You post made me laugh. Thanks!
Posted on 11/16/2004 1:07:33 PM PST by nothernlights
Was not the reporter under the duty to hand over this tape to military authorities,under the rules of imbeds? If that's the case then strong measures should be taken against Sites. Also has Sites been removed from that Marine unit,because at this point i"m sure his presence is a distraction to the Marines and therefore endangers their lives. Sites has to be removed from that unit at the very least.
I see your candy butt didn't last long. Good riddance pansy.
I wish I had checked in late yesterday before you got flushed. Little turds like you amuse me.
Secondly, while I'm flattered by your appraisal of my eloquence, I must differ with your statement that you can "only aspire" to such "eloquence" - reading your post, it is apparent to me that you are at least every bit as eloquent as I. At least. At worst, I might suggest that such a word might be a wee bit hyperbolic for either of us.
It's interesting to me that you mention Conor Cruise O'Brien, because years ago, his regular column was one of the things I looked forward to every sunday in the Observer (going back to around the time of Thatcher). I always enjoyed his writing and his perspective. I'm sure you know he had been an Irish Minister (I don't recall which post - it was before my time). Although he was conservative minded, it always struck me that he was far more conservative on things Irish than he was on anything else in the world. The view of him I encountered most often in this country on his ideas about Northern Ireland was that he was heavily one sided.
However, I think he was wrong in his assessment of the "volatile fusion of religion and nationalism" in the sense that it was highly misleading. Yes, I think that was the fire of volatility that was fanned by certain interests, mostly British and often for purposes that had more to do with British domestic politics. You probably heard or read about Randolph Churchill (Winston's father) playing what was known as "The Ulster Card" for domestic political purposes. That was actually described pretty well by Leon Uris in Trinity. Yes, I know it was only a novel, but his research was solid and his portrayal of those events, by all accounts I've ever run across, was pretty accurate.
The historical problem in Ireland was never really about religion. In fact, in the early 1800's, Ireland had laws regarding the freedom of religion that were far more progressive than most of the civilized world. And you were right about the non-Irish character of some major Irish representatives for freedom, but I think it would be, perhaps, more to the point to mention that they were Protestant. Even after Collins accepted the British division of the six counties from the rest of the Republic, some of the strongest representation of the Catholic population in Northern Ireland came from the Protestant community.
Traditionally, targetting civilians was not an element of IRA policy either (referring to your comment about the Zionist movements, which discussion might be better left to another time). In fact, if, for instance, you think of the first "Bloody Sunday" in the 20th century, Collins anguished over the murder of 14 British intelligence officers (which effectively destroyed the British Secret Service presence in Ireland at the time), which were clearly military targets. (When I say the first "Bloody Sunday", I'm referring only to the two primary events of that name in Ireland in the 20th century - not, for instance, the Russian Bloody Sunday... it seems that just about everybody has their own "special" sunday.) My point is that there were specific military targets in that particular act of 'terrorism', with zero collateral damage.
If we move forward to the other so-called Bloody Sunday, in 1972, it's important to realize the events that led to it. The increase in British military presence in NI at the time was initiated actually at the behest of the Catholic population, which was begging for protection. (You'll notice that no one ever speaks of Irish terrorism in terms of the protestant movements over the last 50 years.) But when they came, for political reasons, they harassed the populations of Catholic areas, which led to the development of the NI civil rights movement, which was non-violent. On that fateful day in 1972, the IRA had agreed to stay out of it entirely. We can discuss that day further if you wish to.
My overall point is to comment on the first post you made about Irish terrorism, which was pretty condemning and generalizing, entirely out of context. That it became a monster subsequently is not in argument here, but that monster did not spring from a vacuum and there is a lot to be answered for on both sides. I sure, for instance, the use of torture on a regular basis by the British in NI is not something that got much exposure on that side of the Atlantic. I'm not defending one evil by blaming another evil, only saying that contexts are complex and have long histories.
I'd recommend books written by Tim Pat Coogan if you want to gain insight into the IRA, its history and its methods. Specifically "The IRA" and "On the Blanket", though he has written many. From all personal accounts I've run into, from people with radically different takes on that situation, these histories seem to be viewed as fair, unbiased, and well researched.
