I am going to try and give my readers a piece of fact about the region that is causing so much grief, the Middle East.
This will be my first---
The borders of modern day Iraq, were drawn up by a female, Gertrude Bell. She did this at the end of WWI. She and T.E. Lawrence alone set up the monarchy of King Faisal of Iraq, who was not an Iraqi, but a Saudi by birth.
Historical UpDate
The idea of three states or whatever you would like to call them, in Iraq is something new? Is it the way forward for Iraqis? What do you think? Me? I think it is a ill advised move, that shows little or no actually knowledge of what could happen in the future.
What about a division of Iraq? This idea is not a new one or an original one. Under the auspices of the Ottoman Empire, Iraq was divided into three vilayets or administrative districts. In the North there was Mosul, in the center it was Baghdad and in the south, Basra. Wake up! (snapping fingers) Does any of this sound familiar?
Nothing being done in Iraq is original, not the tactics by the occupiers, not political and not, especially, the idea of a division into three parts. All was tried by either the Ottomans or the Brits or now, the US.
Why would you continue to do the same things over and over and expect a different outcome? Time to eliminate all the "wise guys" in Washington, tgime to find people who know history and who knows the ME on an intimate level.
Just look at a history of Iraq and you too could predict the outcome and make Cayce proud.
The Professor has spoken!
CHUQ
23/02/07
Recently I read an article about the cutting of funds for Arlington Cemetery. And then the same day a story about how shabbily returning injured Iraqi vets are treated and then CNN does a piece on the shabby condition of the out-patient barracks at Walter Reed. Dammit! THERE IS NOTHING more important than the rehab of the injured vets--NOTHING!
Well, I was so upset that I posted both events on a discussion forum. Guess what! Not one of the admin's cheerleaders has anything to say about the obscenity. But yeah, they know absolutely everything about the war in Iraq, but yet they have NO opinion about these stories.
As a Vietnam vet, I watched too many good men succumb to the non-caring government. These men were calling out for help and were fucking ignored, and now the ass wads are doing it again. WHY? Because the military will use these men and women up and once they are injured, ther usefulness is gone. Just turn their backs on them and whatever happens happens.
I have had little use for the government since Vietnam and now they are at it again--everyone of them deserves to be shot, multiple times so that is is a slow agaonizing death. Take a good look around, if they do not care wgat happens to these people, what care for you do they have? Easy answer--NONE!!!!!!
Now Gates gets on TV on the sujbect and says it is unacceptable--way to go dick wad. But where were the concerns last year? They got caught and now they pretend it is appalling. They were caught!!! If not then the crap would still be going on.
Odd, Americans seem to think that a piece of flippin' cloth in front of the home and a couple of ribbons makes up for this abuse. If so, they are lazy bastards and more unpatriotic than anyone I have ever met and believe me I have met some real radicals. If this type of abuse is not worthy of a comment, then you are more worthless than Bush. And believe me, that is a bout as worthless as a human can be.
I say again--THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE CARE FOR INJURED VETS!!!
The UK will pull some 1600 troops out of Iraq, but yet Prince Harry will go for active duty. Also getting in on the deal is Lithaunia and Denmark, will be pulling trrops from Iraq.
There are several ways to view these pull-outs. One, the war is going so well that some of the forces are not needed. Or two, these countries are bowing to pressure at home to "cut and run" Or three, it is just a political ploy to gain some type of support from somewhere. There is more to this than just a couple hundred guys going home.
For one the Brits are in the South of Iraq, reports say it is a more secure area and they are not needed. But reports say that they are attacked by mortar and RPG, almost daily. Secure, you say? OK. But the Brits are gonna leave the bulk of their forces in the area. So, with that said, this is just a media event to bolster Bush in his statements that all is going good.
Now let us move on, the plan for the "surge" is to go into a 'hood and take on the insurgents and bring a move secure atmoshere. Once the "bad guys" are thrown out, the miliatry will live within that ;hood to keep the peace. Sorry, guys, but IMO, that is just another occupation and will be really be unpopular and give the insurgents even newer targets. This tactic is a lame one at best and someone really needs to rethink this strategy.
With countries trying to find ways to bail on the war in Iraq, how long will it be before we are alone still fighting the same guys over and over; for once the sweep is over they will be back. Who will be next, to bring the troops home?
none of this will do what the cheerleaders say it will do. The only thing they should promise is that there will be more casualities to deal with in the future.
CHUQ
23/02/07
McCain 4 Prez
There seems to be a lot of jockeying for the frontrunner position within the GOP. Whi is it Guiliani? How ab out that McCain? Which is the man to be king?
Guiliani, probably will not be it! He is pro-choice and anti-gun, two of the positions that could kill him as a frontrunner.
Now we come to the man--McCain. If this is the best the GOP can do-shake hands with the new Democratic pres. He use to garner some respect because he was a VN vet that was in a prison camp in Noth Vietnam. OK, where is that a good place for a pres to come from? He will think hard about sending US troops to war? Yea, right. (sarcasm intended)
He is a supporter of Bush's policies and of the man and being so is attempting to hold the support from the right that Bush still retains. How does he do this? Well, let us see shall we? In the past McCain was a supporter of not repealing Roe, now he says time to zap it. When Runsfeld left, he said he was a good man and deserves respect, now he is saying his policies were wrong and it was mishandled by Rumsfeld. This man is an insult to the American soldier and voter. He follows the political winds to feather his own bed. This is a man who cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be allowed to lead this country. A man that will tailor his views to win political support is not a man to be trusted. He is only trying to win support from Bush's original supports, that helped him into the WH.
McCain is not a vet, he is a politician who happened to be in the military. His switching on issues is far worse than a guy who joined the NG and sat out Vietnam in Alabama; that guy has an excuse for his views. They are he was not there and never witnessed the obscenities of war. McCain was there and witnessed and yet he closes his eyes to the obscenities That, IMO, makes him a worthless lump of ....and not suitable to even eat at the same table as Vets and definately makes him unacceptable as a pres.
Know your candidate or suffer all the lies he/she can sling at you, for the only thing you can bitch about is your ignorance.
CHUQ
21/02/07
What does anyone outside the ME have to do with the implimentation of a peace accord? US or Germany or UK or whomever, what do they know of the situation, othwer than some dumbass news coverage?
My thought is, if you want to offer a suggestion on a peace for the ME, try living there for a month and then offer your proposal. I can say that may views changed considerablly after living there. No one can understand the complexities of the situation by watching the crap on CNN.
Only first hand knowledge should be acceptable for any proposal without that you have nothing.
CHUQ
21/02/07
Blair has announced the pull out of about 1600 Brit troops. Why? Is he bowing to political pressure at home? Or is he bailing, like most everyone else?
Let see our forces go back over and over and these go home. Is there any justice left? Why can they not go to Baghdad and assist? I thought Bush said we were all in this war on terror together.
Could this be a political ploy to make it appear that things are going well in Iraq?
There are a wealth of people with answers to everything from Britney to life on Mars, so please, someone explain this to me--quickly.
CHUQ
21/02/07
Sec, Rice is in Berlin to talk about ME peace. Why? Sould not the talking points be at the people involved? She demands Israel be recognized, but what has she said Israel must do? Anybody that can defend this type of :diplomacy" needs to do a little research in conflict management. What are the negotiating points? Pals must recxognize Israel's right to exist, ok, we got one. What must Israel do? Give up settlements? No! Agree not to destroy houses and lives? No! Shoe some restraint on the use of lethal force? No! Just what the hll does Israel have to do?
It is not a compromise if only one side has to agree to give up something. That is know as bullying. And that has been the policy of the US since Johnson. Maybe longer. What is the new approach that the US is offering? The Pals do all the giving and Israel does all the taking? Sounds like the current policy.
There will never be a peaceful solution as a heavy handed approach is used toward the Pals. There will never be a successful solution as long as one side does all the compromising. The thing to look forward to in the near future is a prolonged BS session and the possibility of more violence.
CHUQ
21/02/07
THe Partitioning Of Iraq?
A question that will be asked over and over until it either occurs or the entire idea is put to bed, for good. When Iraq became a country, it was done arbitarily by the Brits. A map was taken and mostly straight lines were put unto the map and viola we Syria, Jordan, Iraq, et al. No amount of thought was put into the process, other than Kuwait had to be its own country. Why? Well, the al-Sabah family was in bed with the Brits and it was to be their reward for their services to the Crown.
The Kurds were lied to by the world, a homeland was promised and then not so important after the fighting was over. They remain hostile to just about everyone, unless the country happens to be working with them and their concerns.
In Iraq, the Brits screwed up! Within the lines drawn on the map of the region, they incorporated three different factions that had no love for one another. And, believe it or not, they were surprised when independence was met with several years of fighting among these groups.
OK enough history, let us speak of partitionoing of Iraq. After the Bush I war Iraq ws divided into 3 zones, two of which were no fly. Within these zones each faction started consolidating power in the hands of local leaders. Even though Saddam was still in charge, power consolidation was done covertly. The reason these zones were put in was to protect the Kurds to the North and Shi'a in the south.
Then, along came Bush II and his war on terrorism. What a boom! Saddam was taken down and with that came an emboldening of the Kurds and Shi'as. And just take a look at the mess we have going a the presnt time.
There have been those who say that the key to curbing the violence is the formation of three states, each faction will have its space. One major draw back was that the oil reserves werein Kurd and Shi'a territory and that the Sunni would not allow the partitioning to go on. The concern would be that the Sunni would have no bargaining power within the loose federation. So the whole idea has been on the back burner.
