Thursday, January 11, 2007

I think he's funny... simple but funny

Dear Mr. President: Send Even MORE Troops (and you go, too!) ...
from Michael Moore

Dear Mr. President,Thanks for your address to the nation. It's good to know you still want to talk to us after how we behaved in November.
Listen, can I be frank? Sending in 20,000 more troops just ain't gonna do the job. That will only bring the troop level back up to what it was last year. And we werel osing the war last year! We've already had over a million troops serve some time in Iraq since 2003. Another few thousand is simply not enough to find those weapons of mass destruction! Er, I mean... bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice! Um, scratch that. Try this -- BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE MIDDLE EAST! YES!!!You've got to show some courage, dude! You've got to win this one! C'mon, you got Saddam! You hung 'im high! I loved watching the video of that -- just like the old wild west! The bad guy wore black! The hangmen were as crazy as the hangee! Lynch mobs rule!!!

Look, I have to admit I feel very sorry for the predicament you're in. As Ricky Bobby said, "If you're not first, you're last." And you being humiliated in front of the whole world does NONE of us Americans any good. Sir, listen to me. You have to send in MILLIONS of troops to Iraq, not thousands! The only way to lick this thing now is to flood Iraq with millions of us! I know that you're out of combat-ready soldiers -- so you have to look elsewhere! The only way you are going to beat a nation of 27 million -- Iraq -- is to send in at least 28 million! Here's how it would work: The first 27 million Americans go in and kill one Iraqi each. That will quickly take care of any insurgency. The other one million of us will stay and rebuild the country. Simple.

Now, I know you're saying, where will I find 28 million Americans to go to Iraq?Here are some suggestions:

1. More than 62,000,000 Americans voted for you in the last election (the one that took place a year and half into a war we already knew we were losing). I am confident that at least a third of them would want to put their body where there vote was and sign up to volunteer. I know many of these people and, while we may disagree politically, I know that they don't believe someone else should have to go and fight their fight for them -- while they hide here in America.

2. Start a "Kill an Iraqi" Meet-Up group in cities across the country. I know this idea is so early-21st century, but I once went to a Lou Dobbs Meet-Up and, I swear, some of the best ideas happen after the third mojito. I'm sure you'll get another five million or so enlistees from this effort.

3. Send over all members of the mainstream media. After all, they were your collaborators in bringing us this war -- and many of them are already trained from having been "embedded!" If that doesn't bring the total to 28 million, then draft all viewers of the FOX News channel.

Mr. Bush, do not give up! Now is not the time to pull your punch! Don't be a weenie by sending in a few over-tired troops. Get your people behind you and YOU lead them in like a true commander in chief! Leave no conservative behind! Full speed ahead!

We promise to write.
Go get 'em W!
Michael Moore


snurdly said...

Just wondering...if not for Bush, would Iraq ever have had a chance of a future? Would Uday or Kusai Hussein been promising for Iraqis? If Iraq never works it would still have been worth a try for Iraqis...and if it doesn't work they really only themselves to blame via the secatarian violence. White people in America never killed so many Blacks even during slavery as what's going on amongst fellow Muslims in Iraq. Maybe dictators are required in that part of the world, otherwise there's chaos? If that's true then one will pop up in Iraq anyway...Al-Sadr is a good dictatorial candidate so far. Perhaps Machiavellian autocratic rule in the Middle East is what is required for stability and respect...something Israel lacks and something Lebanon and Iraq want.

Anonymous said...

Oh Snurdly - - - -
with one thing I agree, the region of Euphrates and Tigris should have been allowed to figure it out themselves ... with the blessings of time.

Rhiannon said...

January 10, 1945,

The British supreme military court today
put on trial Eliahu Bet-Tsours from Tel Aviv
and Eliahu Hakim of Haifa, both admitted members
of the Jewish terrorist Stern gang.

January 18, 1945,
The British supreme military court
sentenced the murderers of
Lord Moyne to death.
Both killers admitted their act
and also admitted their membership
in the Stem gang which they said
ordered the killings as a warning
to the British not to interfere with
future Jewish immigration to Jerusalem.

January 12, 1946,

A train was derailed by Jewish terrorists
at Hadera near Haifa by a bomb
and robbed of £35,000 in cash.
Two British police officials were injured.