So maybe, in the end, you'll reconsider your rejection of and shame over your heritage. :-) (However, if you lived here for an extended period, you might decide to reject it anyway!)
You're ancestry to this country is obviously far more recent than my own. One line of the family was in the US in the Revolutionary War - you certainly recall Washington's crossing the Delaware, but you are probably unaware that there was another boat in front of Washington's, which carried the scout - who was my ancestor. (I don't know if he was standing up - I hope not. LOL.)
More recently, it was my father's great grandfather who left Ireland for England, and his two sons, my father's grandfather and great uncle who moved from there to the United States. My mother's side is far more vague, but it seems to be a hodgepodge of German, Welsh, and Irish.
On socialism, I think you're right in that it probably comes down to our definitions of that word. Personally, I don't consider a system with extensive social programs and some level of regulation to be a socialist system if it is essentially a capitalist system and one of private ownership. Furthermore, if we are going to define socialism, perhaps we'd better work on defining fascism also. If, to make a little leap, we want to truly simplify and define communism at one extreme as government control or ownership of business, then we must define fascism as business control or ownership of government. At that point, we'd be heading for a really big argument as to whether Europe or the United States is more reflective of the most moderate compromise between the two. :-)
However, I'm not a political scientist or, as I mentioned, a historian and I run more on intuition and a sense of the movement of things. To me personally, the world entire is heading toward hell in a handbasket in the short term (although I would contend that I'm ultimately an optimist and that things will work out well in the long term - but a long term that will be beyond the reach of our mutual lifespans)- each country/region in its own fashion.
You mentioned Pat Buchanan and his exploration of concerns about what happens when government gets too big. But I'm sure you're well aware that Buchanan is no fan of the current administration, nor of the neoconservative approach to foreign policy. And I'm sure you're also aware that the government is bigger than ever (at least in recent times) under the present administration. (But maybe we need to define "big" in this context as well. lol)
I think that perhaps another area worth exploring sometime (which I won't here - after all, this is supposed to be a mere post) is the depression in the USA back in the 30's and the political forces at play at the time. I believe our country came closer to disaster than most people alive today realize. Far closer. And with the emphasis in education over the last 40 years growing increasingly toward technical areas (for which we can blame - or credit, if you prefer - Jimmy Carter, strangely enough, far more than most people realize), I have great fears for all of us in our lack of understanding of historical forces and contexts.
Anyway, I ramble. You said you "often tend to digress when [you] write" and that you "happen to see a lot of connectivity in issues" - well, all I can say is that I do the same and am probably more guilty of incoherent leaps in subject than one would suggest of you. :-) Of course, as a practical matter, this makes it exceedingly difficult to discuss anything at all. 30 years ago, I was told I reminded someone of Camus. As I was unfamiliar with the writings of Camus, he explained that Camus would start out talking about a teaspoon and end up talking about God without ever changing the subject. I could certainly identify with that. As a relatively lazy writer, I'm afraid my exposition is even more jarringly fragmented with apparent leaps from subject to subject, compounded when I wish to address another's similar apparently free association approach to subject.
I have to comment in Poohbah's defense that if one read the first 50 posts of this thread, I think it's clear that Poohbah came under personal attack prior to any personal attacks that he's dished out. Any criticisms from poohbah in those early posts were not directed at individuals, but generalized, which I personally consider inoffensive.
Years ago I elected to take a university course which purported to study the rise of national movements. Specifically we dealt with Irish and Arab nationalism, and of course Zionism. At that time of that course, there were a lot of goings on in the news concerning the issues which we were studying. Also at that time the 1973 war was long over but the aftermath which included the OPEC oil embargo had a significant impact in this country.
There was also about that time a particular incident of my experience which aroused my interest in certain events and I have ever since continued to hold them. The UN had formally declared Zionism to be a form of racism, and shortly just after that a member of the PLO (an actual deputy of Arafat) came to speak at my school. My student dues which were mandatory fees were actually used to pay this murderous contemptible person money to speak on my campus. I was outraged at the time. I wore my "I am a Zionist" badge (which was quite new at the time) as my simple protest.
