Red Speck On A Blue Sun

I'm back

2004-12-30T17:03:00.000+13:00

I've returned from my holiday and will resume blogging again shortly.

The weather here in New Zealand has been shockingly terrible (raining) - although we got a few good days over Christmas.

I have seen the terrible tsunami than has struck southern Asia, and already people are criticizing Bush for not making a statement quickly enough, and some others are also leveling criticism at the U.S.A for being 'stingey'.
Even in the scope of one of the worlds worst disasters, some people still find room for pettiness.

On a brighter note, I hope everyone has a great New Years. There are many things to look forward to in 2005.

I bought a book for Christmas that gives a history of all the conflicts in the Middle East ranging from the original British mandate over Israel to the latest removal of Saddam in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was quite interesting and relatively unbiased (as history books usually are) and I shall write something about it soon.

Merry Christmas

2004-12-22T09:12:00.000+13:00

I'm going away today for a week, so my blogging will be light.

Merry Christmas everyone and have a safe and happy holiday.

Israel-Palestine - One State

2004-12-21T13:04:00.000+13:00

Coming from a country where we have two very difference ethnic races bound together by a constitution - I believe the solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is not a two state solution, but a one state solution.
Yes even here in New Zealand we have problems between the Maori and Pakeha (as they call us) - but nothing on the scale of what is happening in Israel.

I don't think a two state solution is ever going to work for a couple of reasons.
The first reason is who gets Jerusalem? They both want it and under a two state solution they both can't have it.

The second reason is that many of the Palestinians just want to go home - where their ancestors came from or where there family came from. Many of these places are in Israel. Of course they can still live there, but as Israeli citizens not Palestinians. This isn't entirely fair however, and is like the British dividing up New Zealand into two parts, one for the Maori and one for the British - New Zealand never would have worked under that arrangement. The Palestinians the Maori people have a spiritual connection to their land.

However the big difference between New Zealand and the Palestine/Israel situation is that Maoris make up only around 13% of our population - so the British were naturally quite happy to 'share' the country with them. We outnumbered them after all so having a democratic government was to our advantage (funny how it's turned out now though).
Over there, almost as many Palestinians as there are Israelis - and sharing equal power with their most hated enemy might be a tough thing to swallow for many of them.

I'm sure many people disagree and may feel I'm being too sympathetic to the Palestinians, however I'm not.
I'm not advocating that the Palestinians get to claim Israeli land like the Maoris can claim land here, and I certainly don't feel that Israel should make any concessions until the terrorism stops.
What I am advocating if these people really want to live in peace they are going to have to live together under a democratic state with one law for all the people, a state that they can all claim as their own and live where they want.

Is this ever going to happen? I really don't know, while almost too much damage has been done for these people to live together, reform is coming to the Middle East one way or another.

The 20 most annoying U.S. liberals - 2004 edition

2004-12-21T11:44:00.000+13:00

Check out this link.

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." -- John Kerry

The greatest military machine ever

2004-12-21T09:54:00.000+13:00

This is a highly debatable topic for all you military/history buffs out there. Who do you think was the greatest military machine and why?

Some contenders:

The Macedonians
The Romans
The Ottoman Empire
The Mongols
The Spanish
The British/English
The French under Napoleon
The Wehrmacht (Germany WW2 army)

The book is still out on the U.S. military so I've intentionally left them off the list, and I've probably missed a few military machines that have made a large impact - so feel free to add any I've missed in the comments section.

As for my pick, I'd have to go with the Romans, with the Mongols a close second.

The Romans put the art in the art of war, they had superior doctrine whether it be tactics, operations, training, logistics, or strategy to almost anyone else at the time and for a long time to come.
Many other armies on the list also had the same, but unlike the Romans they didn't have it for hundreds of years and many lacked the Romans ability to adapt.

The Romans were almost an unbeatable fighting force from around 100BC-200AD maintaining a dominance that not even the U.S. military has today.
The Macedonians under Alexander were a great military machine but it was more to do with the man than the machine. The Mongols were also a great military machine but they did not have the longevity of the Romans.

Not only that, many of the things that made the Roman army great was not to be matched until hundreds of years later. For example, the Romans first invented the Professional Army, something that only started being used to the full in the end of the 20th century.
Roman siege weapons were superior to most of their medieval counterparts for many years after the Roman empire collapsed and Roman soldiers not only were highly trained warriors but also excellent engineers.

The Romans also in their early days suffered what should have been decisive defeats but had the will and resolve keep going on to victory. The second Punic war saw the Romans suffer defeat after defeat against Hannibal, losing up to 80,000 men (debatable figure, but the battle definitely was a great loss to the Romans) at the battle of Cannes alone.

After the Roman empire fell Europe went into the 'dark ages' not just from a social aspect, but also a military aspect as well.

Post your comments on who you feel was the greatest military machine ever and why.

Iraq - victory or defeat? Part II

2004-12-20T13:44:00.000+13:00

In one of my earlier posts, I stated that a victory in Iraq means successful elections and Iraqi security forces who can take care of their own country.

In this article, Gen. George W. Casey Jr the Commander of the Multinational force says something similar:

"My view of winning is that we are broadly on track to accomplishing our objectives, which is a constitutionally elected government that is representative of all the Iraqi people and with Iraqi security forces that are capable of maintaining domestic order and denying Iraq as a safe haven for terror," the general said. "And I believe we will get there by the end of December '05, and I believe we are on track to get there by December of '05."

Of course, U.S. commanders have expressed optimism before.

The General raises a good point however, and after a recent discussion with someone in another blog about 'Iraq deteriorating out of control' I think it's relevant:

"They don't have to do much," he said. "A car bomb a day in Baghdad or on the airport road sends a symbol that the insurgency is very powerful, when in actuality I don't believe that they are.
It's a classic technique of the urban insurgent. They are trying to provoke us to do something that will make us look like we're over-reacting to them."