January 18, 1946,

Over 900 illegal Jewish immigrants
were captured off Haifa by
the British Royal Navy

January 19, 1946,

Jewish terrorists destroyed
a power station and a portion
of the Central Jerusalem prison
by explosives.
Two of the terrorists
were killed by the police.

January 20, 1946,

Jewish terrorists launched
an attack against the British-controlled
Givat Olga Coast Guard Station
located between Tel Aviv and Haifa.
Ten persons were injured
and one was killed.
Captured papers indicated that
the purpose of this raid was to take revenge
on the British for their seizure
of the refugee ship on January 18.
British military authorities in Jerusalem
questioned 3,000 Jews and
held 148 in custody.

June 29, 1946,

British military units and police
raided Jewish settlements throughout Palestine
searching for the leaders of Haganah,
a leading Jewish terrorist agency…
The Jewish Agency for Palestine
was occupied and four top official arrested.
At the end of June, 1946
2,000 were arrested and four Jews
and one British soldier were killed.

Rhiannon said...

July 22, 1946,

The west wing of the King David Hotel
in Jerusalem which housed
British Military Headquarters
and other governmental offices was destroyed
at 12:57 PM by explosives planted in the cellar
by members of the Irgun terrorist gang.
By the 26 of July, the casualties were 76 persons killed,
46 injured and 29 still missing in the rubble.
The dead included many British, Arabs and Jews.

July 23, l946

The Irgun Zvai Leumi terrorist group
takes responsibility for the King David bombing
but blames the British, calling them “tyrants.”

July 24, 1946,

The British government released
a White Paper that accuses the Haganah,
Irgun and Stern gangs of
“a planned movement of sabotage and violence”
under the direction of the Jewish Agency
and asserts that the June 29 arrest of
Zionist leaders was the cause of the bombing.

July 28, 1946,

The British Palestine Commander,
Lt. General Sir Evelyn Barker,
banned fraternization by British troops
with Palestine Jews who stated
“cannot be absolved of responsibility
for terroristic acts.”
The order states that this will punish
“the race … by striking at their pockets
and showing our contempt for them”

July 31, 1946,
Tel Aviv.

A large cache of weapons,
extensive counterfeiting equipment
and $1,000,000 in counterfeit Government bonds
were discovered in Tel Aviv's largest synagogue.

July 31, 1946,

Two ships have arrived at Haifa
with a total of 3,200 illegal Jewish immigrants.

August 2, 1946,

The Palestine Government disclosed
that 91 persons were killed and 45 injured
in the King David bombing,
done by Jewish Terrorist gangs.

August 12, 1946,

The British Government announced
that it will allow no more unscheduled
immigration into Palestine and that
those seeking entry into that country
will be sent to Cyprus and other areas
under detention.
Declaring that such immigration threatens
a civil war with the Arab population,
it charges a “minority of Zionist extremists”
with attempting to force an unacceptable solution
of the Palestine problem.

August 29, 1946,

the British Government announced the
commutation to life imprisonment
of the death sentences imposed on l8 Jewish youths
convicted of bombing the Haifa railroad shops.

August 30, 1946,

British military units discovered
arms and munitions dumps in the
Jewish farming villages of Dorot and Ruhama.

September 8, 1946,

Zionist terrorists cut the
Palestine railroad in 50 places.

September 14, 1946,

Jewish terrorists robbed three banks
in Jaffa and Tel Aviv, killing
three Arabs.
Thirty-six Jews were arrested.

October 2, 1946,
Tel Aviv.

British military units and police
seized 50 Jews in a Tel Aviv café
after a Jewish home was blown up.
This home belonged to a Jewish woman
who had refused to pay extortion money
to the Irgun terrorist gang.

Rhiannon said...

Information on Palestine history is from elsewhere and has nothing to do with Giladi's book




Banned in Israel and the United States,
Iraqi-born Jew Naeim Giladi’s book,
self-published in the
US in 1992, is again
available worldwide.
It is for sale through
and bookstores throughout
the world, with printing
and shipping facilities
in the UK and Europe.
[Toll-free orders, U.S. & Canada: 1-800-861-7899]

delivers the painful truth
about the Zionist rape
of Palestine and
Zionist activities during
Ben Gurion’s political career.