Anyhow, during the course of that Nat'l Movements course, we actually had a few guest lecturers come to the class for the purpose of (surprise) giving a lecture. One lecturer in particular was a man who was said to be an assistant to the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations. I only recalled a small portion of what he said on that day in that small classroom. Essentially, he enunciated that there was a little hope of a long term solution to the Arab Israeli "problem." I found that to be dismaying, but after all this time, it seems still to be an accurate projection of the current situation and of the future concerning these matters.
Indeed things have certainly escalated since those days. Now in my view the entire world is witness to a new war which is unlikely to see a conclusive end short of world wide annihilation of all humanity. I simply see no way out of the situation without Divine Intervention, or a very serious and single minded assault on those purveyors of anarchy and destruction. I certainly would prefer to get it all over with quickly as I have an interest in not losing someone quite dear to me who is about to debark on a second visit to that what seems to be a God forsaken place. I assure you that I am not comfortable with this reality. I support a war which serves to protect us from insane maniacs. That is after all the purpose of Government in my opinion. Governments are for the protection of citizens. It seems such a simple notion to me.
I have seen enough terror on these shores in recent years, and not for nothing, but many relatives and friends of mine (their families) fled the British Isles in order to be spared the consequences of war and terror. The business concerning my own grandfather's involvement in the IRA cannot be authenticated, but if it could be, and if it were, I would rebuke him most vociferously. I will never have that opportunity and so assuming that I knew the rumors were true it is all still just an exercise in speculation.
I do not know of this Tim Pat Coogan fellow of who you wrote, but I shall look him up, and perhaps I'll read a bit of his works. I have read almost every book written by Leon Uris. I actually read Trinity two times, and the sequel once. I like Uris, but the last book that I read by him was quite lame, and I won't be reading any more of his work, needless to say since he is now quite deceased..
If you are interested in a bit of recreational reading you might consider Morgan Llewellyn's work "The Lion of Ireland." If you are interested in American historical fiction then there is no peer to James Michener. I have read most of his books, but the best of all in my view was Chesapeake. Chesapeake is unique in that it defines the lines of separation in America which came into being in the 19th century. Ultimately it describes the American Civil War from the perspective of a family that actually lived in the areas where the issues and battles were actually of most impact.
It is late here, and I'd like to respond to more of your post. Perhaps tomorrow or later. I wish you well.
I accidently saw the video by Kevin Sites and I was too stupid to decide for myself if the Marine was justified in his actions. Because it was on the TEE-vee I am forced to decide if the Marine was right or wrong (those are the only choices right? Because I can't handle it if there is a third, less simplistic possibility). If it's on the TEE-vee, it must be bad (because the media only shows bad things), so I really have no choice.
Anyway, I know that the Marines are over there protecting the even-numbered amendments to our constitution but I have to face the fact that this Marine is very bad. This whole thing has given me a headache. I have decided that my eyeballs are to blame for viewing this incident in the first place, so I have been left with no option but to scoop them out with a melon baller. I have mailed them to the Attorney General requesting that they be charged with treason.
I have to be careful that I don't accidentally overhear something that my brain is incapable of interpreting on NPR or some other Communist mouthpiece . . . I would hate to lose the ears at this point.
The "reality show" comparison is a good one, but sometimes it seems that incidents like the mosque shooting under consideration here get this overexposure and all this analysis by the talking heads as if our judgement and adjudication of this incident is what is going to determine whether the war itself is just.
Yes, 'Connor' is normally spelled with two n's and some have, indeed, spelled Mr. Cruise O'Brien's name in that fashion. However, in his case, I do believe he does spell it with a single 'n'. A quick search on google for him will certainly settle this for you.
Well, personally I have no problem with Zionism. Especially considering the last 2,000 years. But then, I've always had a soft spot for things Jewish. I'm just saddened to see the Israelis squander the worldwide sympathy the holocaust brought them at such a terrible price.