In other words - what is happening in Iraq is not something the U.S. can't deal with and Iraq certainly isn't heading towards "Vietnam 2" either.

People seem to forget that this is a war and in war people die, soldiers die, things blow up, setbacks happen.
The reason people forget this somewhat obvious fact is that after years of the western public and more importantly the press being exposed to mainly air wars (Gulf War 1, Kosovo, and Afghanistan to a certain extent) many of us seem to think that the relatively small number of U.S. casualties in Iraq means it's a 'quagmire' and the situation is 'out of control'.
Another reason is that the press has been given much more access to what is happening on the ground than before, and this is the first time in a long time the United States has stuck around to 'finish the job'.
Things are not going smoothly that is for sure, but who really expects it to be so? This isn't a Hollywood movie following a script.

The biggest measure of success or failure however is not the bodycount of U.S. soldiers, dead insurgents, dead Iraqi civilians, dollars, or anything like that - a point which the press misses. It is definitely not about reaching or not reaching a deadline before date n.
The biggest measure of success is the resolve of the American people and their leader, and also that of the Iraqi people.

The U.S. won their victory in November and despite all the violence the Iraqis will most likely win theirs in January.

Blame Israel

2004-12-20T10:46:00.000+13:00

Why are all the Arab leaders obsessed with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Arab leaders themselves hardly are coming up with road maps or seem to be in any great hurry to solve the problem.

The answer is simple, it's because Israel (and it's ally the United States) is an easy scapegoat for the Arab leaders to fuel the frustrations of their own societies away from them.

Thanks to 2Slick, I came across this great article written by Haim Harari. It is long, but it is well worth the read. It highlights some of the problems in the Middle East - and why Israel is a scapegoat.

Click Here to read.

"Why do I put aside Israel and its own immediate neighborhood? Because Israel and any problems related to it, in spite of what you might read or hear in the world media, is not the central issue, and has never been the central issue in the upheaval in the region. Yes, there is a 100 year-old Israeli-Arab conflict, but it is not where the main show is.

The millions who died in the Iran-Iraq war had nothing to do with Israel. The mass murder happening right now in Sudan, where the Arab Moslem regime is massacring its black Christian citizens, has nothing to do with Israel. The frequent reports from Algeria about the murders of hundreds of civilian in one village or another by other Algerians have nothing to do with Israel. Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait, endangered Saudi Arabia and butchered his own people because of Israel. Egypt did not use poison gas against Yemen in the 60's because of Israel. Assad the Father did not kill tens of thousands of his own citizens in one week in El Hamma in Syria because of Israel.
The Taliban control of Afghanistan and the civil war there had nothing to do with Israel. The Libyan blowing up of the Pan-Am flight had nothing to do with Israel, and I could go on and on and on."

Germans can't "stand up" to their own women

2004-12-20T10:20:00.000+13:00

More insanity from Europe:

German men told they can no longer stand and deliver

German men are being shamed into urinating while sitting down by a gadget which is saving millions of women from cleaning up in the bathroom after them.
The WC ghost, a £6 voice-alarm, reprimands men for standing at the lavatory pan. It is triggered when the seat is lifted. The battery-operated devices are attached to the seats and deliver stern warnings to those who attempt to stand and urinate (known as "Stehpinkeln").

"Hey, stand-peeing is not allowed here and will be punished with fines, so if you don't want any trouble, you'd best sit down," one of the devices orders in a voice impersonating the German leader, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder. Another has a voice similar to that of his predecessor, Helmut Kohl.

Also a while back that in Sweden they wanted to ban all male urinals because they annoyed feminists:

Young women in Sweden, Germany and Australia have a new cause: They want men to sit down while urinating. This demand comes partly from concerns about hygiene — avoiding the splash factor — but as Jasper Gerard reports in the English magazine The Spectator, "more crucially because a man standing up to urinate is deemed to be triumphing in his masculinity, and by extension, degrading women.

"A feminist group at Stockholm University is campaigning to ban urinals from campus, and one Swedish elementary school has removed them.
Some Swedish women are pressuring their men to take a stand, so to speak. Yola, a 25-year-old Swedish trainee psychiatrist, says she dumps boyfriends who insist on standing. "What else can I do?" said her new boyfriend, Ingvar, who sits.

Quick Update

2004-12-19T10:58:00.000+13:00

Sorry for the lack of posts over the weekend, I've had a very busy weekend so far as it's getting close to Christmas and all that.
I had my work function last night on the 33rd floor of The Metropolis and I'm still recovering, meanwhile my apartments fire alarm just went off *groan*.

Simterror `05

2004-12-17T13:18:00.000+13:00

I have volunteered to represent the European Union in Silentrunnings "Simterror `05", where bloggers get a chance to play the role of nations and see how we do.

Since my posts as the head of the EU will be somewhat different to my normal posts, all my Simterror `05 posts will be headed with this:

I don't want my readers to think im going all EU on them.

Things kick off 1st of January, although I hope not too early in the morning.

Now, the first thing I must do is hunt down David from my Appeasement 101 post and name him as foreign policy minister of the EU. ;)

Appeasement 101

2004-12-17T09:30:00.000+13:00

I entered a discussion with another poster on Freudian Slippers, and somehow the conversation turned to the use of force. This is what the poster, David (not to be confused with me) had to say:

I see I am outnumbered by the warmongers who think you can force freedom on a country through the judicious use of the lives of the American military as well as the lives of innocent civilians we accidentally kill while freeing them from despotic rule. And if you would state that fewer people have died at the hands of our military than would have died had Saddam still been in power, I will say that of all those who died at Saddam's hands, *none* of their blood would be on the hands of the US. Now we have the blood of thousands of innocents on our hands. If you say that innocent blood must be spilt in the pursuit of freedom, I question the freedom that you are pursuing.

