WHY he wishes Aziz to be protected).ÃÂ I received a fat pipeline Scoop 5 weeks ago, which Drudge and FreeRepublic and Fox/CNN/NBC/CBS/ABS/PBS ignored (or, cowered from) utterly.ÃÂ Now the truth is coming out, and a hearty huzzah is owed (but will never be paid) to a lone-voice w/ Intel connections and a modest Intel background.
That's all.
Am very glad we lost only a hundred or so of our own in the latest battle.ÃÂ No malice intended.ÃÂ But the truth, in my book, comes before politics.
Best, TBF **
A hearty HUZZAH to you then, Todd m'laddy boy-o.
There's a thread going on over at [url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/900991/posts]Free Republic[/url] about the [url=http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/waziz27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html]Sunday Telegraph [/url] article posted above.
I suggest that one of us with an active FR account post a link to TBF's article there - our neocon brothers there may find it instructive.
Walter
2003-04-27 17:23 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Apr 27 2003, 05:20 **Okie: I just rub you the wrong way, don't I?
Can't figure out why that is.
But to answer your question:......
I could go on and on.
The only argument I see for PROTECTING Aziz, is to further the cause of black-ops and media and government lies.
So, what's your real objection? I can't quite figure you out.**
The same arguments you use for outing Aziz, re: > The only argument I see for PROTECTING Aziz, is to further the cause of black-ops and media and government lies.
Could also be used to justify exposing any other foreign agent on the CIA's covert payroll or contact list. Are you saying the reporter who exposed the CIA agent in Greece in 1976, (who was then quickly murdered) was a patriotic hero? Are you saying Aldrich Ames is your personal hero and patriotic exemplar for exposing dozens of foreign agents to the Soviet Union? Or at least would have been if he had done the good journalistic thing by giving the list to a newspaper or radio station instead of just the KGB?
What exposure of confidential information do you think you could not justify? Would you be doing a public service for instance if you exposed all the names of the people on the EZ forum where you once worked, or at this forum if you came to possess this info somehow? What limits or obligations in this regard do do you recognize? If you do recognize such I am not getting it.
Now there might be some private information you are privy to, that you can't reveal to us, that might justify this exposure which you are not able to reveal to us. If you said that and that you preferred not to tell us I wouuld understand, which is why I didn't press the point inititially. But your present arguments just seem to suggest you believe in * carte blanche* press autonomy in this regards, which of course was a long time left-wing position which is increasingly popular with antiwar paleo's also, but one I do have problems with.
2003-04-27 18:11 | User Profile
Are you saying the reporter who exposed the CIA agent in Greece in 1976, (who was then quickly murdered) was a patriotic hero? Are you saying Aldrich Ames is your personal hero and patriotic exemplar for exposing dozens of foreign agents to the Soviet Union? Or at least would have been if he had done the good journalistic thing by giving the list to a newspaper or radio station instead of just the KGB?
Are you saying 1976 and 2003 are perfectly analogous?
If an American government, influenced to greater or lesser degree by men and women who swear loyalty to two nations simultaneously -even as they craft & shape policy for one - announced its intention to invade a sovereign nation not posing or implying a threat to us because of an unlawful secret-weapons cache and evil (unarticulated) intentions against us in their black hearts - then failed to provide any credible evidence of their claims, claimning that to do so would jeopardize the lives of deep-cover field agents....is it your bound patriotic duty to believe what you are told wholeheartedly and support the war that follows?
2003-04-27 18:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 27 2003, 18:11 > Are you saying the reporter who exposed the CIA agent in Greece in 1976, (who was then quickly murdered) was a patriotic hero? Are you saying Aldrich Ames is your personal hero and patriotic exemplar for exposing dozens of foreign agents to the Soviet Union? Or at least would have been if he had done the good journalistic thing by giving the list to a newspaper or radio station instead of just the KGB?**
Are you saying 1976 and 2003 are perfectly analogous?
....is it your bound patriotic duty to believe what you are told wholeheartedly and support the war that follows?**
In other words exposing Tarik Aziz does appear to you to be a hostile act against the United States and in support of the regime of Saddam Hussein, justified because you think suporting the regime of Hussein in its war against the U.S, is the right thing to do.
Tarik therefore, as a traitor to the noble regime of Hussein in its fight against U.S./Zionist imperialism, deserved to be exposed, captured, tortured, and killed, which was the logical thing which would have happened to him if the regime believed this to be true. (Possibly they figured it was CIA planted disinformation and chose to ignore it, which is why Aziz is still alive.)
That's the way it appeared to me also. I just wanted to confirm that's what you all were really thinking.
It does appear to me to be interesting in view of what TBF said at LF
As to my "bonafides," you can look at my screen profile here and form your own conclusions. I've worked with some very interesting men, most--if not all--who are (or were, prior to their deaths) white-hat patriots.** Each of these men approached me. I have been sought out on an irregular basis since I was 21, and have been "given assignments."
I do what I do for very specific, and what I feel are good, reasons.**
Now I'm not saying I absolutely have to know why these reasons of Todd were. He might say I don't need to know, and I should just trust him cause he's a good guy. However in view of the fact he wants to make a big issue of his hero status for doing it, I could at least confirm that his reasons were not the ones you think he had.
2003-04-27 18:41 | User Profile
Nice. My Sarcasm Detector was screaming like a geiger counter approaching Chernobyl.
2003-04-27 18:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 27 2003, 18:41 ** Nice. My Sarcasm Detector was screaming like a geiger counter approaching Chernobyl. **
That's one of the things emotions are for. I'm still confused as to what you and everyone else actually thinks, sans some straight answers, although it may be perfectly obvious to you'awl.
2003-04-28 02:06 | User Profile
Check it: Note back from Jeff Rense:
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 02:52:07 -0700 To: "Todd Fahey" toddbrendanfahey@yahoo.com From: jr@rense.com | This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: Fahey's "Tariq Aziz Fingered Saddam Hussein for Death" CONFIRMED by The London Telegraph
I certainly will do so. I'll post it as a feature. You deserve maximum credit. will post post the telegraph story and your work.
congratulations.
Dear Jeff,
You were the only major-market venue w/ the balls to run my Scoop. Today, the London Telegraph has a fat-beefy article, confirming what I was told and published exclusively five (count 'em, 5) weeks ago.
A comparative thread, of both of my articles (date-stamped) runs alongside today's Telegraph article here, at OriginalDissent.com (posted by the very excellent writer Paul Fallavollita):
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=7510]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...=ST&f=19&t=7510[/url]
I'd dearly love for you to run something on this phenomenon, to alert the Establishment Media that so-called "alternative sources" very often beat them to the punch.
Many thanks again,
Todd Brendan Fahey
2003-04-28 02:26 | User Profile
Okie:
You sure do whine a lot lately.
I mean, what part of "I don't owe you an explanation" don't you understand?
2003-04-28 03:49 | User Profile
TBF:
I think what's happening with Okie is that he's trying to stay true to what he sees as the "patriotic" or "pro-American" course in regard to the war, etc. He may be worried that paleo anti-war sentiment seems to blur and coalesce with that of the "Left," and his reasons for being anti-war wouldn't be the same ones that the Left embraces.
I've found that misgivings such as Okie's, if I'm correct in my speculations above, can be cleared up once one makes a few adjustments in perspective:
We who are naturally patriotic and pro-American are in a funny position, because there really isn't an "America" anymore. The Old, Good America has been hijacked long ago and killed off and replaced with an "impostor" "America," inserted by the New World Order as its tool and proxy on the world stage.
The government is not the same animal as the country. One can be patriotic towards one's country and hate the government, because the government (defined as the Occupying Regime based in Washington, DC) has betrayed the very country (defined as the land and people of America) that it is supposed to protect.
Hence, if the U.S. Government loses the War on Terror or any of its "spinoff" wars, it's not "America" that's losing the war or is harmed (since there is no "America" anymore), it's just the Government that's losing, and it deserves to lose.