WOW! Guess what? A oil reserve has been located in al-Anbar provence near the Syrian border. This now gives the Sunni some clout, something they lacked for awhile. But will this lead to the break up of Iraq? Not right now, but the option will be considered. As the violence continues to grow and the deaths amount up and up and as the refugees continue to stream over all existing borders; something unconventional will have to be considered.
And that consideration will be--partitioning Iraq into three separate entities.
Will this curb the ever grow violence? Not at all, it will however, be a talking point to try and obtain a peaceful Iraq. Once that breaks down, the violence will return and only God knows the outcome.
So the predictions are: Iraq will be partitioned. Peace will be short lived. Violence and civil war will return and more deadly than before.
CHUQ
20/02/07
Every Little Stan
Stan? what the hell are you talking about? Well, you know, Stan--Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, yada, yada......Why are we discussing these Central Asia countries? Before we do that let us look around the world, shall we?
Nigeria--the country is about as stable as a house of cards. Venezuela--depends on what Chavez decides to do this week. Iraq--enough said! Each one of these countries have the Us as a common denominator--oil reserves. If for some reason we lost Nigerian oil and Venezuelan oil and the ME was an even hotter bed of conflict--what would the US do for oil? Our opil imports would be sharply cutailed and we would scramble around looking for other reserves. What about Russia? NO! They seem to be working on an exspanionists agenda, they will need their oil to counter the US, if it becomes necessary.
What to do? What to do?
But wait there is another way! The Stans! Almost each one of these emerging countries has some oil and gas reserves and the US has found their problem solver.
Most of these countries are lead by a hard fisted dictator-type keader. Will that matter? Not really, we, the US, has a long hoistory of looking the other way from the strong dictators as long as they serve a purpose. Civil liberties are not a major obstacle.
These countries are now allowing the Us to build bases of operations on their soil. This will bring in lots of cash and preferential treatment in the future. These bases will be used to support ops in Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly Iran, among the most popular right now. Did you know? The Us has about 700+ bases on foreign soil and about 2.5 million servicemen. That sounds like "empire building" to me.
We will watch and see just how this plays out and just how the US handles the leaders that only care about a self-serving agenda. When they are eventually overthrown, a new conflict will be in the making.
How do we do it?
CHUQ
20/02/07
Yesterday mI watched the Spears thing on
the boob tube.
What is she thinking? Does not look as if she is doing much of that. She is shooting herself in the foot, with drawless photos, partying and now new tats and shaved head. I mean she is doing everything she can to give her kids to K-Fed. Why? Is she that f**ked up?
I mean, personally, I think bald is HOT! I mean I have all kinds od visions about dating a bald chick. But put that aside she is doing all of ex's leg work for his attorney. I mean come on girl, you are out with the biggest HO in the US, Paris. That in it self is not gonna help you in court.
Unfortunately, between Spears and Smith, there is no room for news--fluff rules the air waves.
All I can say is "Thank God for a pc"!
Alternative Fuels
Well, it seems that the US is trying to do its part and help eliminate some of the demand for oil. The pres decided to inclide this "new" avenue into his Stae of the Union speech. And he went on and on about American's addiction to oil and what did he offer? The guy said that we needed more research on Hybrid tech and hydrocell and additives and so on and on and on.....
The budget is out and let's say that the budget for the Us is $100, if so then the money set aside for alt energy research and developement is less than 1 penny. That ought to get the ideaS flowing, huh?
Bush seems to want to push renewable energy programs, you know, kinda like methanol? Why? There is the fact that it would help farmers, which would be some assistance to the growers, but I suspect there is another more reliable reason.
What would that be? Methanol is a gas additive and more likely than not will be the most money spent on its developement. IT IS AN ADDITIVE! What am I saying? This type of alt energy uses oil as a basis, that means oil companies will still be making billions, while appearing to be helping the ozone thing.
So I guess oil companies will have little to worry about, at least for now and the admin looks like it really cares about the quality of the air. It is a win win program for the pres and his admin. It will not substantially end our addiction to oil.
This whole song and dance is just politics as usual and profits as usual for the oil companies. So where does this end?
CHUQ
13/02/07
Recently, the Palestinians have come to an agreement to form a unity government. It is a shaky peace, at best. The US and Israel are not too keen on the agreement. Why? It benefits Israel for the conflict to continue and it was a helluva coincidence that the work on the al-Aqsa mosque stirred up confrontation while the sides were meeting in Saudi Arabia. I do not believe in coincidences in politics, especially in the ME. Of course western media is all over the clashes and made it appear that the Palestinians were the "bad guys". Do not believe it! All would have been quiet and safe if the work had not begun and why is the al-Aqsa so important to repair at this time? Let us look, the Pals were getting good world press for their attempts to solve their problems within themselves. Not good for Israel.
Now Rice is sent to the area to try and jump start the peace process, at least that is the story. What a crock! She has made multiple trips saying the same thing and things have NEVER gotten better because of her visits. actually, things usually get worst after her appearance. It is nothing more than a photo op to make it appear that the Bush Admin is working for a lasting peace--THEY ARE NOT!
Ask yourself, why would she show up before a unity government is formed and the peace process is on old until the govt. is formed? No meetings, progress or anything else will be accomplished until that government is in place. So what benefit would her visit have? Only one! Show support for Israel and do a bit of antagonising of the Palestinian factions.
I say ----US keep your broads at home until they work out their government thing and then only show up if invited by the government. Israel can wait and if they truly want peace then they will go for a unity government that will negotiate in earnst.
IMO, Israel does not want peace--it would cost them a bunch from their cash cow--The US.
CHUQ
16/02/07
Does History Repeat?
Does history repeat itself?..............Does history..............?
Alrighty then--let us check into our way-back machine, set the dial for Iraq 1920. The San Remo conference has given us the Iraq Mandate. Which gave the UK control over the area. The area being some indiscrimate lines drawn in the desert sand and called the country of Iraq. Before the ink even dried on the paper the attacks on the British began. Why? Well the Brits in their wisdom, used foreigners to be the admin of the newly formed country. Needless to say the locals were not thrilled with this decision. And the resistance grew and grew with lots of local deaths to add to the chaos. You see the UK failes to include local elites in the decision making and the admin of the country. By any stretch of the imagination, would piss you off also.
Arab nationalists were a big problem for the Brits. In 1941, the nationalists were causing a prob in Basra; the Brits sent in foreign troops and the upraisning was quelled in a bout 4 weeks. That sounds familiar for siome reason (sarcasm intended). After this the Brits still used elites to rule, they still did not have the approval of the locals. The Brits continued to throw their weight behind those leaders who were never part of the average way of life. The Iraqi leadership, at the time, had a very weak grip on power. Another very familiar sounding occurrance.
Now grab your butt and set the machine dial to 2003--Now we see we are in Iraq, Saddam has been diposed and the US has set up an interim govt. We have an American in charge of the interim govt and the list of players in the govt are ex-patriates, all wealthy and all living outside of Iraq for years. These peopl were chosen for their pro-US position, just as the original admin were chosen for their pro-Brit position. If you look closely at Iraq, the people do not have too much confidence in these "foreigners" and their attempt to run the country. De Ja Vu All Over Again!
So you see that the same mistakes are being made yet again. Nothing was learned originally and nothing was learned on the second trip to the table. Unfortunately, the second trip is costing Iraqi lives by the hundreds. There are forces at work within Iraq that give the "average" Iraqi more power in the decisions of their country. However, they are very unpopular with the US and its guys in Iraq. As you see the Brits did not ask for the Iraqis input into their government and neither did the US.
Each time, the interests of the occupying country were the main concern not that of the average Iraqi citizen. THe democracy thing was intersting, it was more a government that would have the interests of the occupyiers not the Iraqis.
I say let the Iraqis, the ones that stayed and faced Saddam, run their country they know exactly what is needed to bring themselves security.
I believe it was Einstein who said, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Maybe someone should read a little more and the same occurrances would not be happening.
Does history repeat itself? You bet your butt, it does.
CHUQ
12/02/07
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF CONFLICT
First, let us begin with a few definitions--institution--a tradition or custom, now conflict--a clash of ideas or intersts. Now we can continue with the thoughts.
It is 1920 and most likely a lively day and a British mandate over what is known as Palestine. Jewish settlers start trickling into the country and almost immediately the conflicts between Jew and Palestinian begins. Most of them were small clashes here and there and occassionally the Brits were involved. These differences in opinion continued as well as the settlers entry into the country. And then in the year 1936, an Arab revolt began against Zionists and the Brits. THe revolt continue for some three years of bloody confrontations. Nothing was really settled by the revolt and nothing really changed. Clashes between the two anatagonists, Jew and Arab continued with more bloody conflicts. After WWII, Jews had an exodus to Palestine and the clashes became bigger and bloodier. Then Israel declared itself a country and nation in 1948 and then the real crap hits the fan. It becomes a moral imperative to crush one another. Shortly after the statehood declaration the 1st Arab-Israeli war began. It was not a pretty thing. The conflict ended but the hatred simmered. And simmered. Conflicts, attacks and brutalities continued on b oth sides of the issue. Then 1967, a really big show, the 6 Day War; Arab arnies and the Israelis clashed and death was everywhere. At the brokered end of the war Israel annexed the West Bank and Gaza, but the end of the war did not cease the hatred or the violence. This is a simple history lesson that deserves more depth, but for the purposes of this piece it will be sufficient.