Global capitalism would be the most wonderful thing in the world. It would increase the prosperity and freedom of all. Spreading it at the point of a gun poisons the well.
Loving freedom does not come part and parcel with the need to love the state and what it does.

This is an attitude that I encounter quite a lot. It is the attitude that the blood of not even one innocent person justifies anything, and it is quite an ideological attitude.

If everyone thought like David there would be no war, no suffering, etc. It is a noble thought indeed. David believes we are on a collision course with utopia, that humanity has evolved so much that why should we war? Why should we fight?

Well David, we are not on a collision course with utopia, human thought and understanding has evolved but human emotions have not. There is still anger, hate, greed, and corruption in the world and much of it in the Middle East.

Peace is not the rule, it is the exception to the rule. The peace David has enjoyed in his country he gained through force and it has been maintained through force. That is why even peaceful nations still maintain an army. Many innocent people died so David could be free to criticize his government, and David is exercising that freedom without a second thought.

You are not born with the right to be free, but everyone should be entitled to that right. If I was born into Iraq I would not have the same rights that David has. Those rights were taken away from Iraqis by force, and they can only be given back with force.
But no, from David's point of view, as long as millions of Iraqis are dying and someone else is killing them - that's fine.

This thinking stems from that fact that David probably believes that Saddam was not a threat to his country or himself. David also probably believed that Osama Bin Laden was not a threat 10 years ago, and David may never even have heard of him.
If Bill Clinton decided to invade Afghanistan to deal with Osama after the first WTC bombing, David would probably have been against that invasion - despite the fact that it may have prevented 9/11 and hence the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Am I advocating the killing of innocents? No. But innocent people do die either way. They die if you do nothing and they die if you do something.
Innocent people go to jail and some die, but should we do away with laws? Absolutely not - as long as they do more good than harm.
Is America doing more good than harm in Iraq? Absolutely.

However David is not wrong and neither am I. David's attitude is needed, it is needed to keep 'warmongers' like me in check. The difference is when David's attitude is needed.

People like David have had their time, their time was when the Berlin wall came crashing down. However when the Twin Towers came crashing down, it is now our time.

A message to the people of Iraq

2004-12-16T14:46:00.000+13:00

These times are confusing for many of you, and indeed, many of us around the globe.

These are also times of turmoil, strife, and suffering. These things are not new to you, as you have suffered these things for the past 35 years.

However, now things are different.

The prices you are paying indeed in blood has a purpose. That purpose is a noble one, it is your freedom. It is your ability to chose the path that you want to go in life. It is a path not only for you but your children too.

But you are not there yet. Many of you feel humiliated that a power came across the sea and freed you when you could not free yourselves, a foreign army. Occupiers.
Many of you - thankful that Saddam has gone - resent this army for the gift it has given you and you feel shame.

Do not feel this way, for you are helping us. You in your pursuits of freedom and democracy are helping us through our struggles. For if Iraq and Afghanistan become the shining pillars of democracy in a tyrant infested region, it offers hope for all your people and ours.
The United States may have overthrown Saddam - yes, but this is your chance to overthrow tyranny and help the United States. The U.S. depends on your will and resolve, it depends on your success. Your lives and fate may be in the hands of America right now, but remember, their fate and ours are also in your hands.

This is your one chance to reach out and take freedom once and for all. Do not squander it, do not hate those who come to your country not only in their interest, but also in yours.

Many of us, having been born into freedom take it for granted. If you succeed in your struggle for freedom, against all odds, despite all the violence, you will humble us all.

The NYT: A cesspool of Racism and Anti-Semitism

2004-12-16T09:56:00.000+13:00

The Jewish Times is reporting this little gem:

NYTimes Workers Charge Racism, Anti-Semitism

Nine New York Times employees, including a Jewish man, are charging that they were subjected to racial and religious discrimination at the paper's Edison, N.J., printing plant.

Their lawsuit, filed in Middlesex County Superior Court on Nov. 3, includes complaints that supervisors aimed racial and religious epithets at employees or ignored such epithets coming from others and that Hispanic, black, and Jewish employees were denied seniority rights, promotions and pay scales commensurate with their years of service as well as plum assignments that would have enabled them to pick up overtime pay.

The newspaper maintains "a hostile and pervasive work environment" based upon "the widespread use of racial and religious epithets" and the "disparate treatment" of employees "based upon race, color, national origin, and religion," according to the 16-page complaint.

The Times management has denied the allegations.

Need I say more?

(Hat tip : Michelle Malkin)

UPDATE:
Ruth from Freudian Slippers has a excerpt from an article comparing anti-Americanism to racism.

There is an interesting breed of person quite prominent in NZ. These are the types of person who would (rightly) show disgust at an abusive racist and sexist comment.They would (again, quite rightly) point out that to judge an entire gender or race on a stereotype or anecdotal evidence is both incorrect and immoral. Yet many of these people would have no qualms with a statement such as "Americans are stupid."

The point this raises is that while it is not OK to make fun of someone's race, why is it OK to make fun of a culture? A people? This does point out the double standards that many people have in the world, and it's part of being Human.

My opinion on the matter is to hell with racism and anti-Americanism. You should be able to say what you want, and of course, be judged by your peers accordingly (but let me make myself clear, if you're working in a professional enviroment, such as the NYT, you should treat your staff with equal professionalism).
We're adults, we should be able to handle what other people have to say without having to worry about 'hurting someone's feelings'.
The more we start getting into what you can and can't say, the more we start to look like the U.K.

Ruth brings up a valid point though:

I find this type of racism rather prevalent in the blogosphere. There is a fine line between rational passion and irrational zealotry, and that line is often crossed. The bloodthirstiness of some individuals from both sides of the aisle is appalling.