Some people feel sorry for the American soldiers that are the victims of the Government's warmongering. Yet these soldiers are volunteers who signed up, and it really is too bad that they were deluded into thinking they were fighting for "America," since a lot of them haven't figured out point #1 above. But we can't allow ourselves to withhold criticism of the regime just because we want to "honor" the sadly deluded. If we do that, then we'd be responsible for creating even more deluded people to follow in the footsteps of the others. Just because we feel sorry for, or a bond with, people who are the victims of a bad policy doesn't mean we should further embrace the bad policy--if we did, we'd all be dead just to prove that "we're all in this together."
As for the fact that paleos are now on the same "antiwar" side as the Left, we have to realize that we live in an age in which "Left" and "Right" are obsolete terms. I only use those terms loosely, and people know the various players I'm talking about based on the context. The real distinction now comes down to "Globalists" and "Nationalists." I suspect that the New World Order types like it when people like Limbaugh call the antiwar crowd "the Left," because it keeps conservatives on the pro-war Plantation. We really do have to think outside the artificial box of "Left" and "Right" when it comes to foreign policy and the like.
2003-04-28 04:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Apr 26 2003, 23:20 **Okie: I just rub you the wrong way, don't I?
Can't figure out why that is.**
Having applied Ockham's Razor to the LF, LP and OD versions of your breaking news, I'm confident that you would do yourself a favor by having others post your gloats for you as a rule.
I was kinda disappointed to see the "Whooooooo's yer daddy?" was not a part of the press release here and at LP.
Perhaps the different styles account for the thought-provoking Egghaid criticisms at OD vs. the revealing pillowtalk with Daddy at LF.
I guess LP -- where you posted, what, a six-line item in the breaking box? FOR SHAME -- will remain your "What if this article had stuck at FR" model. (Assuming it sticks there, of course. Doesn't look good. =)
2003-04-28 04:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Apr 28 2003, 02:26 **Okie:
You sure do whine a lot lately.
I mean, what part of "I don't owe you an explanation" don't you understand?**
Todd, you've always marched to the beat of one drummer. Your own. It's fine and dandy if you don't want to explain the tune to us. Just don't whine in turn when we don't automatically fall in step, which sometimes you seem to do.
This is an interesting story, but I can't figure who on earth it benefited, beyond being a journalistic feather in your cap. As such, it may be of more significance to you than I.
2003-04-28 04:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Apr 28 2003, 03:49 ** TBF:
I think what's happening with Okie is that he's trying to stay true to what he sees as the "patriotic" or "pro-American" course in regard to the war, etc. He may be worried that paleo anti-war sentiment seems to blur and coalesce with that of the "Left," and his reasons for being anti-war wouldn't be the same ones that the Left embraces.
I've found that misgivings such as Okie's, if I'm correct in my speculations above, can be cleared up once one makes a few adjustments in perspective: ....... "
It certainly would seem to some extent that differences between left and right seem to you to be inconsequential. If you note carefully your reasoning is exactly what the left always used in opposing military action.
If one took what you said seriously, there would be a great deal of paleo's and nationalists joining the Green Party and other leftist organizations ne c'est pa? After all their chances of political success seem much greater than ours, and you seem to think our differences are obsolete anyway.
2003-04-28 04:27 | User Profile
askel5: PaleoconAvatar did post this story (or, "gloat," as you'd have it) at OD. He also posted it to the Breaking All the Rules private e-list.
Whatever else was said in yr post above is lost on me--typical long-winded, convoluted nothingisms, of which you are famous. Why don't you try dealing with the actual article for once, instead of side-tracking into ad-hominae. I know you don't like me; I know I don't care that you don't like me. But since it's already well-established that you don't like me, whyntcha just take a pass on my posts; unless, that is, you have something of substance to add to the actual article(s).
Now, "Okiereddust" does put some very engaging thoughts before us, as to the Tariq Aziz article. & PaleoconAvatar, in stinging fashion, has eviscerated Okie's complaints. That's substance. You might wanna try it sometime.
2003-04-28 04:31 | User Profile
**Todd, you've always marched to the beat of one drummer. Your own. **
I don't mean to break in, but I have to say that I find this quote amusing.
It reminds me of a response to the comment, "You're so self-absorbed."... ..."Who would you rather I be absorbed with?"
2003-04-28 04:39 | User Profile
Whatever else was said in yr post above is lost on me--typical long-winded, convoluted nothingisms, of which you are famous. Why don't you try dealing with the actual article for once, instead of side-tracking into ad-hominae. I know you don't like me; I know I don't care that you don't like me. But since it's already well-established that you don't like me, whyntcha just take a pass on my posts; unless, that is, you have something of substance to add to the actual article(s).
I enjoy the "TBF threads" because they're never boring. :lol: I predict the "Weisbrot Rule" is about to be invoked for askel5 re: on-topic, ad hominem-free posts.
Now, "Okiereddust" does put some very engaging thoughts before us, as to the Tariq Aziz article. & PaleoconAvatar, in stinging fashion, has eviscerated Okie's complaints. That's substance. You might wanna try it sometime.
Stinging? Nah, Okie's on our side, after all. Always been. I just pointed out some observations I've made of the political terrain post 9/11, how it's made for "strange bedfellows" on the Left and Right, etc., mainly for the lurkers since a lot of people no doubt will have concerns about the boundaries of "patriotism" in these times. I could be wrong about whether Okie has those concerns, I'm just trying to "read between the lines" of this thread.
2003-04-28 04:42 | User Profile
Paleo:
Okie's been doing a lot of kvetching about my posts here lately. &, yeah, that last statement was ridiculous:
Why the hell would I march to the beat of anyone else's drummer? I'm not a follower. & as a writer, it goes w/ the territory that I must necessarily promote my works; very few right-wing or libertarian writers have "advance men" and "agents" these days (neocons like Ann Coulter & Sean Hannity excluded).
Can't figure the source of his recent consternation. Not that I really care.
2003-04-28 05:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Apr 28 2003, 00:25 > Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Apr 28 2003, 03:49 ** TBF:
I think what's happening with Okie is that he's trying to stay true to what he sees as the "patriotic" or "pro-American" course in regard to the war, etc. He may be worried that paleo anti-war sentiment seems to blur and coalesce with that of the "Left," and his reasons for being anti-war wouldn't be the same ones that the Left embraces.
I've found that misgivings such as Okie's, if I'm correct in my speculations above, can be cleared up once one makes a few adjustments in perspective: ....... "
It certainly would seem to some extent that differences between left and right seem to you to be inconsequential. If you note carefully your reasoning is exactly what the left always used in opposing military action.
If one took what you said seriously, there would be a great deal of paleo's and nationalists joining the Green Party and other leftist organizations ne c'est pa? After all their chances of political success seem much greater than ours, and you seem to think our differences are obsolete anyway.**
I imagine that the impact of the differences that remain between the Right and Left, at least in their authentic, non-NWO-coopted forms, really depends at this point on your priorities.
For example, the Left and Right in this country usually spent a lot of time arguing about domestic economic or social issues. The Left would propose various government programs for the poor, the Right would oppose them. The Right would propose tax cuts, the Left would oppose them. The Left would support expanding (or creating) "gay rights," the Right would oppose them.
As America descends ever deeper and more blatantly into the New World Order, suddenly those little questions about economics or taxes or regulations or abortion and "pro-family issues" become less important. "Mainstream" conservatives are a joke because they still haggle with "the Democrats" over these kinds of issues that really won't matter in fifty years (I'll say why in a second). The two major parties, meanwhile, refuse to address issues of trade or immigration or foreign policy because they agree. Buchanan was right when he called them "two wings on the same bird of prey." The whole row over what Santorum said about the gays is an example of this, it's really just an issue that distracts people and generates more heat than light, and I suspect that the NWO crowd likes those kinds of "debates" because it keeps people from focusing on the "National Question" set of issues.