Let's be honest, there were other minor wars like Yom Kippur and the like. Do not musunderstand me, any and all these conflicts and confrontations were bad for both sides, many bad and unfortunate incidents occurred from both antaonists. That in itself is just ducky, but I would like to concentrate on the concept of conflict now.
Since the beginning of the Jewish migration there has been anger, hatred and conflict. These conflicts have caused lasting divisions and lasting hatreds. Father passed on stories about the other side's autrocities to sons and sons to sons and sons to.............on and on. Both Palestinian and Jew is guilty of this. Stories of stolen land, killed loved ones. destroyed house and farms, and the list continues. Because of this word of mouth story telling the hatreds just build and continue for decade after decade. As the stories are past down the hatreds are past down and thus clashes between antagonist continue from year to year.
Both sides know their families stories and then firearms enter the picture and now the clashes become deadly. With each clash a new chapter is written in the hatreds. The more one acts the more the other reacts and it just keeps escalating; the death tolls escalate and sorrows escalates.
Because of the continuing escalation decade after decade, generation to generation, the conflict becomes a tradition, a custom, which after 60 yrs of escalation will be extremely difficult to break. It has become an institution, something that has a mind of its own and left unchecked will ruin both sides of the conflict. Because of the escalation over several generations the conflict has become institutionalized.
The only way this institution can be broken is with the work of both antagonist trying to end the hatred; both have got to desire peace at all costs, without a mutual desire for peace the institution of conflict will destroy both. Only the people can break the tradition, the custom of conflict. Some wealthy second or third partner cannot bring the institution to an end by throwing money at it or threats tossed around. These techniques only strenghten the institution. The people have got to want to live in peace and security. Without that desire all that is accomplished is a minor ceasefire that awaits the next act to ignite the fires of conflict once again.
CHUQ
13/02/07
IRAQ--A HINDSIGHT
The story is out! What story, fool? The Inspector General has issued a report on the intel that was used to go to Iraq and start some crap. The report says, basically, that the intel was tailored to fit the scenario. Much has been said about the intel. There was no WMD, there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, this is just a bunch of falsohoods all generated to garner the support for the invasion of Iraq. The best thing out of these investigations, at least in my opinion was the findings of the IG. They said that the false intel was inappropriate, not illegal.
Inappropriate? Can I use that the next time I am caught lying to the cops or possibly in court? Of course, I cannot! Then why is the government's lies inappropriate? The US invade a country without approval of the UN Security Council--that is an illegal act. The US has in the past condemned countries for similar acts. THe US cannot lead by example anymore.
Lies, Lies guess who dies. US troops are dying regularly and because of lies--someone needs to be held accountabl. But who?
CHUQ
09/02/07
Well, the Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, have come to an agreement to form a unity government. The US and Israel have not been too ethusiastic about the peace between the two. Why? Well, it could mean that more international pressure would be exerted onto Isreal to come to terms with their neighbors. This cannot be let to happen, is their attitude.
The Palestinians are taking the first small steps to a peaceful government. Once the plan is implimented and begins to show signs of success, Israel will be in the crosshairs on the international stage. They do not want this, they like it better when the Pals are fueding and firing rockets at Israel. Why? These things gives Israel all the justification they need to invade and kill and gives the International community the chance to look the other way. That has become a bit more difficult and if the Pals succeed then the international commnity will have to deal with Isrsael, something they are not prepared to do at this time.
I suggest the first thing the Pals need to do is present a working government without bullshit, then once that gets to cooking then deal with the factions firing missiles. If they accomplish this the world will be on their side and will demand Israel come to terms.
I would almost bet that Israel ready has a plan in the can for such an outcome. They will try to provoke the Pals into making a mistake so they can act and say "I told you so". They cannot let the international community swing support to the Pals and they will do everything possible to prevent this from happening.
The Pals should be comended for their efforts and I wish them well and much luck on their travels to s state of their own.
CHUQ
11/02/07
Recently it has been reported that the upcoming election could cost $1 billion, thus making it the most expensive campaign ever. Candidates are manuevering their support so that they do not accept federal funds for their campaigns. This is a scary thing, for them will go to private donations and fundraising to get the money for their campaigns.
This, IMO, will put the government of the United States up for sale. What cabinet positions will be bought? How many governmental jobs will be bought? How many policies will be bought? These are just a few of the questions that the voters need to ask. If the people allow this then the US will be getting the best government money can buy.
I say screw them! Give them all the same amount in federal funds and the same amount of air time and let the people decide. Elections have become big business and that will be the ruination of the nation.
Sit on your ass, and let this occur then you have nothing to bitch about, with the exception of how stupid you are.
CHUQ
10/02/07
I have been watching and commenting on the situation in the Middle East for years. Usually I get called a bunch of unflattering names because of it, but I go on.
I have looked a the ME map over and over trying to decide what and why this just keeps getting worse and worse. The situation goes from bad to worse, almost daily and why? Do the people in this region enjoy killing each other, enjoy suffering, enjoy grief; just what the hell is it?
I was staring at a map today of the Me and I had an ephiphany(?). Water! Israelis so concerned about having water that it must keep the situation volitile, so they retain control of the West Bank. Why you ask? The jordan River, which divides the West Bank occupied territory from Jordan. The tributaries flow into the West Bank and to keep the water flowing into Israel they must retain control of the area.
One of their fears is that if the West Bank becomes the new Palestine, then they, the Israelis, would be at the mercy of the Palestinians and they cannot be put into that position. At present most of the water allocations go to Israel and not the people of the West Bank. This could be used as a weapon against Israel and that is what they are afraid of in the future.
Because of this fear, Israel will do all in their power to retain control of the water supplies in the occupied teritories. No peace will be had as long as the watwer issue can be used against Israel.
It is a lot simplier when you think outside the box.
CHUQ
10/02/07
Yesterday I bitched about the coverage the Astro-nut was getting. I bitched about all the media reporting on everything from her hair color to who made the diaper. I bitched and bitched. But I did not expect the story to be upstaged by a death. Ana Nicole Smith, that is.
My theory--Money is the answer. She married a multi-millionaire who left her all his money when he crapped out. Of course, the family was pissed and sued. I think after all the crap she wound up with about $80 million, not bad.
Now think about it--if something happened to her, the son would get the cash, he died, she was devastated, she gave birth to a daughter and now she's dead. After her sons death she tried to drowned herself, boyfriend found and called for help--bodyguard got her out of water and did CPR and revived her. She had been ill for a couple of months, off and on.
Now think about the cash--who is her heir? The baby, but since it is a minor, who will control the money? Who of all the players would benefit from her death? Who controls the cash?
Answer these questions and you have a helluva ploy emerging. A good TV movie and a good best-seller.
I will be watching the autosy reports carefully--me thinks there be something rotten in Hollywood.
CHUQ
09/02/07
Just how long must we be subjected to the Astro-nut story or the diaper thing or yada, yada? I mean come on people! How much more do you need to hear about this situation? Is it something you cannot live without? If the answer is yes, the you are pathetic!
Another story, NYC is considering a law that would make it illegal to cross a street while listening to IPod, or cel, it will cost you $100 if you are ticketed. NYc is just sucking all the fun out of life. You cannot listen to IPod, talk on a cel, eat trans fats, smoke, or scratch--what is left? They will know how to make life a real joy!
I recall when you could see hookers in Times Square, now it is Mickey; personally, I like looking at hookers more than some capitalistic mouse. Would someone remind me why I would want to go to NYC for a visit.
What is next, some insane clergy carrying signs and calling me a "chilkd of Satan" because I listen to tunes?
Sorry, NYC--I will pass.
CHUQ
08/02/07
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=7924
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=7913
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=7912
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=7903
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=7894
The above links are to articles written by Arab journalists and they are well written. But keep in mind that it is a Saudi paper, asharq alaswat, and will have a lean to a pro-western position.
CHUQ
08/02/07
A Bomber By Any Other Name.....
Let us take a trip in the way-back machine--it is 1983 in Kuwait, the US and French embassies have just been bombed. The Kuwaitis arrest a young man named Jamal Jaafari Mohammed, but he went on the lame before his trial. This guy was involved with a airline hijacking in 1984. Any way this guy was tried and convicted of being a terrorist in absentia.
He was reported to be a member of an Iranian backed para-military group that even attempted an assassination of a Kuwaiti prince. All this is just a histroy lesson right? Not really!
Let us set the controls for our temporal machine for the present to see what our Jamal Jaafari Mohammed is doing today.
One, Jamal Jaafari Mohammed is a member of the Iraqi parliment. He is a convicted terroist and he has diplomatic immunity. Not bad! This man was nominated by the DAWA, the coalition that supports al-Maliki. He also had the support of most of the Shi'a organizations. OH, by the way, Maliki's party Dawa took responsiblity for the bombings in '83 and was exiled to Iran under Saddam.
Now once this guy was nominated for the Coucil of Representatives under the US led government; he was elected and became a MP for Babil region. Plus there seems to be a bunch of info leaking out that Mohammed may be a conduit to Iran, which according to the US, is meddling in Iraq's business. Still no concrete proof of that accusation.