If you want to be taken seriously as someone of respect, you must try your hardest not to have double standards. Many of us on the right accuse the left of being driven by propaganda and hate. This is self evident by many of the anti-war, anti-bush protestors and their hateful messages.
But we ourselves on the right must be careful that we do not fall into the same trap, and must maintain our integrity on all matters.
By all means we should be able to say what we want to say, but at the end of the day the quiet observers among our communities need to look at us and think 'they are the sensible ones', rather than 'they are two sides of the same coin'.

Going to the U.K? Better watch your tongue

2004-12-16T09:25:00.000+13:00

That's right folks. Speech supression is back, communist style!

This time however all those who were rooting for communism (and lost) have now switched to Islam.

British National Party leader detained after calling Islam 'wicked faith'
Tue Dec 14, 1:54 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - The leader of the rightwing British National Party(BNP), Nick Griffin, was arrested Tuesday after he called Islam a "vicious, wicked faith" in a television documentary.
AFP/File Photo
Griffin, 45, was arrested on suspicion of "incitement to commit racial hatred" and held for questioning by police in northern England before he was released on bail several hours later.
When asked if he considered Islam a "vicious, wicked faith", Griffin urged reporters to study the Koran for themselves before saying: "There are aspects of that religion which are wicked."
He then condemned the treatment of women under Islam.
The BNP, which won 800,000 votes but no seats in the European elections in June, charged the arrest was part of a "crude" bid by Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s government to win back Muslim votes lost over his war in Iraq (news - web sites).
A BNP spokesman said four non-uniformed police officers raiding the family farmhouse in Wales "awoke the Griffin household from their sleep" early Tuesday.
Griffin was the 12th person arrested in connection with the investigation into the BBC documentary aired in July.

The BNP's founding chairman John Tyndall, 70, was arrested on suspicion of the same offense on Sunday following a speech he made in the northwestern city of Burnley in March.
The documentary, screened in July, featured secretly filmed footage showing BNP activists confessing to race-hate crimes and Griffin condemning Islam as a "vicious, wicked faith".
Speaking on July 15, when the BBC documentary was screened, Griffin accused the program's makers of selectively editing the speech he is seen delivering, and challenged the authorities to prosecute him.

He said if Home Secretary David Blunkett "wants to put me on a show trial about whether we're entitled to warn about the dangers of Islam, I will be absolutely delighted."
Any jury would be shown the full speech, in which he makes clear that the BNP was not targeting individuals or communities, he added.
The BNP spokesman denounced the arrest as an attack on freedom of speech.
"The BNP doesn't hate anyone, we don't hate anyone's race or religion," the spokesman added.
"If we want to debate whether or not religious diversity is a good thing for this country, we should be allowed to do so without the police banging on the door," he said.
A statement on the BNP website stated that "this action against three BNP members in the past 36 hours is nothing less than a crude attempt to buy back the Islamic vote" from the opposition Liberal Democratic party before a general election likely in May next year.
It charged that the arrests were intended to disrupt the party's operations and to intimidate its members.

It accused four Blair "stormtroopers" of disturbing the family home as it was being decorated for Christmas, just 10 days away, and causing one of his daughters to suffer a "violent asthma attack" induced by stress.
It said the four police officers were "ransacking the home looking for material in relation to the alleged offense."

Whether or not Islam is a wicked faith is beside the point, the fact that this man has been arrested on some foppish grounds for saying what he believes in is extremely disturbing.

This is beyond speech codes at institutions at work places, this is now a democratic government that supposedly stands for freedom arresting someone for exercising their freedoms.

This is just further proof in my mind that if America and Europe are diverging apart socially, America is certainly still on the right track, for now.

Just wait, Hizbala or some such channel will soon be allowed to broadcast in Britian spewing forth anti-semantic tripe with no repercussions at all.

Site Update: Haloscan

2004-12-15T13:37:00.000+13:00

I just switched to Haloscan - something I should have done in the beginning, but better late than never.

Unfortunately everyones comments have been removed. They are still lurking in bloggerspace however, so I might add them to haloscan depending on my motivation.

Iraq - victory or defeat?

2004-12-15T13:12:00.000+13:00

Many of us want the United States to 'win' in Iraq. But what is winning?

This is a serious question that needs to be addressed because it is a question the United States public lost sight of during Vietnam.

Is winning in Iraq purely military? No, and it shouldn't be. Military objectives being completed is only part of the victory.

For Iraq to be a 'success' and for the United States to be able to declare victory, I believe we can use Afghanistan as a model.
Afghanistan sports a high approval rate of the United States, is relatively trouble free, most of Afghanistan's former terrorist related threats to the United States are nullified, reconstruction efforts are going full steam ahead, they are now are an official democracy for the first time ever, and the Afghanistan government is a steadfast ally of the United States.

Afghanistan is a huge success. The only thing needed now is for the Afghan people to be able to continue on this path without the United States holding it's hand. This will take a few years yet.

The same applies to Iraq. In my mind, for Iraq to be a success for everyone it needs to have similar conditions over the next few years.
If the elections go smoothly that is a major victory in the battle for an Iraqi success, even if the elected government isn't a steadfast ally of America, as long as they respect the sovereignty of their neighbours, combat terrorism, and stay the course to freedom and respect their new constitution Iraq will be a success.
Another major factor is that Iraq has the ability to police itself and maintain security across the country. Since the Iraqi army was effectively dismantled and being rebuilt from the ground up (something many people disagree with, but given its former success rate, it's probably a good thing) this may take some time yet.

However I think the biggest factor of an Iraqi success, which we may not see for another 10 years yet, lie in the words of Omar from Iraq the Model:

My hope is that I can just live a normal life. Id love to just work as a dentist, I really love to be a dentist, and Id like to just go home and relax and watch soccer on TV and have a quiet evening with my family. Thats what we want.