As for your reaction to the PLO member who spoke at your school, I'm empathetic to your position. Arafat and his PLO in that time were terrorists and the murderers of innocents. I've never personally had much time for the Palestinian movements, although I've some sympathy for the suffering of the general population. I fault the Arabs more for Palestinian woes than I do the Israelis, but obviously it doesn't suit people in that region to view things in that light.
I've always been amazed by the American left's adoption of some Arab causes, considering that they represented, to my mind, beliefs that are utterly anathema to liberal thinking, while Israel on the other hand, not to mention American Jewry, have traditionally been far more representative of the dreams and aspirations of liberal thinking about civil rights and the protection of same. During the occupation of Lebanon, I've often pointed to the fact that fistfights broke out in the Knesset, which to me is a sign of real opposition politics, unlike our own houses of congress which have so often rubber stamped American foreign policies.
At the same time, while you point out your justifiable disgust at the PLO, the absence of comments about the murderous history of Ariel Sharon is striking. His disgrace in Israel was total and his return to political favour is quite phenomenal, imo.
On supporting a war which protects us from insane maniacs, who could disagree with that? The point upon which we would not agree, I've no doubt, is whether the current war is doing that. My contention would be just the opposite. The comment I neglected to include in my initial post addressed to you is that the final irony regarding the extreme Islamic movement in the Middle East is that it could never garner public support (aside from minimal spillover support as a reaction to Israeli problems), until Mr. Bush provided them with that support they had been longing for over more than 15 years. I do not mean to suggest that such a response to American activity in Iraq on the part of the regional inhabitants is reasonable or just, but that it was inevitable and foreseeable. They're subject to the local propaganda machines also.
I don't want to rehash the current political arguments with you, so I have no intention of pursuing this line beyond this current post, but the reasons for our war have nothing to do with protecting us from maniacs and everything to do with domestic politics, as explicitly stated by Mr. Bush himself in 1999. I'm sure you'll take me up on this and, please, have at me. :-) I'm going to try to resist the temptation to venture up this particular emotive alley myself, beyond the statements already made.
I appreciate your suggestions on books. No, I haven't yet read any Michener, but maybe now, reading your post, I will take a look. As for Leon Uris, I read some of his early works, but I haven't read him for years. I have one of his more recent books, but for some reason it hasn't appealed to me enough to read it. My guess pretty well coincided with your experience, so maybe I never will. Thanks for the recommendation of Morgan Llewellyn - I'm always on the lookout for good author's. Another author whose name I can't remember, but one with whom you may already be familiar, is that historian who wrote a series of novels based on the premise that the South won the Civil War. I've heard this guy makes for fascinating reading. I can find out his name if you're interested - as I say, you may well already know who I'm talking about and can remind me of his name.
Thanks for the response.
While we most likely disagree on the judgement of the war as a whole, I absolutely agree with your statement. (Regardless of whether this incident's appraisal would be supportive of my own overall position or not.)
Absolutely right.
Thanks/my point is worth elaborating on---it is too subtle
and interesting an example of "displacement" just to take it at face value, and let it stand at that. It seems that we're pinning HUGE importance on events like this and how we respond to them, because the "BIGGER PICTURE" and its outcome is still so unclear. Seems like we're obligated to "prove" both our adherence to "International Law" or "decency", or whatever, so that we can then move on with impunity. And of course , John Kerry, amd all the imagery he left us with about "war crimes" certainly didn't help matters any. And Abu Ghraib was also manipulated to cast a long black shadow on our entire enterprise.
You post made me laugh. Thanks!
How?
How????
It was exposed, exposed again, became the subject of an infinite number of perspectiveless discussions by the media, and USED and EXPLOITED in such a way as to call into question EVERYTHING about the War, with the handful of American soldiers involved in the humiliating rituals being sold as symbolic and emblematic of the Military and indicative of the wrongheadedness of the whole enterprise.
While I'm glad we have a media that is obviously NOT being censored or intimidated into silence about events such as Abu Ghraib, it's still obvious what their agenda is in their exploitation of it and the mosque shooting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.