I realize the US was in a major rush for the elections to go forward, so they could hold up Iraq as a beacon of Democracy. Apparently, so quickly that no one bother to check out the candidates to see who they might be , in reality. I mean take a look mat one the US's boys, Chalabi, he is a felon on the run from justice in Jordan for hois part in a bank fraud, but now he has immunity--convienent, eh? Recently, a 9 month old baby was detained at an airport because his name was on the "terrorist" list of the US, but yet a convicted terrorist somehow slipped through the net. Just how much money are we flushing down the toilet?
It would seem that the more we try the more embarrassing moments we seem to create. This guy will probably become a victim of some violence, since he has immunity, any solution to this problem will be a behind the scenes solution. And once this story quietens he will slip into obsurity.
CHUQ
06/02/07
Today, I read a story about this whacko that was shocking his 18 month old with a stun gun and for 3 months. Is this a sicko or what? Awhile back, in my area some kids put a cat's feet into hot grease. Heard on the news about some kids beat a miniture pinscher to death with sticks and these types are stories are everywhere. What a fuckin' degenerate society we have become.
What is needed is to overhaul the justice system so that the punishment fits the crime. For instance, the guy with the stun gun gets zapped everyday for 90 days with 100,000 volts. The kids with the hot grease, one og their hands is put into the same grease and those wonderful kids with the sticks, get beat with bamboo for 25 lashes.
What about capital crimes, you may ask? The same punishment fits the crime. For instance, they guy that was dragged to death behind a pick-up--he dies the same! The guy who was sodomized with a pipe because he was Mexican--the perps get sodomized repeatedly for 5 days.
I know this will not be popular, but something has to be done to right the crap that our society is nuturing.
Or how about, every tenth person arrested is shot to death by firing squad. Yes, I know these are a bit extreme, but something needs to be done and the sooner these deviant personalities are handled the better.
CHUQ
06/02/07
Mr. Bush and his budget will be all the news of the day. It will be analyzed from every angle; I, myself, might put my 2 cents in, only time will tell. It seems he will be asking for a buttload of money for the war in Iraq and probably some for DHS, to help the war on terror. I mean these are no brainers, of course, he will.
I am such a major political geek that I watch the History Channel or as I call it the "Hitler" channel. Anyway I digress, today is a lot of shows on Saddam and his crap and I was wondering, could these stories be on today, of all days, because of the budget calling for ore money for the war? A coincidence? I think not! I seem to recall during the Lebanon conflict this past summer, I watched, on the same channel, a buttload of shows about the Germany and its policies toward the Jews. Coincidence? I think not!
Could the History Channel be used to garner support for different policies in the news? Who. BTW, owns the Histroy Channel?
Just a thought.
CHUQ
05/02/07
The New Refugees
The Middle East in the last 50+ years has seen a wealth of refugees. The most extensive was the Palestinians fleeing their homeland. They went into Jordan, Lebanon, Syria as well as others. After decades of conflict, these refugees have become entrenched in the countries, sometimes not as welcomed guests. Jordan moved against them for fear that they would move against the ruling family. And of course, Palestinians were part of the problem in the civil war in Lebanon. These refugees have been blamed for all sorts of problems, which were not necessarily of their own making. To this day, animosities toward them continues, as well as their dislike for Israel. In other words, these refugees have inadvertently assisted in the continuation of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Sometime they were at fault, others not.
Since the US has invaded and occupied Iraq violence has grown almost daily. As this violence and lack of security grows, the people leave their country to become refugees. All in the search for a little peace and security. THe UN has estinmated the number of refugees so far as 2 million and about a 1000 day leave the country to go to their neighbors, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc.
The recieving countries, which are not the richest countries in the region, are having to deal with the influx of refugees, sometimes they are not welcomed. IN the beginning the wealthier Iraqis were leaving, doctors, lawyers, etc. Now average Iraqis are taking their life savings and fleeing the country.
The transportation of these refugees has become a boom industry in Iraq, probably the only industry that is doing well. Taxis, trucks, the like are all being used to take these displaced people to neighboring countries.
These refugee camps, will soon become the recruitment centers for insurgents, just as they were for the Palestinians. The longer the US is in Iraq and the longer the violence persists to more recruits will be available.
What are we looking at? Another conflict along the lines of the Israel-Palestine one. The longer the war in Iraq drags on, the more the disenfranchised look for ways to "get even", for lack of a better term.
Since the conflict with Israel has turned into an institution, there is no way to break the cycle short of a miracle. We are looking at the same occurance for the Iraqis. If the refugees are out of Iraq for 10 years or more, then we will be looking at it becoming an institution and a problem that will be more difficult to control.
The President was given every possible slant to the war in Iraq, except this one. Some of his advisers should be smart enougth to see this problem mushrooming into a major problem for the US and its allies. But as usual for the US leadership, the whole picture is seldom looked at, just the small part that is in front of them at the time. In My opinion, the US is in for another rude awakening.
CHUQ
05/02/07
The peice I wrote yesterday about the Iran situation, got me to thinking and wandering. So I went back to the notes I have been taking for a long time on news stories of the hour. At least in my notes the whole Iran "bad guy" thing started getting hotter and more verbal about the time that Israel entered Lebanon. Israel's battle with Hezbollah seemed to present a uniques opportunity for the US to up the ante on the Iranians, since they were helping Hezbollah, it provided a uniques opportunity to link al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the militias in Iraq to the world-wide terror netrwork.
I would say that was fortunate, was it not?
My notes could be incomplete; I will say this is not a certainity. but according to my notes it appears a bit suspicious.
CHUQ
04/02/07
All the saber rattling going on in Washington and Baghdad about the involvement of Iranian "agents" in the situation in Iraq, is nothing more than a propaganda war right now. Why? there has been liitle evidence offered other than the hear say of some officials here and there. Has the media been allowed to verify any of the crap pass out? NO! Recently the US forces captured a cache of arms and immediately they were supplied by Iran. The truth is they found ONE Iranian machine gun among all the hundreds of arms captured. That does not mean that they all came from Iran, nor does it mean they did not come from Iran. I am just pointing out the fact that it was used for propaganda purposes.
It is certain that there are Iranians operating in Iraq, just as there are "agents" working in Jordan or Egypt.
Basically, what I am saying is I will reserve my condemnation of Iranian "agents" until I have concrete proof, not the lame evidence that is being offered now. I think that type of evidence will not be as easily produced as the lame accusations.
Let's look at propaganda--if one falsifies a fact, then a confrontation can be the answer when it is proven erroneous. But when an interpretation is offered then it becomes more difficult to prove it wrong. All media is used to get the message across to the public. An interpretation of a fact is just that what one person defines it as and is not necessarily accurate.
So, now are we seeing the propaganda war against Iran? All indications I have is that we are, but then again that is my interpretation and it may be propaganda--you decide!
I appears that the subjagation of Iran to Washington's desires is a necessity for the long term plans for the region. The US seems to be manuvering for domination of the Middle East and Central Asia, whether it is oil or whatever, they must be made to become subject to Washington's will.
CHUQ
03/02/07
I spend a lot of time reading various world edition newspapers and finding info that would normally not be seen in the US. I have found that some people are very short-sighted. On different forums I try to post article, stories, opeds, whatever that would generate a response, a thoughtful response, but as usual, in some cases, I get pure bullshit. The one that comes to mind most recently is an article I posted about the makeup of a terrorist org, and the first reply was basically calling me an Islamic apologist, I guess because I posted on something they have a bug up there butt about. Anyway, I apologize for NO ONE and I DO NOT accept any argument that labels any religion as "muderous".
Let see Muslims parked planes into bldgs and that makes the religion murderous. Ok with that same logic, the asshole who blew up an abortion clinic killing people was a Christian, so using the same logic, Christianity is a murdereous religion also.
I really get to laughing at the mentality of these so-called "civilized people", for it is easier to call names than to look for the cause. People like these are part of the problem we are having across the globe.
CHUQ
03/02/07
HOW WOULD SYRIA BENEFIT?
The question is why would Syria order the assassination of Gemayel? Unlike the rest of his family he was a junior player, famous only for his surname. His grandfather founded the Phalangist, what could hve appeared to be a knock-off of the Brownshirts. This group has lost a lot of its standing because it collaborated first with Israel and then with Syria.
Gemayel assassination bears no earmark of a Syrian attempt. Remote controlled bombs were the norm. His assassins stop his car and shot him many times, while allowing his driver to escape. Why would Syria risk such an outcome?
Now, the gunmen escaped, if they had not the contract originator would be known. How does one commit this act on a busy street? My opinion, his attackers knew him by sight, in other words he was known to them.
Now we come to the political stuff. The assassination by Syria makes little sense since Assad's value to the region and his possible influence could be jeopardized. Plus the possibility of Assad being an ally to the US
in the worsening conditions in Iraq is becoming more and more likely.
Even world papers are questioning the Syria connection to the assassination. The International Herald Tribune, stated, Syria is on a semi-roll now in the political arena, so why would they want to kill this opportunity?
The Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz says, "pure political and diplomatic logic makes it difficult to see Damascus behind the assassination."
Syria has no benefits from the assassination of Gemayel. They are close to getting the semi-official stamp from Washington as the one of the only countries that can help calm things down in Iraq.
CHUQ
02/02/07
Well the news now is on the report by the US government about the posssibility that Israel misused cluster bombs that they got from the US. Ok, why is it out now? Back in November 2006 the UN issue the same report, it told that the last three days before the end of the Lebanon excusion by Israel, they carpet bombed S, Lebanon with clusters, making the area almost unliveable or unworkable. Most of you could hear about this report because the Lebanese minister got assassinated on the very day the report was issued; this of course, pushed this story to the backburner. The assassination was very opportune for the Israelis.