That's where my priority is, because if the National Question issues (immigration policy, foreign policy, trade, English as the official language, race, etc.) aren't solved, then there won't be anything worth fighting over in fifty years, all hope of national regeneration will be gone.
Much of the friction between Right and Left in this country has been over either economic or social issues, like taxes and abortion, etc. As far as I'm concerned, I'm willing to de-emphasize those points of friction while we focus on the more pressing issues of trade policy, foreign policy, etc. This is because we have to actually have an independent nation and intact people before we can worry about whether we're balancing the budget or preserving public morals. You can't redeem Americans from sin if Americans go extinct. That's what "conservatism" really means--if you're not conserving your nation's independence, then what good is it? Mainstream (neo)cons are not at all "conservative" on the issues that really count. And as I noted earlier, there are significant parts of the Left that are willing to agree with us on issues like trade and immigration and anti-war at least between two-thirds and three-quarters of the time, if not the full 100%.
Paleos and nationalists are probably not joining the Greens in large numbers because they may not have made the same calculations that I have. That may yet change. There's a lot of prejudice we right-wingers have for those granola-types, so I bet it's a pride issue too. Same thing on their side--they still see us as "Neanderthals." It takes two to tango. There may be more informal cooperation between Greens and right-wingers on specific issues at specific places, but nothing really organized or enduring to my knowledge.
In truth, I voted for Buchanan. If I couldn't have Buchanan or a similar nationalist, then I would rather see Ralph Nader become the President and establish policy, because at least that would have seriously disrupted the plans of the "Center" that we currently live under. At least Nader would ax these trade deals and put an end to the multinational corporations. At least Nader would stop the military interventionism and bring the troops home. That would be better than what we have now. Bush and Gore (and whoever their R and D Party successors will be) are exactly the same, and pursue identical policies on trade, immigration, and foreign policy.
2003-04-28 05:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Apr 27 2003, 22:39 on-topic
For Pete's sake ... it's an article about Fahey only thinly disguised as mole speculation.
Todd IS the topic. =)
Besides, I was making perfectly constructive criticism. If TBF, in all his exuberance, continues to annoy and upset folks (rather than have his work spark thoughtful threads such as this one), who's going to give a rat's ass what he's peddling?
2003-04-28 05:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Apr 27 2003, 22:27 I know you don't like me
Yes ... like you Just Know all sorts of things.
You're a phenomenon for me ... not really the stuff of likes or dislikes regardless the nature of some of your more nasty posts in my direction.
Anyway ... I beat you to the punch, silly, at pointing out this as the only substantive thread. That's precisely the reason I thought it a good idea you have others post such threads as a rule.
And you can't exactly deny the "gloat" when you started the LF thread with "Who's your daddy!?!"
C'mon, Todd ... be a sport. And don't take everything so personally. After a while, folks begin to think these threads are all about YOU or sumpin'. =)
2003-04-28 11:17 | User Profile
Gang:
When I first saw Todd's report, I said to myself you got to be kidding! The mainstream news seems to accept the possibility that the facts were correct.
Now that the band wagon is rolling and the usual media elements are jumping in to confirm much of the report, we all should take note.
Motives are very difficult to known perfectly. Who benefits, in the mainstream media from Tariq Aziz being a spook? We all know that when it is in the interest of the media, they will bury a story for years.
The question I have for Todd, is: Any substance that Saddam may have made his own deal and went into exile in Russia? Not having any facts on this possibility, it sure would be a nice and neat solution to the two sided coin of the new imperial empire.
Paul, has the drill down correctly. I agree with Todd, that we all benefit for knowing the truth. Protecting "intelligence community" assests does nothing to restore a Republic. All the games that are played by the CIA just furthers the totalitarian police state.
My summary, dump Internationalist Foreign Policy and return to Washington's world view.
SARTRE :ph34r:
2003-04-28 21:45 | User Profile
Does TBF post one-handed?
The Telegraph never even said Aziz was the mole and the guy is wetting himself with excitement.
2003-04-28 22:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Apr 28 2003, 00:39 ** I enjoy the "TBF threads" because they're never boring. :lol: I predict the "Weisbrot Rule" is about to be invoked for askel5 re: on-topic, ad hominem-free posts.
**
Since I've suddenly become topical, please allow me to submit for your consideration two other "rules":
Sycophantic butt-licking epistles shall be limited to private communications.
Strategic writers working with white-hat spooks who use OD as a yet another means of self-promotion shall be required to explain why their careers have been remarkable almost entirely for a lack of ability to stay employed, marketable, or hired in-country.
That is all.
2003-04-28 22:52 | User Profile
Sycophantic butt-licking epistles shall be limited to private communications.
What about hair-trigger chips on shoulders?Do they get restricted to pm's, too?
2003-04-28 22:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 28 2003, 18:52 ** > Sycophantic butt-licking epistles shall be limited to private communications.
What about hair-trigger chips on shoulders?Do they get restricted to pm's, too? **
Told you these threads are never boring. :jest:
2003-04-28 23:27 | User Profile
"weisbrot":
I guess when you buy out the www.originaldissent.com domain name and make it yr own, you can--in Jim Robinson fashion--restrict my speech, ban me, do what thou wilt.
'til then, your best available option is to "walk on by," if you don't like my posts or threads.
2003-04-28 23:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Apr 28 2003, 16:57 ** > Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 28 2003, 18:52 ** > Sycophantic butt-licking epistles shall be limited to private communications.
What about hair-trigger chips on shoulders?Do they get restricted to pm's, too? **
Told you these threads are never boring. :jest: **
People just read them to watch Todd have a nervous breakdown. They rarely bother to read the so-called story.
2003-04-28 23:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by SARTRE@Apr 28 2003, 11:17 **Paul, has the drill down correctly. I agree with Todd, that we all benefit for knowing the truth. Protecting "intelligence community" assests does nothing to restore a Republic. All the games that are played by the CIA just furthers the totalitarian police state.
My summary, dump Internationalist Foreign Policy and return to Washington's world view.
SARTRE :ph34r:**
So, I guess by your standard Aldrich Ames was a hero, for not going along with the games the CIA played? As was the reporter that exposed/killed the Greek CIA operative?
And I guess Rodney Dellums, the congressman who wanted to dismantle "the intelligence community piece by piece" was a hero also, correct?
How about the 60's SDSers who always demonstrated against the CIA on college campuses. I guess they are your hero's also by this standard, ne c'est pa?
You guys are definitely tiptoeing around this thread. Sadly its not just neo's or liberals who sometimes cannot differentiate between ideological accomplishment and just brazen aggrandisement and self-interest.
At least Ames got a decent amount of money for his efforts, not just a chance to boost his SIA website.
2003-04-28 23:52 | User Profile
No, you're right, Todd is the villain here. Now here's a hero:
[url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030426-marine-inquiry01.htm]http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...e-inquiry01.htm[/url]
Las Vegas Review-Journal April 26, 2003 Interview Fallout: Inquiry to focus on Marine
Las Vegan described how he hunted down, shot Iraqis after attack on unit
By J.M. Kalil
Military officials said Friday they will launch an inquiry into whether war crimes were committed by a Las Vegas Marine who described hunting down and killing Iraqi soldiers.
Marine Gunnery Sgt. Gus Covarrubias could be the first member of the U.S. military fighting in Iraq to be investigated for possible violations of rules governing battlefield conduct.
During an interview at his Las Vegas home earlier this week, Covarrubias told a Review-Journal reporter the harrowing tale of an intense April 8 battle in Baghdad that he described as "a firefight from hell."
The resulting story, published Friday, included Covarrubias' account of slipping away from other Marines after the battle in pursuit of the Iraqi Republican Guard member who fired a rocket-propelled grenade at his unit, causing a blast that gave him a concussion and wounded several other troops.