So is the United States winning? So far they are meeting all their objectives.
Yes it is going slowly with bumps in the road, but in the words of Rumsfeld this is a test of wills. The first major victory for the United States (and the Iraqi's) was the re-election of George Bush, the second major battle is coming.

The turning point in the war in Iraq will certainly be the upcoming elections. I think that if things go well and the new Iraqi government is sensible, it will slowly take over security in the country and U.S. forces will slowly leave.
If the new Iraqi government however is struck with sensationalism, riding on the crest of victory, and demands the U.S. forces to leave, the country may denigrate into civil war. Omar and Mohammed don't believe this will happen, and I have faith in them.
But even if U.S. forces are asked to leave so long as Iraq is governed in a way so it reaches what Omar wants, a free society, it will be a huge victory in the long run.

The people of the Middle East want reform - reading comments translated from BBC Arabic reflects this want, and reform is needed.
Terrorism is rife because of the frustrations and humiliations many in the Arab world are forced to suffer under their current leadership, and America (and Israel) are unfortunate scapegoats.
If Iraq and Afghanistan can offer a better way of life for the people of the Middle East with or without America's help, this can still be a great victory.

Iraqi "resistance" video left wing propaganda

2004-12-15T09:36:00.000+13:00

I found this video supposedly of the 'Iraqi resistance army'.

The author's voice is clearly a British accent and the video looks fairly polished - much more than what you see from 'authentic' videos. I doubt the authors are even in Iraq and they are probably not Iraqi's at all.

Many of the things mentioned on this video could be taken directly from Democratic Underground or Democrat talking points, with a healthy mix of comical ali in there too:

"..The enemy is on the run. They are in fear of a resistance movement they can not see nor predict."

Whoever made this video, British or not, aught to be ashamed. They are not Iraqi's and clearly do not speak for the Iraqi people, and what they have just made is treason without a doubt.

On the other hand, this is authentic and the mentality that frustrates me greatly (I mentioned this here):

She was a Sunni Muslim, an attractive, thirty-something writer, one of the few women I met who eschewed a scarf in public. And she was overjoyed at the demise of Saddam.
"I am so happy! Freedom at last! The world is open to me now!" she exclaimed during a small social function at an art gallery in Karada. "Can you recommend some American magazines I might send my writing to?"
I promised I'd draw up a list of suitable periodicals, then added — carelessly, for this was my first trip to Iraq — "You must not mind seeing American soldiers on the streets."

The woman's smile vanished. Her brow darkened and she shook her head. "Oh, no. I hate the soldiers. I hate them so much I fantasize about taking a gun and shooting one dead."
Stunned by her vehemence, "But American soldiers are responsible for your freedom!" I replied.

"I know," the woman snarled. "And you can't imagine how humiliated that makes me feel."

You can't have your cake and eat it too lady.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other

2004-12-14T19:37:00.000+13:00

The Daily Telegraph By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Hague (Filed: 11/12/2004)

An exodus of native-born Dutch in search of a new life abroad has reversed immigration flows for the first time since the post-war era.
Last year more people left the Netherlands than arrived as migrants or asylum seekers, even though unemployment remains low at 4.7 percent and per capita income is higher than any major country in Europe.

Lawyers, accountants, computer specialist, nurses, and businessmen are lining up for visas to the English-speaking world, looking to Australia, New Zealand and Canada as orderly societies where people have the space to breathe.

The new wave of "middle-class flight" has quickened this year following rising ethnic violence and crime committed by and against immigrants, and in response to fears that social order is breaking down. In the first six months there was a net outflow of 13,313 people. This is added to a below replacement-level native birthrate.

They are disengaging from a multicultural experiment once hailed as the model for the world but now stretched to breaking point. They are also escaping traffic jams and chronic over-crowding.
Requests for visa information have exploded since the murder of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch film-maker and acerbic critic of Muslim views on women.

An all-party report by the Dutch parliament this year concluded that the country's immigration policy had been a failure, leading to sink schools and ethnic ghettoes.

The Netherlands has been transformed in barely 30 years from a tight-knit Christian society into a polyethnic state, with three million people of immigrant background.

Somehow I think the Dutch who arrive here might be disappointed, because they will find much the same - particularly in Auckland.

Although, they might come and buy all these useless empty apartment buildings around Auckland after the council got all giddy off the housing boom and zoned way too many.

America doesn't care what goes on in the world

2004-12-14T17:03:00.000+13:00

Way back in one of my original posts I made the statement that 'America has more internet users, more forums, more blogs, more news channels than anywhere else' in light of claims from European media outlets about 'How can 61 million Americans be so dumb?' after the election.

Well also throw into that mix the fact they have military bases all around the globe (which are quite right-leaning I might add) with American military members stationed there frequently writing home, and also the fact they have embassies all over the globe, one starts to think that Americans just might be fairly knowledgeable creatures when it comes to the world.

Of course - America by itself is a large place with many things going on, each state is like it's own country. It would be hard enough knowing what is going on in their own country let alone the world, but despite the stereotype, Americans are very worldly people.

I was checking out the statistics of my site and I found the following:

Visitors by domain:
48% of my visitors are from a .net, .com, .gov, or .edu domain.
28% of my visitors are from a .co.nz domain.
19% are from an IP address.
5% are from other places.

As you can see Europeans have no excuse for calling Americans ignorant about the rest of the world. If anything, Europeans should be doing more reaching out.
Indeed Americans are reaching out past their shores to these strange other worlds, and it is up to us to welcome them.

It's the least we can do.

Kiwi fired for exposing U.N. corruption

2004-12-14T15:32:00.000+13:00

One almost needs a separate blog for all this stuff, this time, it involves a Kiwi.