But now the US is making the very same accusations. Why? Why is NOW the time for this to be annouced? They say that timing is everything in politics. What is it about today that makes this story preferrable?
Could it be that the Olmert government is facing a vote of no comfidence and the US wants to add fuel to the fire, with the hopes of a new government they would be dealing with in the future?
Just as the assasination was a coincidence that happen the very day of the damning UN report, but unfortunately, I do not believe in coincidences, especially in politics. Again--timing is everything.
CHUQ
31/01/07
Resolutions Against The Troop Build-up In Iraq
By now, almost all Americans, except those under rocks, know about the 20,000+ troops to be sent to Iraq soon. And now the Dems have began their tour of duty in the Congress by passing a resolution against such build-up. Bravo for them right? Not hardly!
They are wasting time and money with their resolution. Why, you ask? It is non-binding. That means it is more worthless than used toilt paper. When why bother? A very good question, with no good answer. Only thing I can think of is that it makes the Dems look like they are actually geting stuff done. They promised much in the first hundred hours and they are scrambling to make it appear they are making good on their lame promises.
So are the Dems actually working? NO, IMO, they are travelling on my dime. they make trips to access the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the like. Pretty much a free trip aboard and a couple of good photo-ops and that is about it. What they uncover has been known for a long time and they will just make some half-hearted comment and will then go back to business as usual in Washington. The Dems are doing all they can to keep their message in front of the media, thus it stays in front of the people. Why? The Presidential election! It is imperative that they (Dems) win the White House in 2008. Everything they do is for that end, not what is best for the people they represent.
If Americans want real change, then they should demand it! Letting your vote do your talking for you, is naive and ignorant. Take back the country! Make it truly a country governed by the people.
CHUQ
30/01/07
Recently I have been thinking alot about the wounded troops there are those stories where they are getting only limited services, that is why organizations like CNN raffle off a HumV to raise monies to help. This is not acceptable--again!
There is a program to get Iraq's oil industry up and running--I think that is a great idea. It will not go well for it will be open to numerous attacks, but a pretty good plan.
My proposal is once the industry starts pumping out oil, then Iraq gets 50% of the revenue and the other 50 goes to support the wounded troops trying to rebuild their lives. After all, thanks to Iraq they are having the problems they have, only fair that Iraq help pay for the services to rehab these victims of war.
Any thoughts?
CHUQ
29/01/07
Recently, I did a study about Cheney's visit to Saudi mand said that it was to get assurances from them to help with Iran. He got them! A recent report talks about the oil revenue, at present rate for Iran would decrease by 2015. I then said that the Saudi would most likely raise production and slash prices in an attempt to get Iran to adjust its program.
Merry Christmas, CHUQ--the Saudis have increased production and will hold the price of $50 a barrel. Now I wait for Iran to make my predicted bone-head move to justify an action agaionst them by the US.
The US is moving a 2nd carrier group into the Gulf. WHY? They too are waiting for the shoe to drop and will be armed to the teeth. With all the political movement, an edict to kill Iranians in Iraq and the harrassment of "diplomats" in Iraq and The US Sunni friends in the area; the wait may not be as long as most think.
CHUQ
29/01/07
What Is Going On?
We all know of the "surge" that the Bush boyz want. We know that it is suppose to be a Maliki plan to clean up Baghdad. Maliki has said that, in response to the growing rate of violence, no "outlaw" will be safe. I am guessing he is speaking of the insurgents and the militias. If so I would like someone to explain what is going on.
Sadr's guys returned recently to the government, who are the cornerstone of Maliki's power base, this leads to the conclusion that the plan as stated is acceptable to the leadership of Sadr's guys. If so, the Madhi Army could be considered an "outlaw". With that, is Sadr and his gang willing to sacrifice the Army on the alter of Iraqi democracy? If so, it would be similar to the sacrifice of the SA in 1934.
Another question pops to mind, is this plan winning support from Sadr's bloc? If so, I would be extremely leary of this plan and their intentions. Or, what was Sadr promised to get his parlimentary support?
Two hypothesis come to mind. 1) It is all a pile of fecal matter designed to confuse and misinform the US public, in an attempt to garner support for the Bush plan. 2) Maliki and Sadr have worked up a deal on the course of Iraq and the US is just there to impliment the plan.
No matter your stance on the war in Iraq, you need to ask yourself, What is going on? Me thinks it is not going to be advantageous for the US.
CHUQ
26/01/07
An annoucement yesterday that Kerry would not seek the democratic nomination for pres. May I see a show of hands of those who did not see this coming.
Kerry is a political hack--IMO, he was never in the consideration for the nomination; his failed attempt last time showed the demos the way forward. He just does not have the support in the back rooms for a run at the nomination. Hopefully, you all realize that the process depends as much on backroom manuevering as in the primaries.
The Demos are looking for fresh leadership and will see how the picture looks after a few primaries. Let us not leave out the Repubs from the backroom manuevering. They also will be looking to put the best face forward, and I mean that literally and physically.
The entire process will be fun to watch and analyze--onward and upward!
CHUQ
25/01/07
Just the other day a news release stated that Obama attended an Islamic fundamentalist school while living in Indonesia. It is said to be given out by some on the Clinton staff. Of course, it was enied and when checked out the school in mention was a public school open to all children. So the story was apparently untrue, but the thought has been put into the mix now and since the political season has started about a year early, so has the negativity of the US political institution.
How many more will come out? Is how negative will the upcoming political season be? Is this necessary? Well, no--but apparently acceptable. What a pathetic bunch of people and yet the American people see no problem or if they see it, does not matter, it is all part of the game played by the rich and we are just spectators, for the most part.
CHUQ
24/01/07
Is not the pres. election process long enough as it is now? But wait! There will be political debates in NH starting April of this year. Why? Is there nothing else worth carry on the news? By the time elections do get here, the people will be itching to vote and get it over with as soon as poseible.
Is this necessary? NO! Is it profitable? YES! Will it be a pain in the ass? YES!
Why? Because......
WHAT IS THE NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ
I would hope that my follow Americans would know what is in this statement seei ng how we are asking our young to fight and die for its implimentation. But then again, I have been disappointed before it what the American people actually know. To bring those unaware of what this document is, let me refresh memories. The National Strategy For Victpry In Iraq, is a document or plan , if you will, for the liberation of Iraq. It consists of 8 strategic pillars, which was some lame attempt to equate it with the pillars of the Islamic faith. These pillars are:
1) Defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency.
2) Transition Iraq to security self-reliance
3) Help Iraqis forge a national compact for democratic government
4) Help Iraq build government capacity and provide essential services
5) Help Iraq strengthen its economy
6) Help Iraq strengthen the rule of law and promote civil rights
7) Increase international support for Iraq
8) Strengthen public understanding of coalition efforts and public isolation of the insurgents.
Now take a good look at the pillars of this plan. Do you see any of it at present that could be considered a success? IMO, pillar 5 is the only one that could be said to show some success. The US and the Iraqi government have been pulling all punches to get the international community to invest in Iraq and its future. This is a limited success, if one at all. Most of the international community see the situation in Iraq as too viotile for any serious investment. I am sure that there are those waiting in the wings for a more secure Iraq and then swoop in and begin the pillaging of the country. Pillar 7 could be viewed by some as a limited success, but not by me, so far. 5 and 7 are pretty much tied together.
Unfortunately, the other five pillars are , at best, a failure and have given more grief than optimism. The biggest problem I see is, none of the so-called proposals on the table now will do much to turn these failures into successes.
The real bad news is that the Iraqi people are in for more of the same security problems and possibly a much greater atmosphere of violence.
CHUQ
22/01/07
I apologize for the length of this article, but I could not pick a part to highlight so I wanted to post the entire thing. From a friend in Lebanon I have spoken with recently, this article is pretty accurate. It is not my article, but a very good dipiction of what is happening.