The 20-year veteran of the Marine Corps said he found the soldier after dark inside a nearby home with the grenade launcher next to him. Covarrubias said he ordered the man to stop and turn around.
"I went behind him and shot him in the back of the head," Covarrubias said. "Twice."
Military officials on Friday declined to comment on Covarrubias' story beyond a statement released late in the afternoon by the Marine Forces Reserve headquarters in Quantico, Va.
"A preliminary inquiry has been initiated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service to examine the circumstances surrounding the statements made by Gunnery Sgt. Covarrubias in an April 25, 2003 Las Vegas Review-Journal article," the statement reads.
"The preliminary inquiry will determine if the actions described by Gunnery Sgt. Covarrubias during combat operations met the established rules of engagement and complied with the law of war. The inquiry will be thorough and impartial and will determine whether a formal investigation is warranted."
On Friday, Covarrubias did not answer his phone or knocks at the door of his northwest Las Vegas home. Sgt. Richard Slider, a Las Vegas spokesman for the Marines, said Covarrubias would not be available for additional media interviews.
But at least one other Marine who fought and was injured alongside Covarrubias said he believes the Las Vegan's actions were not only warranted, but critical.
"If he wouldn't have done it, those guys probably would've come back and killed or severely injured other Marines," said Marine reservist Sgt. Michael Dunn, who took shrapnel in an arm during the battle and is now recuperating at his Las Vegas home. "He did the right thing. I stand behind him 100 percent."
Dunn said Covarrubias' wife told him during a phone conversation that Covarrubias was ordered to appear at the Reserve Training Center after the story appeared Friday morning.
"She said he had got in trouble, but that's all she knew," Dunn said.
John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, a defense and intelligence policy organization based near Washington, D.C., said the inquiry "undoubtedly" will focus on whether Covarrubias killed a prisoner of war, a serious war crime.
"As soon as (the Iraqi soldier) had surrendered and obeyed a command to turn around, he was no longer an enemy combatant. He was a POW," said Pike, one of the nation's leading civilian experts on the U.S. military. "We do not allow our soldiers to execute POWs at their own discretion. And this, as described, looks like the summary execution of a POW."
Pike said if Covarrubias is not cleared of wrongdoing, the killing as he described it could result in a criminal charge of "failure to accept surrender" or the more serious charge of murder.
"It could be interpreted either way," Pike said. "Normally, when we think about shooting somebody in the back of the head, you think about that as murder. But I think that soldiers who have experienced combat are going to look at it and see it as a failure to accept surrender."
Pike said he wasn't aware of any similar incidents during the conflict in Iraq that have resulted in such inquiries. He said he was surprised by Covarrubias' candor.
"These kinds of incidents are a lot more common than anyone is ever going to let on. But it's usually not the sort of thing people talk about," Pike said. "The Iraqis quite possibly did it to us, and I'm not surprised we did it to them, but it's not supposed to happen."
In a Wednesday interview at his home, Covarrubias, 38, talked in great detail about the firefight that injured him and eight other Marines from Fox Company, 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marines. The unit, drawn from reservists in Utah and Las Vegas, calls itself the "The Sinners and the Saints."
When the fighting was over, the unit settled in for rest, food and water.
Covarrubias, who said he was a former sniper with more than 30 kills during the first Gulf War, told the Review-Journal he took off most of his gear, grabbed a pistol and told the others in his unit that he was leaving for a little while.
Covarrubias said from the trajectory of the grenade, he traced the origin of the strike to a nearby house and sneaked inside.
After killing the Iraqi soldier, he took the man's military ID as a souvenir.
Covarrubias also described finding the man's partner outside trying to escape and chased him down.
"I shot him, too," he said. "I'm not vindictive, and I might get in trouble for telling you this, but I take it very personally when you do that to my family. The Marines are my family."
He also took that man's ID, as well as his AK-47 assault rifle.
Pike, the military expert, said the killing of the second Iraqi soldier as described by Covarrubias does not appear to violate combat rules.
Covarrubias said during the interview that he believed the two Iraqi soldiers got what they deserved.
"This," he said while holding up the two ID cards during the interview, "is justice."
Copyright é 2003, Las Vegas Review-Journal
2003-04-28 23:58 | User Profile
il ragno:
I think yer sarcasm might be a bit too deep for "Okiereddust." But I caught it.
2003-04-29 00:43 | User Profile
PaleoconAvatar:
Know we can all agree that TFB has never been boring!
weisbrot:
I promise to do my best never to violate the "Weisbrot Rule". Not sure that kind of heat can be generated in my kitchen without getting burned. Wicked stuff . . .
Okiereddust:
If we could reasonable accept that the "IC" guys were working for the American people, it might be easier to believe they are on OUR side.
il ragno and jjbrouwer:
Let's start a fund to repatriot Todd back to the States???
TBF:
Come back and party with all your friend!
Now I know why I read OD.
SARTRE :th:
2003-04-29 00:56 | User Profile
SARTRE:
ho ho... Doubt you'll have much luck raising funds on my behalf! Luckily, I'm not doing too badly these days, $-wise.
That said, I see no earthly reason to return to the States anytime soon; my standard of living is much higher in South Korea than it ever was in Amerika, and I live on one of the most gorgeous islands I've ever seen (in person or in photos). Love sushi, of both varieties. :)
Were Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo to be elected POTUS; the borders enforced; PC-correctness to suddenly fall out of favor in the publik skools, I'd surely come back to the U.S. and teach at an American university. But I don't see any of those things happening anytime soon.
But thanks for the humor.
2003-04-29 01:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 28 2003, 18:52 ** What about hair-trigger chips on shoulders?Do they get restricted to pm's, too? **
Absolutely.
Along with the delusions of grandeur and chemically-induced fits of paranoia.
2003-04-29 02:13 | User Profile
I'm missing something here. What exactly has TBF done to warrant such claws-out attacks? Toot his own horn? Display a bit of arrogance? Those are good qualities in a David, because Goliath's got em both in spades.
Then there are the Fox News style charges, ie, 'you want bad stuff to happen to our boys! You're anti-American!'
Excuse me......what America? The one everybody who comes here complains is dead & gone? How does rewarding her assassins with silence help restore her?
Then there are the arguments that say he's killed his own effectiveness by owning up to his drugging/drinking/whoring. Left unsaid is the logical conclusion to that reasoning, "he should lie about these things to maintain credibility." Yeah, and hedonism killed Taki's career dead.
Finally, if TBF's a legend in his own mind who nobody pays any attention to in the first place...what in blazes does it matter what he writes?
2003-04-29 02:57 | User Profile
Yeah, and hedonism killed Taki's career dead.
"il ragno" wins the Post-of-the-Day (actually, month) Award. :)
I was just gonna chime in about Taki...was thinking about the parallels between that character & myself just this morning.
The guy's a confessed adulterer (believes that having a mistress spices up a marriage, or at least his own life). At least when I was married, I stayed faithful. As I'm no longer married, and not being a Puritan, I fornicate. Sue me.
Taki was also busted for dealing coke, something I've never been busted for (in fact, I've never been arrested). He's still a boozer. I've confessed to using psychedelics and to still enjoying a joint now and again, though my hard-drinking days are behind me.
Taki's basically a libertarian, as am I. The American Conservative is bankrolled w/ his money. He toots his own horn.
But I don't see "weisbrot" or "askel5" or "jjbrouwer" or "okiereddust" taking Taki to task.
"The thing I hate....the thing I hate the most is the stench of lies" -- Marlon Brando as "Kurtz," in Apocalypse Now!
I'd add to that, the stench of hypocrisy. Or, "he who is without sin cast the first stone." Etc.
Thanks, "il ragno," for being a voice of reason and sanity here at OD.
2003-04-29 03:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Apr 29 2003, 02:57 **But I don't see "weisbrot" or "askel5" or "jjbrouwer" or "okiereddust" taking Taki to task.