Wellington-born Andrew Thomson one of three UN workers who wrote Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures: A True Story from Hell on Earth has been told his contract will not be renewed from the end of the month.

His case is being taken up by powerful United States whistleblower group Government Accountability Project (Gap).

What more can you say? The cesspool that is the United Nations, humanities so called pillar of governence, will go a lot deeper than this.

(Hat Tip: Silent Running and David Farrar)

Open letter to Michael Moore

2004-12-14T14:11:00.000+13:00

I found this on brilliant letter on Sgt Hook

Mr. Michael MooreXXXXXNew York, NY 10XXX
Dear Mr. Moore,

No doubt about it: The American soldier has done a lot for Michael Moore.
Hundreds of thousands of them are serving right now in Afghanistan and Iraq- two wars you opposed-defending you from a terrorist threat you claim does not exist. As you frequently point out, more than 1,000 of these soldiers and Marines have died, and thousands more of them have been injured.
These soldiers have also made you quite a bit of money. The most powerful scenes in your film Fahrenheit 9/11 feature soldiers and their families, specifically those servicemen who were wounded or killed in battle. Your new book, Will They Ever Trust Us Again–a collection of letters you’ve received from members of the military who served in Iraq-will likely gross hundreds of thousands of dollars for you and your publisher.
As I said, America’s soldiers have been very good to you. Most of them don’t like you, but they’re prepared to die attempting to protect you from terrorism so that you can continue to crank out your profitable propaganda.
They’ve done all this for you. I’m writing to give you the opportunity to do something for them.
My radio station, 630 WMAL, is leading a fundraising effort on behalf of the Fisher Houses here in the Washington, DC area and the Fisher House Foundation. Given your obsession with the costs of the War on Terror, you are no doubt familiar with the magnificent work done by the Fisher House on behalf of wounded soldiers and their families.
These families are struggling with the emotional consequences of a battlefield injury and its treatment. Fisher House helps solve some of the short-term financial and logistical challenges for the wives, children and parents who have wounded loved ones receiving treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Bethesda Naval Hospital or Malcolm Grow Medical at Andrews Air Force base.
The message of your books and films is that the American soldier is a victim. The soldiers I’ve spoken with at Fisher House vehemently disagree with you, as do the majority of my active-duty military listeners. However, we all agree that the soldiers who have been the victims of Iraqi terrorist violence (I think you call them “the true patriots, the Minute Men") deserve our support.
Therefore, I am writing to challenge you to give back just a small portion of the money you have earned as a critic of their mission. Your film Fahrenheit 9/11 has grossed around $150 million. Our entire goal for the Fisher House this holiday season is a tiny percentage of that amount.
Though I am a confirmed right-winger, I believe there should be no partisan divide when it comes to standing by our troops. My fellow WMAL employees and I are dedicating our time, efforts and money to that proposition. The question, Mr. Moore, is whether or not you will do the same.
Many Americans feel that you have exploited the injuries of our soldiers for partisan purposes but have no real concern for them or their families. On behalf of the Fisher House, I would be thrilled to receive your generous donation as evidence that we are wrong.
If you feel, however, that the money can be better spent on yet another trip to France, nobody will be surprised.
You can send your check made out to the Fisher House Foundation, care of 630 WMAL, 4400

Jenifer Street NW, Washington, DC 20015.
Thank you for your time.
Michael Graham

What's the bet this letter will get lost in cyberspace.

The New Zealand Rag, err, Herald strikes again

2004-12-14T10:32:00.000+13:00

Why is this on the news page? This isn't news, this is opinion. My opinion of the Herald when it comes to international affairs just keeps sinking and sinking and sinking.

AGHDAD - A year ago a bedraggled Saddam Hussein was dragged from a hole in the ground to a chorus of self-congratulatory remarks from United States officials claiming that his capture marked a turning point in the war in Iraq.

It WAS a turning point. For many Iraqi's, Saddam was their demon. They could not live in peace while he was still at large for fear he may return. After he was captured many Iraqi's finally felt at peace, the felt they could speak finally and not live in fear.

The self-deceiving optimism of US military commanders was extraordinary.

The self-deceiving opinions of the New Zealand Herald being inserted into news items are extremely unprofessional.

Major General Ray Odierno, whose 4th Infantry Division was credited with arresting Saddam, declared a month later that the insurgency was "on its knees" and only "a sporadic threat." Odierno went on to assure the press corps in Washington that "I believe that in six months you are going to see some normalcy".

Other US generals echoed his words.

A year later American casualties showed how little the war was affected by the imprisonment of Saddam. Of the 1283 US soldiers who have died in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003, no fewer than 821 have died since his capture.
Six months after Odierno spoke, the US only fully controlled islands of territory. All the main roads out of Baghdad were unsafe. The resistance felt strong enough to openly establish its checkpoints around the capital.

What the generals said were optimistic comments, but not overly so. Much of Iraq DID in fact turn to a sense of normality, yes the insurgency was not on it's knees.
However what the Herald goes on to say about 'the U.S. on fully controlled islands of territory' is incredibly misleading if not wrong.
The vast majority of Iraq was safe and has been safe ever since major combat operations finished. The Sunni triangle has been a source of problems, and the checkpoints around the capital only popped up in very small areas and they were quickly dispatched.
Some Iraqi blogs such as Healing Iraq write about this.
This revisionist reporting from the Herald is an example of the rag it's becoming. No one has a crystal ball and can see into the future, the Herald thinks itself smart because it can now look back with 20/20 vision. What is next NZ Herald? An article lashing out at those who predicted the cold war would continue for ever?

Why did Saddam's capture accomplish so little compared to the expectations of the White House and US military? They appear to have believed much of their own propaganda about the resistance being orchestrated by remnants of Saddam's regime - Donald Rumsfeld's notorious "dead-enders." But it was never likely that Iraqis who notably failed to fight for Saddam when he was in power were doing so after he was overthrown.