|
Ever since Hezbollah and its allies began an open-ended protest against the US-backed government on December 1, Beirut's gilded downtown--built for wealthy Lebanese and foreign tourists--has become more authentically Lebanese. Where Persian Gulf sheiks once ate sushi, families now sit in abandoned parking lots, having impromptu picnics, the smell of kebabs cooked over coals wafting through the air. Young men lounge on plastic chairs, smoking apple-scented water pipes, and occasionally break out into debke, the Lebanese national dance. Most protesters are too poor to afford $4 caffe lattes, but men hawking shots of strong Arabic coffee for 30 cents apiece are doing a brisk trade. Nearly all businesses are shuttered, but a few enterprising store owners have figured out how to cater to the crowd. One hair salon converted itself into a sandwich shop, selling cheese on bread with a cup of tea for $1. The smiling cashier works behind a counter filled with L'Oréal hair products. "I never came to downtown before these protests. I can't afford to come here. If I ate a sandwich here, I'd be broke for a week," says Emad Matairek, a 35-year-old carpenter from the dahiyeh, the Shiite-dominated suburbs of Beirut. "It's well-known that this area was not built for us." The protests are being portrayed in much of the Western media as a sectarian battle, or a coup attempt--engineered by Hezbollah's two main allies, Syria and Iran--against a US-backed Lebanese government. Those are indeed factors underlying the complex and dangerous political dance happening in Beirut. But the biggest motivator driving many of those camped out in downtown isn't Iran or Syria, or Sunni versus Shiite. It's the economic inequality that has haunted Lebanese Shiites for decades. It's a poor and working-class people's revolt. In Riad Solh Square, amid dozens of white tents erected for Hezbollah supporters to sleep in, there is a stage with a huge TV screen and rows of loudspeakers mostly positioned toward the Grand Serail, the Ottoman-era palace where Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his Cabinet are hunkered down. Between the tents and the palace, behind eight-foot-high coils of barbed wire, there are hundreds of Lebanese soldiers toting M-16s and sitting atop armored vehicles. Every night thousands of people gather in front of the stage, within earshot of the Serail, demanding that Siniora either resign or accept a national unity government that gives Hezbollah and its allies greater power. A major theme highlighted by the protesters is that Siniora is backed by the Bush Administration--and that alliance did little to help Lebanon during last summer's thirty-four-day war between Israel and Hezbollah. A few days into the sit-in, Hezbollah hung a large banner from a building showing Siniora embracing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, over a collage of dead Lebanese children Photoshopped onto his back. It reads, "Condy--Thanks," a reference to Siniora's meeting with Rice during the war, when US officials refused to endorse a quick cease-fire. "Thank you for your patience Condy, for some of our children are still alive," it reads. But in most conversations with people at the sit-in and protests, economic concerns quickly emerge: Siniora's government is corrupt, has failed to reduce Lebanon's crippling $41 billion public debt and has done little to improve people's lives. Shiites are especially forgotten in the country's economic planning. Many at the sit-in have been out of work for years, or lost their jobs after the recent war. "Our country is getting poorer, and Siniora's government is not talking about it," says Hadi Mawla, a 22-year-old graphic design student who came from the dahiyeh on the protest's first day, which drew hundreds of thousands to downtown. "Our standard of living is falling, while other Arab countries are improving. We Lebanese used to make fun of other Arab countries. Now they have great big cities like Dubai. And we're going to end up like Egypt--with a very poor class, a very rich class and nothing in between." The economic dimension to the protest can be seen everywhere. Around the square there are hand-drawn posters of Siniora sitting on a chair made of stacks of dollar bills. From the stage, a projector shines slogans highlighting economic demands onto a building that houses the ultra-chic Buddha Bar, with its two-story Buddha statue inside. The swirling projector makes its point: "No to the government of VAT" and "No to the government of seafront properties." This class battle transcends sectarian boundaries. Hezbollah has formed an alliance with the Free Patriotic Movement, led by Maronite Christian politician and former army commander Michel Aoun. With this coalition Hezbollah is trying to prove that it's not a purely sectarian party, it's not seeking to impose an Islamic government and it's willing to ally not just with nationalist Sunnis but also with Christians. Because Aoun stresses honest government, accountability and economic equality, he and Hezbollah seemed like a natural fit. By playing up its alliance with Aoun--and downplaying its partnership with the notoriously corrupt Shiite Amal party--Hezbollah can reinforce the reputation for honesty shared by many Islamist movements in the Middle East. This class battle transcends sectarian boundaries. Hezbollah has formed an alliance with the Free Patriotic Movement, led by Maronite Christian politician and former army commander Michel Aoun. With this coalition Hezbollah is trying to prove that it's not a purely sectarian party, it's not seeking to impose an Islamic government and it's willing to ally not just with nationalist Sunnis but also with Christians. Because Aoun stresses honest government, accountability and economic equality, he and Hezbollah seemed like a natural fit. By playing up its alliance with Aoun--and downplaying its partnership with the notoriously corrupt Shiite Amal party--Hezbollah can reinforce the reputation for honesty shared by many Islamist movements in the Middle East. Hezbollah's charismatic leader, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah--ever skillful at tapping into the Shiite tradition of empowering the dispossessed--often highlights the class dimension of his group's campaign. "They will hear us in all the palaces of the ruling coalition," Nasrallah thundered on December 7, in a speech via video-link to the protesters downtown. He was calling for a huge turnout at a rally three days later, where crowd estimates ranged as high as 1 million. "From the homes of the poor, from the shantytowns, from the tents, from the demolished buildings, from the neighborhoods of those displaced by war, we will make sure that they hear our voices." There's a long tradition of the Lebanese state leaving Shiites to fend for themselves and waiting for religious or charitable groups to fill the vacuum. This happened over decades, long before Hezbollah emerged in the early 1980s. Hezbollah's "state within a state" was possible only because successive governments willfully left a void in the Shiite-dominated areas of south Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley and the dahiyeh. "The central government always liked outsourcing the problems of the south. First they gave it to the Palestinians, then they gave it to the Israelis, and they gave it to Hezbollah from 2000 to 2006," says Khalil Gebara, co-director of the Lebanese Transparency Association, an anti-corruption watchdog group. "Hezbollah does what every political party does: They went and created a dependency network." In the 1960s and '70s, when Shiites were first making the migration from the rural south and Bekaa to Beirut and other cities, the central government left their fate to the clans and feudal landlords who held sway in the agricultural hinterlands. By 1970, when the Palestine Liberation Organization began creating bases in southern Lebanon, the Shiites were on the front line of a conflict between the PLO and Israel. A Shiite cleric named Musa al-Sadr created Amal, the first Shiite political party, which later turned into a militia. To an extent, Amal supplanted the feudal lords as protector of the Shiites. After the Israeli invasion of 1982, Hezbollah emerged to fight the Israeli occupation. It was more disciplined and less corrupt than Amal, although Hezbollah was always dependent on Iranian funding and support. When Hezbollah's grinding guerrilla war forced Israel to end its occupation in May 2000, the militia was hailed throughout the Muslim world for achieving what no Arab army had done before: force Israel to relinquish land. With the Israeli withdrawal, Hezbollah moved into the vacuum in southern Lebanon, opening clinics and schools and providing small-business loans. To many Shiites, Hezbollah's ascendance put them on the political map. There's a word Lebanese have used to put down a Shiite: mutawali, which roughly translates into "country bumpkin." It's a term freighted with meaning--of dispossession, prejudice, deprivation. But Shiites have appropriated it and now use it with pride. "During the civil war, we mutawalis were insulted and put down. Hezbollah gave us a new sense of dignity, and that's the most important right we can have," says Mawla, the graphic design student. "Hezbollah made it possible for us to stand, without fear, and shout from the rooftops that we are mutawalis." In 1990, at the end of the fifteen-year civil war, Lebanon's political class chose to continue its sectarian system. The current crisis is rooted in that choice, which began with the 1989 Taif Accord, brokered by Saudi Arabia and Syria. The agreement called for all militias to disarm--with the exception of Hezbollah, whose militia was labeled a "national resistance" against the Israeli occupation. Leaving traditional warlords in place, Taif enshrined the political partition among the country's rival sects: Power must be shared between a Maronite Christian president, a Sunni prime minister and a Shiite speaker of Parliament. Each of the major players in the war seized a piece of the government and extended the sectarian system to the lowest rungs of the civil service. This arrangement was ripe for exploitation by outside powers, especially Syria, which dominated Lebanon from 1990 until last year. One man had a chance to change the economic underpinnings of this system, and perhaps eventually cast aside its entire sectarian basis. He was Rafik Hariri, a billionaire construction tycoon who served as prime minister for most of the 1990s and until late 2004. But Hariri failed at building a healthy postwar economy. He rebuilt downtown Beirut at the expense of the hinterlands, and he focused on luxury sectors--banking and upscale tourism--instead of Lebanon's productive sectors, agriculture and small industry. Hariri was trying to return to the prewar economy, which was driven by Lebanon's role as a transit center for oil money from the Persian Gulf. But by the 1990s oil producers no longer needed the Lebanese banking system; they had Dubai. "Everything that the government built around here means nothing to us," says Matairek, the carpenter at the downtown protests. "What they should have done was strengthen the Lebanese army. All the money they spent to fix this downtown--what's the use of it, if the Israeli warplanes were able to bomb us, and the Lebanese army wasn't able to stop it?" The gleaming downtown became a symbol of Hariri's reign and his failed economic policies. By the time he left office Lebanon had a $36 billion public debt, or 170 percent of GDP--one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios in the world (it's now 190 percent). For much of Hariri's term, he relied on Siniora, an old friend, as his finance minister. Siniora's biggest triumph as finance minister was the 2002 Paris II Donors Conference, which netted Lebanon $4.4 billion in soft loan guarantees. In return Siniora promised a raft of neoliberal economic reforms: He would privatize state assets like cellphone contracts, reform the country's civil service sector and balance the budget by 2006. Nine months before the donors conference, Siniora imposed Lebanon's first value-added tax (VAT): a 10 percent surcharge on most goods except food and medicines. One of his main arguments for staying in office is to shepherd a Paris III conference scheduled for January, in which international donors are expected to contribute toward rebuilding the infrastructure devastated by last summer's Israeli offensive. "Because of Siniora and his economic programs, we have a very flawed tax system, based on indirect taxes. Statistically, it has been shown that this system recycles money from the poor to the wealthy," says Fawwaz Traboulsi, a political science professor at the Lebanese American University. "We have a 10 percent flat income tax, but most state revenues come from indirect taxation: the VAT, fuel taxes, utility surcharges. Salaried people pay the bulk of these taxes." Throughout his tenure, Hariri clashed with the Syrian-backed Lebanese president, Emile Lahoud. In February 2005 Hariri was assassinated in a massive bombing as his motorcade drove through Beirut's seaside corniche. Widely assumed to have been carried out by Syria or its agents, the killing shook Lebanon and cast a harsh light on Syrian hegemony over the political system. Under internal pressure and mass demonstrations, the Syrian-backed prime minister resigned and Damascus pulled its 14,000 troops out of Lebanon. After elections in June 2005, the new parliamentary majority--a coalition of Christian, Sunni and Druse parties--appointed Siniora as prime minister. For the first time, Hezbollah joined the Lebanese Cabinet, securing two seats in Siniora's administration. Until last summer's Israel-Hezbollah war, Siniora continued with the economic policies he had begun under Hariri. Morality aside, there's one major problem with these soak-the-poor economics: They strengthen Hezbollah. In a country divided drastically between haves and have-nots, a large proportion of the have-nots happen to be Shiites, and they rely for social services not on the government but on Hezbollah. In their view, the government takes, while Hezbollah provides. After the latest war, with Israeli bombs targeting Shiite-owned factories and businesses in the south and in the Beirut suburbs, the Shiite middle class was devastated. This has made Shiites even more dependent on Hezbollah, as evidenced by the group's handing out up to $12,000 in cash payments to everyone whose home was destroyed. The money--most likely provided by Iran--was intended to pay for a year's rent and new furniture while reconstruction begins. Locked in a state of perpetual conflict, Lebanon today faces the same choice it had in 1990, when the civil war ended. It can replicate the political system that it had before--based on corrupt sectarian warlords dividing up the spoils of the war they perpetuated--or it can try to produce a stronger and more egalitarian system, one that isn't based on religious divisions and that won't consign its largest sect, the Shiites, to the care of an Iranian-funded religious party. "How can we still accept this government that steals? This government that built this downtown and accumulated this huge debt?" asks Matairek, the Shiite carpenter. "Who's going to pay for it? I have to pay for it, and my son is going to pay for it after me." This article originally appeared in the Nation. Mohamad Bazzi is a Lebanense-born journalist and Newsday's Middle East Bureau chief. ©2000-2006 electronicIntifada.net unless otherwise noted. Content may represent personal view of author. This page was printed from Electronic Lebanon, a project of the Electronic Intifada at electronicLebanon.net. You may freely e-mail, print out, copy, and redistribute this page for informational purposes on a non-commercial basis. To republish content credited to the Electronic Intifada in online or print publications, please get in touch via electronicIntifada.net/contact |
Recently, a couple of kids were found that had been abducted, one of them for 4 yrs the other 4 days. The kids are reunited with their families and the perp is behind bars and being charged with multiple offense. The kids are safe, the perp is dodging guys in lock up and yet the srtory continues and continues....WHY? It has a somewhat happy ending and I am sure the kids would like to get on with their lives and stay away from the multitude of assholees with microphones and cameras.