"The thing I hate....the thing I hate the most is the stench of lies" -- Marlon Brando as "Kurtz," in Apocalypse Now!
I'd add to that, the stench of hypocrisy. Or, "he who is without sin cast the first stone." Etc.
Thanks, "il ragno," for being a voice of reason and sanity here at OD.**
Whine Whine. Poor Todd, unjustly persecuted :lol:
You can be worse than Jonah Goldberg whining about his being persecuted for his last name. :jest:
The way Jonah writes and the stuff he writes about, he would be persecuted if his name was John Smith. Ditto for the way you write.
2003-04-29 04:02 | User Profile
& to the meat of my last post? Comparisons to Taki? "il ragno"'s salient comments?
Anything from you other than ad-hominae? Man, what an asshole you've turned out to be over the past coupla weeks (& to think, I took pains to get you into EtherZone's stable of writers).
2003-04-29 04:13 | User Profile
"Okie":
You want to see "the way I write": "Who is `Torie' Clarke: Strategic Disinformation and Strange Decisions at the Pentagon," a 2-parter.
Digest them apples, then compare me to Jonah Goldberg.
2003-04-29 04:42 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Apr 29 2003, 04:13 **"Okie":
You want to see "the way I write": "Who is `Torie' Clarke: Strategic Disinformation and Strange Decisions at the Pentagon," a 2-parter.
Digest them apples, then compare me to Jonah Goldberg.**
Yes, but did you ever right anything interesting about the Simpson's? :D
The piece on Torie was very interesting, as I noted.
Saw "Torie" Clarke on Fox News
I am a bit curious though - are you really sure this is our old FR "torie" and can you tell us how you found out? Her FR profile page is completely blank.
2003-04-29 04:57 | User Profile
Okie: You spend a lot of time "fishing" and more than yr share of time nipping at the big dog's heels. I'm not really inclined to "share" information with you.
Why don't you get back to work; haven't seen any new articles from your pen recently. Go out & prove yourself. Etc. :gun:
2003-04-29 18:27 | User Profile
il ragno posted:> **No, you're right, Todd is the villain here. Now here's a hero: [url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...e-inquiry01.htm]http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...e-inquiry01.htm[/url]
Las Vegas Review-Journal April 26, 2003 Interview Fallout: Inquiry to focus on Marine
Las Vegan described how he hunted down, shot Iraqis after attack on unit
By J.M. Kalil
Military officials said Friday they will launch an inquiry into whether war crimes were committed by a Las Vegas Marine who described hunting down and killing Iraqi soldiers.
Marine Gunnery Sgt. Gus Covarrubias could be the first member of the U.S. military fighting in Iraq to be investigated for possible violations of rules governing battlefield conduct.
During an interview at his Las Vegas home earlier this week, Covarrubias told a Review-Journal reporter the harrowing tale of an intense April 8 battle in Baghdad that he described as "a firefight from hell."
The resulting story, published Friday, included Covarrubias' account of slipping away from other Marines after the battle in pursuit of the Iraqi Republican Guard member who fired a rocket-propelled grenade at his unit, causing a blast that gave him a concussion and wounded several other troops.
The 20-year veteran of the Marine Corps said he found the soldier after dark inside a nearby home with the grenade launcher next to him. Covarrubias said he ordered the man to stop and turn around.
"I went behind him and shot him in the back of the head," Covarrubias said. "Twice." **
I suggest that the first bullet was not sufficiently powerful to kill him.
toddbrendanfahey (Posted: Apr 29 2003, 00:58)> ** il ragno:
I think yer sarcasm might be a bit too deep for "Okiereddust." But I caught it. **
Many of the posts here are by those who believe they have the right to high moral ground at all times. In my advancing age I would much rather have a Gunny Sergeant Covarrubias in my company than squads of TB Faheys. Wars are fought and won by having men such as Covarrubias on your side. Fahey and his kind are about as useful as having an attack chilhuahua. Libertarians have always placed a premium on money and very little on solid masculine qualities. Get some guts. Take some karate in Korea, not the useless Tae Kwan Doo.
2003-04-29 18:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Apr 29 2003, 04:57 **Okie: You spend a lot of time "fishing" and more than yr share of time nipping at the big dog's heels.ÃÂ **
Big dog eh?> ** Fahey and his kind are about as useful as having an attack chihuahua. :th:**
2003-04-29 19:18 | User Profile
Edward: Then you should have no problem with what occurred at Malmedy. War is hell, and the strong man smites his foe,and leaves the moral quandaries for the effeminate to work out.
2003-04-29 19:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 29 2003, 19:18 ** Edward: Then you should have no problem with what occurred at Malmedy. War is hell, and the strong man smites his foe,and leaves the moral quandaries for the effeminate to work out. **
Didn't Nietzsche say exactly that? (Let's call in NeoNietzsche for that)
I suspect he would actually applaud the spirit of Gunny Sergeant Covarrubias, only lament they were performed for the wrong side.
2003-04-29 19:53 | User Profile
il ragno I accept these things as parts of wars. Not that that these killings should be done on a wholesale basis, but that they are done. At Malmedy less than 100 Americans were slaughtered by Germans.
More that 55 years ago General George Patton noted.From my book> The coverage by the national press [color=red][of the Vietnam War[/color]] so bothered Richard Nixon he bitterly commented "the dishonest, double-standard coverage of the Vietnam War was not one of the American media's finer hours". Mr. Nixon quoted the observation of Kenneth Crawford of Newsweek that Vietnam was the first war in history where the press was more friendly to our enemy than to our allies. The coverage of the massacres at Hue so bothered Mr. Nixon that he mentioned it in two books. Mr. Nixon compared the non-existent coverage to the extensive media blitz on Lt. Calley and My Lai which may have been ten percent of the number butchered at Hue. General George Patton remembered 800 German prisoners being taken and 500 of them being killed. In one sentence he dismissed this butchery. Patton attributed the slaughter to Americans having the mistaken belief that Germans had killed hospitalized American troops. If Americans remember any atrocity from World War II, it was the slaying of American soldiers at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. [color=blue]Less than 100 American troops were killed[/color]. Remembrance of massacres and those killed has been controlled by a national media which has preferred to find its demons and ghouls among white Europeans or failing that in Americans who fought against communism.* The Patton quote was from [George S. Patton, [color=blue]War as I Knew It[/color]***, p217 (Houghton Mifflin, 1947)]
Another American recalled World War II> Retired Judge Mathew Parks reflected on his experiences in World War II and put them on a video. Parks, 76 retired as a judge of compensation for the State Labor Departmentââ¬â¢s Division of Worker Compensation in January 2002. Parks remembered himself as a scared 18 year old in the glider infantry of the 82nd Airborne Division. A picture taken in France on December 10, 1944 showed a youthful Parks with four (4) of his friends in dress uniform looking as if they had seen something that most men will not. Parks was the only one of the five to survive the war. He remembered the glider invasion of the Netherlands in September 1944 when after crashing, he quickly joined machine gunners on a ridge. There he was ordered to fire on German soldiers flushed out of the woods by an artillery barrage. ââ¬ÅI asked a battalion commander there, ââ¬Ë[color=red]What do we do if they come out under a white flag?ââ¬â¢Ã¢â¬Â Parks said. ââ¬ÅHe said, ââ¬ËDonââ¬â¢t you understand English? Shoot ââ¬Ëem!ââ¬Â They came out to surrender and 200 or more were killed. I was not happy about it.ââ¬Â [/color](Philadelphia Inquirer, Mar 30, 2002, ppB1&3) Butchery is as old as war. We can only hope to control it somewhat. A bloodlust comes upon people who have had friends killed. I do not expect many of you to fully understand, but I hope I can make some understand the bitter emotions that do occur.