During the invasion Iraq's roads were choked with abandoned tanks and armoured vehicles. Most of the Iraqi army simply went home. Saddam was a highly convenient enemy for Washington. He was demonic enough to be easily demonized. He was also militarily incompetent, putting his faith in elderly tanks and hundreds of thousands of conscripts who deserted at the first opportunity.

The very fact that his hiding place was betrayed and he was captured alone shows that he had no secret infrastructure in place to allow him to lead a guerrilla war after he fled Baghdad.
His sons Uday and Qusay were also betrayed.

At the heart of the US miscalculation about the impact of the capture was a refusal to realize that the reason for the rising strength of the Iraqi resistance was very simple. Outside Kurdistan the great majority of Iraqis, whatever they thought of Saddam, were against the US occupation.

Saddam's capture accomplished a lot, but the New Zealand Herald is so obsessed with running on false premises it can never comprehend the gains of Saddam's capture.
First of all, Saddam's capture would have revealed a wealth of information about such things as the oil-for-food program.
Secondly, Saddam's capture put to rest the fear of many Iraqi's (as I mentioned earlier), which means a lot more cooperation.

The New Zealand Herald's premise that the 'great majority of Iraqi's were against U.S. occupation is true, but what it doesn't tell you is that the great majority of them were not against it in a violent way, and many of them later wanted the United States to stick around to provide security against the increasing number of foriegn fighters entering their country.
The vast majority of southern and northern Iraq have been fairly stable for a long time now. Iraqi's have said they want the United States gone militarily, but to come back as friends and tourists.

Saddam himself was a coward, but many of those who benefited from his rule the most were not. That is what we are seeing now. Fallujah benefited greatly from Saddams rule, and the Herald fails to mention that the Iraqi insurgency was practically nothing under Saddam, until al-Zarqawi(an Al Qaeda associate) who isn't even an Iraqi came along and gave it some direction and leadership. Perhaps the United States should have seen that, but there are no crystal balls in the real world, only in the Heralds imaginary revisionist world.

This is true of the Shiite Muslims, the majority of Iraqis, as well as the Sunni Arabs who have risen in rebellion.

No this is not true, this is in fact a lie. That is why the uprising is solely in the Sunni triangle.

The trial, if it does take place, will be more interesting than it might have been six months ago. Saddam could be charged with destroying large parts of the Shiite cities of Najaf when he crushed the Shiite uprisings of 1991.
But US guns and planes destroyed more of Najaf than the old Iraqi army had ever done. He turned hundreds of thousands of Kurds into refugees by destroying their villages, but the US has just done the same to 300,000 people in Fallujah.

Again, these are blatant misrepresentations by the Herald. Many Iraqi's under Saddams rule from Najaf told U.S. soldiers of Saddam sending tanks to destroy the uprisings during their rebellion after the 1st Gulf War, and many of them actually said that Saddam destroyed much of the city.
Also, what the New Zealand Herald fails to mention is the reconstruction effort going on in BOTH these places. $100 million dollars alone has been allocated to the reconstruction of Fallujah, and each citizen of Fallujah has been granted $2500 USD which is a considerable amount of money over there if their property was damaged during the fighting.

This article really expresses my continuing disappointment with the New Zealand Herald's reporting of overseas affairs, it really doesn't have a clue. It's not hard to get a clue, reading some blogs of soldiers and Iraqi's who are actually over there right now might help to begin with.

The fact it is running this article as a news piece when it is clearly opinion shows that the New Zealand Herald is no more than an opinionated tabloid. It makes me wonder what happened to those 5,000 or so BBC workers who are being layed off?

After Fahrenheit 9/11 - Moore considers himself a victim of republican abuse

2004-12-14T10:07:00.000+13:00

Has everyone read this complete and utter waste of bandwidth floating around cyberspace? It's an article written by Mel Gilles [an advocate for victims of domestic abuse ] who likens liberals to victims of republicans abuse.

Well, Now Michael Moore is running with it. Yes Mikey, you're such a victim of Republican 'abuse' - but whatever happened to us dimwitted Republicans needing education? So now we've gone from the little lost lambs needing a shepherd to the big brutal husband who bashes his wife [you being the wife]? Damn I left my white singlet at home today.

This whole victimizing mentality drives me crazy, particularly when it's so hypocritical. Republicans - particularly George Bush, have suffered attacks such as being called Nazis and being compared to Hitler, being called terrorists, and much worse. So how does George Bush react? Jokes at a press conference in Canada: "I want to thank the Canadian people who came out to wave -- with all five fingers -- for their hospitality".

Michael Moore, Howard Dean, ANSWER, etc, the driving force behind these attacks, the shepherds of the left, have the nerve to call themselves victims of right wing abuse. Quite frankly they are trivializing the seriousness of domestic violence with such idiotic comparisons.

This victimizing mentality is probably the worst thing to happen to the Western world along with political correctness. These two things are more of a threat to us than even terrorism.

(Hat Tip: LGF)

Right wing bloggers are blog trolling for U.S. government

2004-12-14T09:25:00.000+13:00

Ali at Iraq The Model is reporting that the Martini Republic believes that his blog and other right wing blogs are propaganda arms of the United States government, and calls us 'blog trolling'.

Like my post earlier about liberals expressing concern over 'the right wing media destroying journalism' I really must question the sanity of many on the left in the United States.

They are living in denial and trying to rationalize Bush's re-election in irrational ways. Voter fraud, right wing media controlling the masses, and now right wing blogs under government funding. Where does the insanity stop?

Maybe youve wondered: What kind of operations does the U.S. Government conduct in the line of pumping favorable propaganda regarding Iraq?

And, more importantly, since this is such an unpopular War: Would the runaway Republican Government dare conduct below-board ops and psy-ops not just in Iraq, but right here in the U.S?