A small suggestion--MOVE ON! Let the people return to a somewhat normal life, please, MOVE ON!
CHUQ
20/01/07
Since I wrote the previous piece on the possible fate of al-Sadr, of course it is a personal opinion based on what facts I have from the region.
Anyway--recently one of Sadr's closest friends was arrested by US forces and the most influential Shi'a cleric, Sistani has come out in favor of the "surge" and on the side of Maliki. This is a superb tactic, if you are going to go after Sadr--that is chip away at the perimeter until you expose the center and then act. I foresee an "unfortunate" accident for Sadr.
CHUQ
20/01/07
Will al-Sadr Become A Target?
Just as the Israel have their targeted assassinations, so should the US, seems to be gaining popularity. The thought is that he you silence him, then security could be established, at least in Shi'a areas. With hi9s death the shi'a resistence would have no leader and thusly a tranquility could be established.
IMO, I do not think so! The militias have their own leaders; al-Sadr is little more than their rallying point; their public face, if you will. His death would put a cramp in their style, for awhile, but not eliminate. If anything, the Shi'a are big on martyrs and he would become just that and then a rallying point for a more intense insurgency. Maybe not immediately, but eventually, he would become more influential in death than he has been in life.
The way all are talking in Washington, it seems to be a given, at least in my opinion, that he will be neutralized. it seems to sound like it will be a priority. Will it be an assassination? Depends on how you define the word. I am sure when it occurs there will be some reasonable explanation that has been already decided on by the Boyz in Washington. No One will call it an assassination--but dead is dead.
Since the media has painted him as such a bloodthirsty individual, his death will be widely accepted as a necessity for the Bush "way forward" to be realized.
Only time will tell if I am correct--I am not ruling out some political manuvering to stop this from happening, but since he is an "agent" for Iran--his death will be the best solution for those in the Administration.
CHUQ
11/01/07
I have been playing the political exchange for a long time and for the most part, the exchanges have been very good, but on these forums I have noticed that the more "conservs", for lack of a better word, you have the more personal attacks you have. Most are unwarranted because it is usually an ideological difference and for some reason, they cannot have people disagreeing with them on anything. Personally, I do not care about a personal attack, because I refuse to let myself fall into the mindless dribble of those without respect. I disagree with a lot of people on the topics, but I will respect their opinion and debate them if I disagree. As far as the personal stuff, I will try to ignore it and keep my cool.
Of course, you also have those who do not attack personally but rather, goad you into poppin' off with the hope someone will whack the bad guys pee-pee. And one of favs are those who make a statement and when ask to provide a link or such, say, "you do not need a link, it is just so". Another, mindless way of saying "I am right, you are wrong".
In other words, these types to me are "trolls" and presnt nothing of substance. I understand forum admin would like to have varying points of view and that is an excellent way of looking at the whole discussion thing, but not everyone is there to discuss, but rather to attack. I have seen good posters leave forums because of mindless crap and that is sad because those posters usually were the ones with very good points and info.
Just my thoughts.
Purge And Surge
I have been watching the Super Bowl of political tap dancing for over a month. The president is slowly and methodically replacing anyone who will not stay on message with his "new" program, A Way Forward.
He purged Rumsfeld and found the perfect yes man to takes his palce, Robt Gates then he moved Negroponte to the #2 spot; yet another yes man, who will play the Bush game to the fullest. So now, we have the deck stacked in Bush's favor.
How about the military? Good you ask, Gen. Casey will be replaced as senior co in Iraq and Gen Abizaid, will be replaced as Co of Central Command. Casey will be replaced by Gen. Petraeus, a supporter of the esc alation of troops for Iraq. Abizaid is to be replaced by Adm. Fallon, who is a good choice if a new Iran plan is to include the Naval forces. Now the military leadership is in the Bush camp and will rubber stamp all the president proposes for the military.
But wait there is more! Amb. Khalizad will be replaced and it seems to be because he was off message when he suggested the US have talks with Iran about the security probs in Iraq. Khalizad will be sent as the new Ambassador to the UN.
Purge is near completion. How about the surge, you ask? Good question!
It seems just a couple of months ago was the election--WAIT!--It was a couple of months ago. Please let me know if I missed something, but was not the last election billed as the repudiation of the war in Iraq? And did not a study group issue a report saying that recommendations for the easing of US involvement in Iraq? Did this happen or was I just dreaming? Apparedntly I was dreaming!
The president in his speech outline the deployment of 20,000+ additional troops for Iraq and there were some money mentions in there also. He has totally disgarded the Iraq Study Group report and just figured out a way to "stay the course".
If none of this tap dancing gets the job done, will BUsh be held accountable? Or will it be those damn democrats fault? What will the cost of the escalation? More violence and bloodshed will be the most obvious. Since this "new" plan will not be effective, I think al-Maliki will start looking for a new job. Why? Since Bush has said that most of his new plan is an Iraqi plan, all failures will fall on Maliki's shoulders and I do not think he can bear the weight.
CHUQ
11/01/07
Not if the US has any say! Rice is making another trip to the area to kick start the peace process. Anyone believing this please let me sell you some land in Florida.
Regardless what the reason, the US refused to deal with an elected government, because they did not agree with the position of the leaders. I am sorry, but if the majority of the people want them to lead, who are you to say no?
Anyway back to the sub--The US is giving aid, monetary and ordinance, to the Fatah faction. It is trying to give them the high ground in the conflict. If peace is a priority, why not pressure Israel to come to the table? Instead the Us is giving weapons to the Fatah which whenn talks break down may be used against Israel, thus giving Israel another green light to destroy Palestinains.
The US DOES NOT want peace! If it was truly concerned it would "step up" and demand ALL factions talk or lose any and all aid. Money talks--Bullshit walks!
For at least 2 months I have been watching the occurances between the US and Iran. Now it is not so much a news story because sanctions have been put into place and it is not worthy until they try the nuke thing again. Yeah--I really care about Beck coming to America, that alone should promote world peace.
Anyway back to the subject--On two separate occassions the US has detained Iranians, Iraqis say theu were diplomats, but the US says different. Now the military sources are saying there are Iranians fighting in Iraq. I cannot wait to see what new occurances will happen.
Do I believe any of these stories, well ask yourself has the US government ever lied to the American people to go to war? Have they ever misled Congress or the World?
My opinion? It is just setting the stage for whatever the Administration is planning. This will not happen overnight, but they seem to be painstakingly setting the stage for a reaction to something that Iran may do. The plans are there and are on hold, waiting for the proper timing.
CHUQ
13/01/07
For months I had posted on a couple of discussion forums about the situation developing in Somalia; it was pretty much ignored, but I kept posting about the situation. Once someone fired a shot across the border then a new threead appeared and a lot of people had an opinion.