2003-04-29 20:11 | User Profile
My real problem, Edward, with the Covarrubias story is less that he executed men he could've taken prisoner, or even that he struck a blow for Israel with the killshot (you may certainly assume Covarrubias is being mazel-tov'd in Tel Aviv right now), but that he shot them, execution style. Since summary execution of pacified enemy prisoners is countenanced under nobody's articles of war but those of criminals, and is a favored method of executing divinity students and their fiances by Kansas blacks [but who are we kidding? By blacks and Mexes everywhere they are!], I'd have less of a problem if he'd shot these Arabs face to face.
There's something about a bullet in the back of the head of a now-unarmed man that rubs me the wrongest way. It's the executioner sparing himself the full cognizance of his work. You may want Covarrubias in your foxhole and you may well be right - I'm not denying the man's loyaltyor his fierceness - but I assure you, there are any number of cocaine cartels who would love to have him collecting their past-due invoices.
2003-04-29 22:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 29 2003, 20:11 There's something about a bullet in the back of the head of a now-unarmed man that rubs me the wrongest way. It's the executioner sparing himself the full cognizance of his work. You may want Covarrubias in your foxhole and you may well be right - I'm not denying the man's loyaltyor his fierceness - but I assure you, there are any number of cocaine cartels who would love to have him collecting their past-due invoices.
It rubs me the wrong way too. But I have to admit that I might find a lot less to object about it if I had been in that situation myself and the grenade had been fired at me.
In fact if I was in a battle, I'd a lot rather have people like the Master Sergeant besides me, than some panzies cowering behind their foxholes afraid to go after this guy, and probably waiting to write up their comrades in their proficiency reports like undoubtedly some in the rest of his unit.
You need men willing to chase your enemies down like the Sergeant did. And the kinds of men who do this sort of thing are frequently not motivated to catch their enemy just by the desire to share a cup of tea with them.
It may be distasteful, but I find it equally distasteful that this guy is apparently being selectively and hypocritically prosecuted by his superiors. It obviously isn't because he was the only one who did this sort of thing by far, but by the fact he felt the need to talk about it. I'd even assert that it transparently is being done to shut up the rest of the army. Reaffirming "the don't ask, don't tell" doctrine in regards to wartime conduct.
After all, what do you expect when you throw men into battle. The neocons and warmongers like to talk like we can wage war according to the Marquis of Queensbury rules so that all our enemies love us. Well it usually doesn't work that way, and that's why we're so circumspect into getting into wars in the first place.
Used to be that generals, and politicians, recognized the realities of war, and took reposibility for it and the fact that occasionally soldiers put in tough situations don't act like boy scouts helping little old ladies across the street. Now they just can't wait to stab them in the back as soon as the war is over for political advantage in the military hierarchy.
Instead of alienating people in the U.S. Military, we ought to be reaching out to them. They see the hypocricies of war far better than we can, and they often can be our best allies.
2003-04-29 23:06 | User Profile
**il ragno ** (Posted: Apr 29 2003, 21:11)> **
[color=blue]My real problem, Edward, with the Covarrubias story is less that he executed men he could've taken prisoner, or even that he struck a blow for Israel with the killshot (you may certainly assume Covarrubias is being mazel-tov'd in Tel Aviv right now), but that he shot them, execution style[/color]. Since summary execution of pacified enemy prisoners is countenanced under nobody's articles of war but those of criminals, and is a favored method of executing divinity students and their fiances by Kansas blacks [but who are we kidding? By blacks and Mexes everywhere they are!], I'd have less of a problem if he'd shot these Arabs face to face.
There's something about a bullet in the back of the head of a now-unarmed man that rubs me the wrongest way. It's the executioner sparing himself the full cognizance of his work. You may want Covarrubias in your foxhole and you may well be right - I'm not denying the man's loyaltyor his fierceness - but I assure you, there are any number of cocaine cartels who would love to have him collecting their past-due invoices.**
When he did so, I am sure had no higher calling in mind than avenging the deaths of his buddies. He did not do so to appease the honor of the United States, nor did the interests of Israel enter his head. As you wrote, I grant it would have been somewhat better if he shot them in the face. Yet he did avenge his friends.
2003-04-29 23:33 | User Profile
To go way back in this thread, it's hard to believe that on this board, the real difference between Left and RIght is not seen as obivious. The animating spirit, the core belief, the reason for existance for the contemporary left in the United States is - white male hating. Socialism, social welfare, environmentalism - all are secondary concerns to the main goal of settling Whitey's hash once and for all.
I exaggerate? Slightly, perhaps, but let's take some of the best the Left has to offer - counterpunch.com. I know some people here read them, as do I. I like Alex Cockburn's work, he writes well, is well informed, iracible and has a talent for artful invective. My kind of guy, even if I often disagree with him. But in a great many articles, just as the author is swinging hard and well at corporate globalists, zionists, whatever, out pops that Leftish obsession with The Evil White Male.
Oh yes, there are some lefties who understand that white Applachians, long under/un-employed factory workers and the like are worthy also. But they seem to be drowned out by the bolt-nosed, dreadlocked Hate Whitey crowd in every forum and march I'm aware of.
It didn't use to be like that. We know from history of the old native folk left - the Huey Longs, the James Michael Curleys, the Wobblies. The invasion of the pod people - yes, jews - took care of that in the desire to forge a tool to wrest power from the old leaders of this country.
In a blackly humorously way, it's fun to see this tool starting to be turned back on the special ones. Their minions were trained too well - and not well enough!
White skin - check. Rich - check. Powerful - check. Oppresses people of color - check.
Hey comrades, the jews are white males also! Sic 'em!
Poor babies.
I, of course, am not referring here to PaleoLeftist, and those like him. Long may they thrive and prosper!
To change the topic, Mr. Fahey, don't let your critics get under your skin. I liked very much your work on Captain Trips. Back in the early seventies, I heard vague and non specific stories of how the CIA started turning on the nation in order to "abort the revolution." At the time, I thought such views delusional. Now, we can see that they were perhaps referring to Captain Hubbard. You're a good bird-dog, keep it up!
2003-04-29 23:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by Preserved Mather@Apr 29 2003, 23:33 ** To change the topic, Mr. Fahey, don't let your critics get under your skin. I liked very much your work on Captain Trips. Back in the early seventies, I heard vague and non specific stories of how the CIA started turning on the nation in order to "abort the revolution." At the time, I thought such views delusional. Now, we can see that they were perhaps referring to Captain Hubbard. You're a good bird-dog, keep it up! **
What kind of a dog is the Toddmeister? He says he's a big dog, Edward Gibbon says he's nothing but an "attack chihuahua, and now Preserved Mather says he's a bird dog.
The only thing we definitely know about Todd's pedigree is that its stained with LSD. That is interesting to me. I remember reading all the time about the vague conspiracy theories being behind the CIA's involvement with LSD, but I never read them or listened to them seriously. I just got the odd impression that the people who advanced them were all on LSD themselves. Now Todd says they were probably messed up because they weren't taking LSD. Well never mind.
I'm curious, but I admit not enough to by a copy of the book :sleep:
2003-04-30 00:58 | User Profile
No, Okie, let's go back to the Covarrubiases who make us great for a minute. Here's the next phase of our morphing into Israelis, bit by bit:
**FALLUJAH, Iraq (April 29) - U.S. paratroopers fired on anti-American protesters during a nighttime demonstration, and a hospital reported Tuesday that 13 Iraqis were killed and 75 wounded, including three young boys. Soldiers said armed men had mixed into the crowd and fired at them from nearby buildings.
The deaths outside a school in Fallujah, a conservative Sunni Muslim city and Baath Party stronghold 30 miles west of the capital, highlighted the tense and precarious balance as Americans try to keep the peace in Iraq.
Americans and Iraqis gave sharply differing accounts of Monday night's shooting. U.S. forces insisted they opened fire only upon armed men - infiltrators among the protest crowd, according to Col. Arnold Bray, commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, 325 Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division, whose troops were involved in the shooting.