Well Joseph, you've got us. That's right, it's ridiculous that we'd actually have right leaning views, particularly without being bribed. Ridiculous I say!

The United States government is actually doing a dismal job of reporting the favorable propaganda regarding Iraq, Joseph.
Apparently however Fox news is a propaganda arm of the government which has millions of American viewers, so why bother with blogs?
An unpopular war is also your opinion and not the basis for any fact. I'm fairly sure that at least 20 million Iraqis supported the war to begin with, and in your country, 61 million Americans voters did - more than those that didn't.

Joseph, in all his infinite wisdom goes on to express this:

Its easy to do, blog trolling. Its a minimal investment, with minimal risk. There are plenty of would-be messengers.
There are no pesky editors or news organizations to answer to. Theres no any way to trace the organization, because there is no need for anya simple phone call from an ideologue to a key blogger can flood any blog with hits and notoriety overnight.

If you read Josephs entire article, he claims that Riverbend is a typical good Iraqi blog, and obviously Iraq The Model is a bad blog, way off the mainstream, etc.

The laughable part of his statement above is where he says 'there's no any way to trace the "organization"'. The authors of Iraq The Model have their real names and photos all over their website, including numerous details about themselves on their political party website.
Riverbend, however, is an unknown Iraqi blogging under an alias with no details about herself what-so-ever.
Hmm spot the irony.

I'm not saying that Riverbend is a propaganda arm of the left wing, she's probably a disgruntled Iraqi for whatever reason (and there are plenty). But then again, I'm not part of the left wing insanity either.

Reading the comments from left wingers on Martini Republic are equally disturbing. Many of them are convinced that Iraq The Model is a CIA front.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that so many people are so disillusioned by their own accord - how is America going to get out of this mess?

Bush gives Annan kiss of death

2004-12-13T13:43:00.000+13:00

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The Bush administration expressed confidence in U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) on Thursday and said he should stay in office, in a belated rebuff to demands from Republicans in Congress for his resignation.
U.S. Ambassador John Danforth called reporters together to deliver the comments, saying that he had to clarify the U.S. position after his colleagues and the media believed the United States government was not supporting Annan.

"We are expressing confidence in the secretary-general and his continuing in office," Danforth said, "No one to my knowledge has cast doubt on the personal integrity of the secretary-general. No one."

"We are not suggesting or pushing for the resignation of the secretary-general," said Danforth, adding that he was speaking for the White House and the State Department.
U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting record), a Minnesota Republican, who was later joined by five congressmen, last week called for the resignation of Annan, who has two more years in office before completing his second five-year term.
They accused him of presiding over corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program for Iraq (news - web sites), administered by the United Nations (news - web sites) but supervised by the 15-nation Security Council.
In reaction, the 191-member U.N. General Assembly gave Annan a standing ovation on Wednesday and the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Australia either issued statements or telephoned the secretary-general to voice support.
Previous statements by the White House and by Danforth have mainly emphasized the need for an open investigation into the scandal and Danforth repeated that on Thursday.
After Coleman's statement, President Bush (news - web sites) neither defended Annan nor joined calls for his ouster, saying only he wanted a "full and open accounting" of the now-defunct oil-for-food program.
"The worst thing, to continue the cloud over an organization, is to give the impression that something is being hidden or that there is not total cooperation," Danforth said. "And that really is deadly in any kind of an organization and that would have to be resolved."
But he said, "Our view of the performance of the secretary-general is that he has done a good job, that he is doing a good job, that we have worked with him, that we anticipate working with him in the future.
He noted Annan's help on the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan and on planned elections in Iraq.
Danforth also played down reports that Annan's son, Kojo, had not full disclosed his ties to a firm hired by the United Nations to inspect goods in Iraq. The younger Annan worked for the Swiss company Cotecna in West Africa.
"The son is an adult and I think generally speaking there is a perceived difference and a real difference between adult children and parents," he said.
The oil-for-food program, investigated by some five congressional committees, was launched in December 1996 and continued until last year to allow Baghdad to supply civilian goods to ordinary Iraqis, suffering under U.N. sanctions imposed in 1990.

Most of the corruption revealed so far involves illegal transfers or smuggling of oil, which the Security Council, including the United States, knew about and controlled.
But investigations, including one set up by Annan, are also looking into whether any U.N. employees received bribes from Iraq and how much U.N. staff knew about inflated contracts.

Remember when Bush said he had full confidence in George Tenets abilities?

Seriously however, I think that this is the Bush administration playing smart.
They know the game is up for Annan, but they also don't want to be seen as the administration that destroyed the United Nations, there are already enough reasons for the world to hate America without the collapse of the United Nations on their shoulders.

Despite the oil for food scandal, The United Nations is useful to America. The oil for food scandal plays right into the United States hand because it offers them an opportunity to push through some Pro-America reform. Also, the United Nations gives America some other advantages:

To begin with, it's based in New York, giving the CIA easy access to spy on the worlds diplomats (keep your friends close but your enemies closer).
Secondly, the internationalists of the world (France, etc) have put all their eggs in the U.N. basket and the United States veto power is useful in this respect.
Thirdly, having some form of international body to do the worlds police work is what America wants in the end. Despite the fact it is one of the few countries that actually seems involved in policing the planet, it doesn't want to and cannot do it indefinitely.

Remember, the Bush administration is clever. It knows that running a campaign on why your opponent 'sucks' won't win you the day. Going full blazes and trying to destroy Annan and perhaps the U.N. as we know it won't do them any favors in the long run, and it will just start another round of Bush bashing.
Instead, they will try and gain control of the reigns once again and push through reform. With at least 61 million Americans behind Bush's pre-emptive doctrine, the United States can use the United Nations to restrict countries like France much more than France can do the same.