As I have said in the past, the American people have no opinion until the news media tells them they have an opinion. The thing is a lotof the opinions defended what had happened. That was ok, but not one of them had enough inclination to read up on what the developements were that lead to the attack; all they know is whaT CNN or FOX tells them. I refuse to be that flippin' lazy or that flippin' uninformed.
CHUQ
12/01/07
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070111/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc
The link above is a story about how some fear that Bush has intentions to widening the war in Iraq to include Syria and Iran. As I have said, there seems to be a lot of pressure on Iran, especially, and it appears to be there with the hope that Iran will make an ill-advised move, which would give the US an opening and it can be justified.
onsider, if you will, all the occurances deaaling with Iran. IMO, the ducks are beginning to line up in a row and all that needs now, is that mistake by Iran.
CHUQ
12/01/07
Recently in an entry in my Blog I told how I thought the war with Iran would begin. One of my points was that the US had cut a deal with the Saudis and that they would after the 1st, start by increase in oil production and then would slash prices; this in turn would force the Iranians to make adjustments in their production. Well today, the Saudis said they will be increasing production. One part of my prediction has come true.
Another form of pressure on Iran will be the harassment of diplomats, so far this year 2 separate occassions the US has raided and detained Iranians. Another nail in the coffin.
CHUQ
11/01/07
What Is Patriotism?
This very subject has haunted my for many many years. More so recently because of the conflicts against "terrorism". At first, after 9/11, patriotism was sold wholesale to the American people, we were told to fly flags, buy diamonds, go on vacation; if we did not thew terrorists would win. It always struck me as odd that the leadership of the country would be concerned with retail problems at such a crisis time. But, I guess in retrospect, that we must keep the econmy going at all times; would not want the profit takers to suffer any set back because of a little bombing. God knows that these people dictate what we are suppose to do and when.
As a participant in the turmoil of the 60's and 70's I was use to the whole patriotism thing. You know America--Love It ot Leave It, attitudes. I found them stupid and irritating at best and as a "long haired hippie" and opposed to the Vietnam War, I was constantly being called a wealth of names, none which accurately defined who I was. As a veteran of that war I felt that my opposition was very partiotic and necessary..
Now, let's take a look a patriotism. What is patriotism? To begin with it is a very subjective topic, it means many things to many people. The cult of patriotism is taught in school through such techniques as pledge alligance, singing of songs, civics and a wide array of indoctrination techniques. Now I will be sniped at because I use the word indoctrination, so be it, it means to educate. When an individual is in school it begins with your first Civics class and continues until graduation from high school. It becomes less prominent once the indivdual enters college.
Patriotism is nothing more than a way for the State apparatus to retain control over the people and what they think. IMO, patriotism is when a person works for the betterment of ALL citizens of the country; one who tries to bring about change for good, not one who blindly follows some slogan that has NO patriotic connection whatsoever. Blind patriotism is a chain that hampers the individual from making wise decisions based on fact not some figures that are thrown out to confuse and once cnfused will garner support. I am reminded of Geo. M. Cohen, the showman, when he said "Many a bum show has been saved by the flag".
Patriotism will ALWAYS be in the eyes of the beholder and no amount of my rantings will change the fact that; if you fly the flag, you must be patriotic. Somehow, only a flag waver can know what patriotism is and what makes one a patriot. IMO, it is all bovine fecal matter.
CHUQ
1/1/07
IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERROR
According to Bush, you are fighting and dying in a war on terror. This statement is spread around like bad peanut butter to all the national media sources. But what does that really mean? Ever since 9/11 Bush has invaded two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, all in the name of America’s security. Is America more secure because of these invasions? NO! Because of his actions the Middle East is about as unstable as it has ever been. Your participation in these actions is not for security; you are being used as disposable tools in a failed foreign policy--a policy that no one in authority will admit is failing and failing badly. Who pays for this? You and your family pay with pain and suffering.
Since my war, Vietnam, the US has spent billions on hi-tech weaponry and massive tactical sessions that will prevent the US from ever experiencing Vietnam again. A waste--for all that time and money and nothing was learned--Washington is making the same mistakes as it did in Vietnam. What are those mistakes? No amount of hi-tech will beat a dedicated guerilla force.
Back to the war on terror, the present strategy is not working and the longer we remain on Iraqi soil the stronger and more intense the insurgency will become. The hi-tech solution did not work in Vietnam and is not working in Iraq, it anything the hi-tech solution is less effective in Iraq. You are fighting an invisible enemy while you, on the other hand, are a high profile. Who do you think will win that confrontation? You can prevail and the price will be more deaths and injuries.
Bush and his posse, spend all their waking hours trying to convince the American people that the war he started is winnable and he is not dragging the US into a long, costly, in lives and money, war that cannot be won. The only effect it will have is to devastate American families with the loss of their loved ones.
At the writing of this, there is no exit strategy from Iraq--as with Vietnam deaths will rise--injuries will rise--and the American soldier will be tasked with trying to do an impossible feat--win the war on terror through the actions in Iraq.
CHUQ
THE HANGING OF SADDAM
I have waited a reasonable length of time to allow all those that were excited about the death of Saddam to have their say. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not going to analyze the execution, that is for more intelligent minds to handle. I will talk about the trial and the sentence.
Saddam was put on trial for the murder of citizens of a small town in Iraq. He was tried and convicted by a system that was built by American lawyers. But what about the other deaths that cannot have closure? Would it not have been better to try him on all the incidences where he killed Iraqis? You kind of like in the US when a person kills in different cities or states they are tried for each one and then sentenced to whatever punishment the state sees fit.
IMO, Iraq tried Saddam on the one that had the best chnace of success, so that he could be put to death before other trials could take place. For the further the trials went I believe the more of an accomplice the US would have been in thiose deaths. Bush could not let that effect anyone. So, the Jubail trial was almost cut and dry and had the best percwentage of conviction, the Iraqi government went with that one. Once Saddam had been executed, then any involvement of the US in the deaths of other Iraqis would be silenced and the "good" name would be preserved.
Since the execution, no mention of other autrocities of Saddam has been mentioned. All say thay chapter is closed and I would say that a large sigh of relief has come from Washington. God only knows what would have come to light if the trials had continued.
CHUQ
09/01/07
ARAB STATES SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY
The support for Iraqi democracy and democracy in general is coming from the nations of the Gulf region. They have voiced a genuine(?) support for those fighting the insurgents and fighting for a base for democracy, which until now, was unexpected. Your would think that the presence of non-Islamic troops on Arabic soil would be a point of contention. Right? And in fact, these states are proposing a plan for support. The points of this plan are:
1--Strengthen and support Iraqi security forces.
2--Support for the Iraqi government in its efforts to disarm militias.
3--Apply maximum pressure on the regions powers to stop undermining security in Iraq.
4--Help mobilize the people to oppose extremists.
5--Be collaborative with all US-Iraqi endeavors.
All the proposals above sound good and promising coming from other Arab states, right? DO NOT get too excited the support offered is self-serving. Why? They are afraid if the US pulls out of Iraq, then the sectarian violence will spill over into their countries. So in essence, they Want YOU to fight and possibly die in Iraq to protect them from any future danger. By them, I am referring to the authoritarian regimes, the sultanates and emirates in the Middle East. They want YOU to protect their life and power.
Many have said that the Iraqi war is about oil, that is true, maybe not Iraqi oil, but the flow of oil in the region. If this sectarian violence spills over into the other countries then corporations like Exxon, Shell, etc. will be in trouble. So it boils down to the simple fact that YOU are fighting and dying for, not the US, but rather, Exxon.
Just ask yourself why was Iraq so important for two Bushes to invade?
CHUQ
3/1/07
PLEASE DO NOT HATE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
I have watched the hostilities in the Middle East for years, most recently, the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then Gaza and the to Lebanon. I was glued to my television for at least 12 hours a day looking for news and information, especially CNN, who I thought were the more reliable news media. I was wrong! I found all reporting by the American media to be unbalanced, at best, and always in Israel’s favor. CNN had very few Arab experts and virtual no Lebanese or Palestinian experts, but put forth a wealth of American Middle East experts and a bunch of Israeli. When they finally interviewed an Arabic expert they would be cut short if any criticism of Israel was offered. This upset me for CNN even has an Arab affairs editor, MS Nasr, who got very little air time. The only Arab expert given any in depth coverage was some ex-jihadist (CNN term not mine) hawking his new book on “radical Islamists”. I found the man boorish and just another agent of the Bush Administration.
Since I am very interested in the Middle East, I had to go to International sources to get the news and coupled that with the small amount of news available in the US, so that I could be better informed.
Unfortunately, most Americans depend on CNN, FOX, ABC, MSNBC and the like of the news and opinions. Because of this they are understandably ignorant on affairs relating to the Middle East. They these types of organizations to form their opinions for them, especially when it involves Arabs, Islam or the Middle East. I regret that my countrymen allow these self-serving outlets form their opinions and that they (Americans) are not ambitious enough to get all the news and form their own opinions.
For example, I do a lot of posting on political discussion forums and at the height of the war in Lebanon, everyone had an opinion about Hezbollah, the war, Israel, etc. But once the ceasefire went into effect and the area slid from the headlines, there are very few posts on the Middle East. So I say that without the American national media, most Americans have no opinion of their own; they prefer to let someone else do the thinking for them.
For these reason, I say to my Lebanese, Palestinian and Arab comrades, please do not hate the American people, for they live in a world of ignorance. If you must hate--Hate the American media for not giving the complete story and news.
Peace
Chuq
9/2/06