''Which school kids carry AK-47s?'' Bray asked. ''I'm 100 percent certain the persons we shot at were armed.''
Protesters insisted their demonstration was unarmed and peaceful.
Dr. Ahmed Ghandim al-Ali, director of Fallujah's general hospital, said the clash killed 13 Iraqis and injured about 75. The dead included three boys ages 8 to 10, he said.
Some residents put the death toll higher, at 15. Survivors said the dead were buried quickly Tuesday morning, in accord with Islamic custom.
No Americans were injured.
The shooting was the third reported fatal clash involving U.S. troops and Iraqi protesters in two weeks, underscoring the problems soldiers face as they try to switch from fighting to peacekeeping.
On April 15 and 16, Marines opened fire during angry demonstrations in the northern city of Mosul. Iraqis said 17 people were killed there, though details remained unclear and the Marines insisted they fired in self-defense.
The shootings, widely reported by Arab news media, have fueled resentment of the U.S. military weeks after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.
U.S. forces serving in the area said they have been trained in crowd control. About half the company headquartered at the school in Fallujah served in Kosovo peacekeeping operations, 2nd Lt. Devin Woods said.
It was unclear whether the protest that sparked the shootings grew from general animosity toward Americans in Fallujah, a city long considered a stronghold of Saddam support and site of factories suspected of involvement in banned weapons programs.
But it appeared a clash of cultures, at least, was involved.
Residents repeatedly denounced battalion members' use of binoculars and night-vision goggles. They accused soldiers of spying on women from the school's upper floors and rooftop.
Monday's protest started after evening prayers on Saddam's birthday, in the past an occasion for weeklong celebrations. Lt. Col. Eric Nantz said the demonstration involved no more than 200 people - an indication, Nantz said, of support for American forces.
The Iraqi dead and wounded in hospital wards and homes also included women and children shot inside their walled homes in the neighborhood.
''They shot everyone who moved,'' Rafid Mahmoud, a cousin of one wounded man, said at Fallujah hospital Tuesday. He stood in front of the bed of his brother, who stared at visitors, his foot newly amputated.
''Americans are criminals,'' said 37-year-old Ebtesam Shamsudein, her leg bandaged. Her seven children surrounded her, one boy wearing clothes smeared with bloody palmprints.
U.S. Central Command said paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division were fired on by about 25 armed civilians mixed within an estimated crowd of 200 protesters outside a compound troops were occupying.
''The paratroopers, who received fire from elements mixed within the crowd and positioned atop neighboring buildings, returned fire, wounding at least seven of the armed individuals,'' the Central Command statement said.
A Central Command spokesman, Lt. Mark Kitchens, said coalition forces ''have consistently demonstrated their efforts to avoid civilian casualties and practice restraint. Any allegations to the contrary are simply not based on fact.''
Air Force Maj. Gen. Gene Renuart, U.S. Central Command's operations director, said the demonstration was apparently in celebration of Saddam's birthday.
Some townspeople, however, said the crowd was objecting to the presence of troops, while others said students wanted the soldiers to leave the school so classes could resume.
Some protesters carried AK-47 assault rifles, Nantz said. U.S. soldiers sent a loudspeaker-equipped truck to urge them to stop firing into the air, he said.
As the chanting crowd milled about, soldiers said, U.S. forces used illumination rounds and a smoke grenade to try to keep gun-toting protesters away.
At one point, Nantz said, soldiers sent out in an armored personnel carrier fired two rounds from a 50-caliber machine gun, also in warning.
A company of the battalion's soldiers, 130 in all, had been based in the school since late last week.
Eventually, soldiers of the company said, protesters closed to within no more than 10 feet of the schoolhouse wall. At that point, U.S. forces said, three men on a nearby roof fired into the school.
''Everybody could see the muzzle flashes,'' said Sgt. Nkosi Campbell, who commanded the first Americans who fired.
Even then, soldiers exercised restraint, Campbell said. ''They turned around and said, '''Hey, sergeant, can we shoot? And that was when they were already under fire.'''
Nantz said soldiers fired automatic weapons for 20 to 30 minutes. Because residents carried away the dead and wounded quickly, Bray said troops had no idea about Iraqi casualties overall.
On Tuesday, pools of blood remained outside homes across from the school. Walls of homes were bullet-pitted. No bullet holes from incoming fire were obvious at the school, although soldiers said windows had been shot out.
At the hospital, Arab television stations handed microphones to victims for interviews.
Shamsudein's husband, the man whose foot was amputated, was wounded when he ran to close the gate to keep protesters out and his children in. Shamsuedein was shot trying to help him.
One of her brothers-in-law came out to help. He was shot in the heart and died, relatives and doctors said. The men's mother, 65, stepped outside to see, and was shot in the shoulder.
''They go out to save one another, you know,'' Mahmoud said. ''They are brothers.''
AP-NY-04-29-03 1920EDT
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.ÃÂ All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.**
Now we kill kids on Israel's behalf. Sorry, I already am expecting the standard hairy-chested 'to rule,one must be hard' justifications, but the fact still remains :
This is what the IDF does. Now it's what we do. While they memorize their Luntz Group memos and practice not praising Bush to the goys, and trying to work "children" into the soundbite whenever possible.
So explain to me how it's the men who shoot 8-year-olds, or who execute prisoners like the Medellin cartel does, who keep me safe in my bed at night.
2003-04-30 02:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 30 2003, 00:58 So explain to me how it's the men who shoot 8-year-olds, or who execute prisoners like the Medellin cartel does, who keep me safe in my bed at night.
What's this with all this Medellin cartel bashing? I thought the Columbian's entrepreneurs were all the libertarian druggies favorite friends, and the war against them another example of American imperialism? (Although I guess some maintain coke is just a cheap substitute for the good stuff, LSD).
2003-04-30 02:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Apr 29 2003, 21:03 ** (Although I guess some maintain coke is just a cheap substitute for the good stuff, LSD). **
I don't think anyone that knew what they were talking about would maintain that. Cocaine is an anasthetic/stimulant and LSD is a hallucinogen. Two entirely different highs.
2003-04-30 02:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Apr 30 2003, 02:25 ** I don't think anyone that knew what they were talking about would maintain that. Cocaine is an anasthetic/stimulant and LSD is a hallucinogen. Two entirely different highs. **
Thanks Tex. I guess with all the expertise on drugs on this forum someone was bound to catch me :sm:
2003-04-30 02:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Apr 29 2003, 22:25 ** > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Apr 29 2003, 21:03 ** (Although I guess some maintain coke is just a cheap substitute for the good stuff, LSD). **
I don't think anyone that knew what they were talking about would maintain that. Cocaine is an anasthetic/stimulant and LSD is a hallucinogen. Two entirely different highs. **
Now this is really getting good. :lol: Again, TBF thread = never boring.
I think TD is right about his drugs. I don't know this from personal experience, of course. I only know what I read.
I'm too much of a coward to touch LSD or cocaine, I'll admit, after hearing stories of a guy who was on LSD thinking that he was an orange and taking a knife and trying to "peel" himself, or of cocaine causing heart attacks, instant overdoses, etc.
Tried weed in my freshman year of college, though, just out of curiosity when it was offered to me. Wanted to see what it felt like, just as I had alcohol during the same time period, since I'd never had the chance back home before I left for college since I'm an only child, and parents have a way of focusing with a microscope on their only children who live under their roof.
I can't say I liked those kinds of substances, I prefer the way I am when I'm sober, etc. I didn't like the way weed made me feel. Being drunk was kind of a fun feeling at first, but then it gets really boring and you sort of get sick of it, but know it'll be a few hours before you sober up, so you have to wait around to "feel like you again."
