reading.....no time to comment
Yup, Blatham, I was trying Richard too, instinctively, but got nowhere. Where is Falstaff, by the way?
I like the idea of Powell as Greek chorus, rather than as Othello. Powell isn't being manipulated, he's just not listened to. Actually, he could be Cassandra, perhaps...
The change in Powell has been appalling. I had a lot of respect for him -- but that is almost gone right now.
BTW -- that loss of respect is one of the most depressing parts of this depressing episode.
Frank -- Though I may have held Powell in slight less esteem than others, I agree with you none the less. Most other Bush appointees have been of a certain type (I won't elaborate!). Powell had more apparent intellectual flexibility and moral fiber. It may be that we were wrong about him, not that he has been lately cast low but that he was a bottom feeder from the start.
Falstaff is here, incarnate as dyslexia.
Richard!...My goodness, that is a challenge. Let's have John Ashcroft play Richard.
I am half sympathetic to Powell. The half that is not matches Frank's and Tartarin's notions. A few weeks ago, I posted that if Powell were to publically resign, with the sort of reasons forwarded by Keisling, I figured it likely he would gain a stature matched by few American politicians in my living memory. But perhaps that is wrong to think he might have changed the course of events. Perhaps the Rumsfeld crowd would have won the day even over such a statement from Powell.
The half that is sympathetic relates to loyalty. Shakespeare, as it happens, is the perfectly appropriate context for this question. To Elizabethans, loyalty was seen as a fundamental social and spiritual bond. In fact, the violation of it could tear assunder the fabric of the world.
This understanding - this worldview - or something very close to it, exists still within military organizations. For Powell to move against his commander, if even conceivable to him, would be perhaps the greatest 'sin' he might commit.
Other
Remember in the movie 'The Godfather" when murder was equated with 'business'?
To the Bush 'family' .... it's only busi ness.
It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. Herman Goering
You don't have to rely on the networks ...
http://electroniciraq.net/news/index.shtml
When you see dead American and British marines in the papers and on TV, do you really think it's important what we call this encounter with Iraq?
Will definitions cure the evils of this world?
New Haven wrote:When you see dead American and British marines in the papers and on TV, do you really think it's important what we call this encounter with Iraq?
Will definitions cure the evils of this world?
Will this war cure the evils of this world? Or create some more?
The answer, my friend, is written on the wind!
Read Genesis and remember, that Cain and Able are still on this earth.
Free from tyranny one way or the other
The B-2 bomber carries sixteen 2'000 lb. JDAM bombs. If all goes 100% as planned (the bomb does not fall outside of its specified margin of error of 13 meters, and the GPS guidance system is not foiled by a $50 radio jammer kit, easily purchased), then here is what one such bomb does:
* everyone within a 120 meter radius is killed;
* to be safe from serious shrapnel damage, a
person must be at least 365 meters away;
* to be really safe from all effects of
fragmentation, a person must be 1000 meters away, according to Admiral Stufflebeem.
The B-2s will be used upon targets within Baghdad.
-Prof Marc W. Herold, IBC Project Consultant
Wow. That's a meat grinder and a half!
New Haven...yes, naming is important. Eg 'evil'. Eg 'wounded Americans and Brits' (but not Iraquis, screw em). 'Just war' or 'illegal unilateral attack'. Naming is important. Military weaponry is a wonderful of example of naming - 'anti-personnel capability' of course meaning 'kills and maims lots of people efficiently'. But in that very sentence, 'people' get renamed too, to 'opposition forces'. Look for the euphemism, find the dishonesty.
naming is indeed important! "The pockets of resistance" seem to have changed. The Iraqi fighters are now called "terrorist-like cells"!! Hooray The link is made!! We are back on track! This is the war on terror!! Keep the people paralysed, educated by your lies!!
Or indeed the coverage -- even on NPR -- of the "progress" of war exhibiting the excellent organization and prowess of the aggressor's killing machines. Wow - I keep reading here in A2K among those who like to compare the effectiveness (in killing and mayhem) of various kinds of tanks and missiles. Once we let it get to the level of War Game, we've lost what they're all calling our "moral compass."
Dictionary Definition- war-
A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between political units, such as states or nations or between rival
political factions of the same nation.
I continue to be amazed in the difference in language used in the U.S. media vs. media from other countries. The CBC rarely refers to the current action as a war - which results in some interesting debates with U.S. military people being interviewed.
Al Jazeera has an English-language site up now.
http://english.aljazeera.net/
hamburger will be glad to see that on his return, sozobe. He's been following the arabic site using an on-line translator.