I have nothing against those who enjoy and use these things, though. I think employer-mandated drug-testing is BS since they basically punish you for what you do on your own time at home "off the clock," not at work. I also think the War on Drugs is about as ridiculous as the War on Terror, and the DEA and other Feds have too much power and they should abolish it. Let the several states regulate these kinds of questions--I'm sure California will have a different standard than Kansas--and that's freedom.
2003-04-30 02:59 | User Profile
Okie:
What kind of dog am I? (you ask)
There's a few ways to assess the answer to yr question: here; here, and at Disinfo.com (no direct-page search function, but plug in "Todd Brendan Fahey" to the Search blank, upper-right, main page, and you'll get the archives) being the most direct.
Add to those results the plethora of articles of my pen that were nuked at The American-Partisan and EtherZone, and the 4-year flush of stuff at FreeRepublic.com; add also the several dozen articles I've published pre-Internet, and which have not yet been scanned for Web upload... Coverage of my Arizona political years in the Arizona Republic, Phoenix Gazette, Mesa Tribune, Phoenix New Times, 1984-1989 (Congressman John Conlan; Governor Evan Mecham; John Birch Society, others--also not scanned to Web).
A novel (55 reviews to-date, only 3 negative); a collection of short stories (which'll be released in book form this year, stay tuned); a black autobiography.
...And then compare the above against your own output to-date. :rock:
2003-04-30 04:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Apr 30 2003, 02:59 **A novel (55 reviews to-date, only 3 negative); a collection of short stories (which'll be released in book form this year, stay tuned); a black autobiography.
...And then compare the above against your own output to-date. :rock:**
Yes Todd, but what I have done is entirely from my own, organic thought. No chemical additives. :hyp:
2003-04-30 04:45 | User Profile
As I've said before, there's a major divide amongst "conservatives":
Puritans v. anti-federalists
I see the ingestion of Drugs (and that includes coffee, tea, chocolate, cigarettes, beer; and "legal" pharmaceuticals, as well as those deemed "illegal") as a matter of individual liberty. So long as I'm not performing brain surgery or driving a motor vehicle or heavy machinery which might endanger others, what business is it of anyone's what I gobble?
& we all know that more deaths have occurred via (legal) alcohol and tobacco than from all other Drugs combined. So the argument posed by Gubm't is bogus.
& even if the "War On (some) Drugs" is made to be valid, such most certainly belongs under the province of the 10th amendment, and to the individual states, whose legislatures should then decide for themselves whether each particular state should render Drugs legal or illegal, and which ones to each category, etc.
Your broad-brush Puritanical approach is well-suited to a Big Government ideology.
2003-04-30 04:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Apr 30 2003, 02:46 **Now this is really getting good. :lol: Again, TBF thread = never boring.
**
I hate to say it, but the original TBF thread of this article over at [url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_international&Number=589890&page=&view=&sb=&o=&part=2&vc=1&t=-1]Liberty Forum [/url] was even more interesting. It goes over all the points I've raised - "Torie" Clarke, rumours that Aziz was going to be murdered when this story broke,, endless personal battles, etc.
Sometimes these paleo forums remind me off a "Charlie Brown's All-Stars" cartoon. After listening to Lucy, Linus, Violet, etc ramble on in the outfield, seemingly oblivious to the baseball game, Charlie Brown says "we may never win any baseball games, but we have some interesting discussions".
Maybe a fitting epitaph to the role of paleo discussion boards to the movement and our nation in general.
2003-04-30 05:02 | User Profile
Classic "Okiereddust":
Instead of taking on the merits of the Drugs discussion (10th amendment, et al., as posted above), he introduces a thread at another forum, to further cloud and obfuscate the ALREADY hijacked thread (recall, this thread was SUPPOSED to be about Tariq Aziz and the fact that the London Telegraph published hints as to his role as a CIA mole fully 5 weeks after I did).
Then "weisbrot" and "askel5" and "Okiereddust" begin introducing Drugs into the thread--which played no part in PaleoconAvatar's original posting of this thread.
That's the modus operandi of folks who wouldn't know how to punch their way out of a wet paper bag; or, of those who (as does "Okie") object to independent writers leaking out sensitive information, and opt to cast ad-hominae (attacking the messenger) and red-herrings (introducing another thread at another forum), so as to cast doubt on the messenger: without ever having tackled the meat of the thread.
Congrats, "Okie." Ya done well. :)
2003-04-30 06:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Apr 30 2003, 04:45 **As I've said before, there's a major divide amongst "conservatives":
Puritans v. anti-federalists
I see the ingestion of Drugs (and that includes coffee, tea, chocolate, cigarettes, beer; and "legal" pharmaceuticals, as well as those deemed "illegal") as a matter of individual liberty. So long as I'm not performing brain surgery or driving a motor vehicle or heavy machinery which might endanger others, what business is it of anyone's what I gobble?
& we all know that more deaths have occurred via (legal) alcohol and tobacco than from all other Drugs combined. So the argument posed by Gubm't is bogus.
& even if the "War On (some) Drugs" is made to be valid, such most certainly belongs under the province of the 10th amendment, and to the individual states, whose legislatures should then decide for themselves whether each particular state should render Drugs legal or illegal, and which ones to each category, etc.
Your broad-brush Puritanical approach is well-suited to a Big Government ideology.**
I don't apologize for tendencies some hard-core objectivists and libertarians would call both "Puritan" and "big government." I differ with libertarians on this, and actually I suppose could get into some interesting discussions over on Liberty Forum if I really wanted to, as I could here if I wanted to take your bait and further sidetrack this already hijack thread. I haven't done either actually because in general your positions on both these issues seem fairly idiosynchric, are very much a minority position on this board, and until recently I had not fully appreciated how much your positions on these swere an integral part of your political and personal philosophy.
I don't dispute at least from a technical standpoint, the wisdom of federalism and fidelity to the 10th amendment from a legal standpoint for approaching these issues. That said, I don't think limiting discussion to purely technical legal questions will adequately address the issue, and completely resolve the differences between conservatives and libertarians on this subject, just as it didn't on slavery.
Some writers like Chilton Williamson and James Davison Hunter notes that in this era of the intensified, and perhaps conclusive, "culture wars" the biggest battle we wil have over issues of two things that the philosophy of classic liberalism and the philosophy of radical individual autonomy cannot address fully, issues of communitarian rights, and issues relating to the body. Just as slavery did at one time, now such issues as homosexuality, child rearing and parental rights, abortion, environmental questions, "community standards" issues such as zoning, pornography, community education, and drug use all fall into this general category. As do issues such as loyalty to ones country vs. one's personal rights and judgement, which I tried to address on this thread already, apparently unsatisfactorily to your standards.
We could discuss this, but it probably would better be than on a thread which already has gotten pretty far afield, and hopefully at a time when and venue where parties involved would not need to feel defensive or that they were being personally attacked.
2003-04-30 07:15 | User Profile
agreed. This thread has run its course (ran its course a long f*cking time ago, but I guess the side-trackers had their own reasons...).
I'd be glad to engage in the intricate discourse of the War On (some) Drugs at an appropriate thread, of which this is not.
Whyntcha start such a thread, "Okie," offer your rationale, and let us ODers flail away?
2003-04-30 07:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Apr 30 2003, 07:15 ** agreed. This thread has run its course (ran its course a long f*cking time ago, but I guess the side-trackers had their own reasons...). **
Glad we can agree on something ;)
I'd be glad to engage in the intricate discourse of the War On (some) Drugs at an appropriate thread, of which this is not.
**Whyntcha start such a thread, "Okie," offer your rationale, and let us ODers flail away? **
Now generally my point is not to get into the merits of particuar drugs etc., but whether government properly has the right to regulate such things in general. With that stipulation, I'll do my best ;)
2003-04-30 14:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Apr 28 2003, 20:57 **
"il ragno" wins the Post-of-the-Day (actually, month) Award. :) **
Since when did you get to hand out the prizes?