“After reading
Mr. Giladi’s devastating
first-hand account of
Zionist pillaging and
massacres even of other Jews
when necessary,
it is not surprising
that the book was banned,”
states Carol Adler,
president of Dandelion Books.

Giladi reports about
the crimes committed by
Zionists in their frenzy to
import raw Jewish labor
from the Middle East.
Newly-vacated farmlands
had to be plowed to provide
food for the immigrants
and the military ranks
had to be filled with
conscripts to defend
the stolen lands.

States Giladi:
“I write this book
to tell the American people,
and especially the
American Jews, that Jews
from Islamic lands
did not emigrate willingly
to Israel; that, to force
them to leave,
Jews killed Jews;
and that, to buy time
to confiscate ever more
Arab lands,
Jews on numerous
occasions rejected genuine
peace initiatives from their
Arab neighbors.

I write about what the
first prime minister
of Israel called ‘cruel Zionism.’ I write about it because
I was a part of it.

“Alex de Tocqueville
once observed that it was
easier for the world to accept
a simple lie than a
complex truth.

Certainly it has been easier
for the world to accept
the Zionist lie that
Jews were evicted from
Muslim lands because of
anti-Semitism, and that
Israelis, never the Arabs,
were the pursuers of peace.
The truth is far more discerning; bigger players in the
world stage were pulling
the strings.”

Giladi adds:
“These players, I believe,
should be held accountable
for their crimes,
particularly when they
willfully terrorized,
dispossessed and killed
innocent people on the altar
of some ideological imperatives.

“We Jews did not leave
our ancestral homes because
of any natural enmity
between Jews and Muslims.

And we Arabs--
and I say Arab because
that is the language my wife
and I still speak at home—
we Arabs on numerous
occasions have sought peace
with the State of the Jews.

“And finally, as a
U.S. citizen and taxpayer....
we Americans need to
stop supporting
racial discrimination in
Israel and the cruel
expropriation of lands
in the West Bank, Gaza,
South Lebanon and the
Golan Heights.”

Mirvat said...

M K Bhadrakumar
'In my end is my beginning'
January 02, 2007

"It was exactly nine days after the Gulf War in 1991 that I found myself in Kuwait on a mission to reopen the Indian embassy and to try to repatriate some 7000 Indian nationals stranded there.
My first impression of Saddam Hussein was naturally one of great disdain. He was the dictator who let loose the dogs of war.

The oil fields were incessantly burning. There was, literally, darkness at noon in Kuwait. Kuwait was a ghost city � inconsolable and forlorn.

I heard harrowing tales of Indian housemaids who were raped repeatedly during the Iraqi occupation. Even our magnificent brand new embassy building by the seaside, built on red sandstones from Rajasthan, was vandalized.

I wandered in the lawless borderlands of Kuwait and Iraq, and saw the armour of Saddam's crack units strafed by American aircraft while fleeing from Kuwait, which was a major 'engagement' of the war.

The Gulf War embodied Karl von Clausewitz at his best � 'War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, war is a continuation of political intercourse'. There was no fighting. Saddam's men proved to be cowardly warriors. The Anglo-American preoccupation was more about the medium-term military occupation of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikhdoms. The futility of the war was apparent.

My disdain toward Saddam grew into revulsion over my 3-month stay in Kuwait.

Ten years passed. I must have become sadder and wiser when I began reading up on Iraq, while serving as ambassador to Turkey in 2001. I was under order of transfer to Baghdad. That was when I came to know from Noam Chomsky's writings of the 'other side' of the Saddam story. Chomsky narrated the great injustice of the Anglo-American blockade of Iraq through the 1990s, imposed with scant regard to international law.

From Chomsky's narratives I learnt of the three million Iraqi children who died of malnutrition or lack of healthcare due to the Anglo-American blockade of Iraq. The 'unilateralist' US foreign policy of the post-Cold War era after all didn't begin with George W Bush but with his controversial predecessor William Jefferson Clinton.

For the first time, too, I came across Saddam the nation-builder.

Under Saddam on the eve of the Gulf War, Iraq scaled heights of economic advancement without parallel in the Islamic world. Iraq was on the threshold of becoming an OECD country. Saddam was a true secularist. Though a Sunni, he appointed Shias in large numbers to key positions. Tariq Aziz, his foreign minister and confidant, was a Christian.

No doubt Saddam presided over an authoritarian regime that could be mindlessly brutal. His wrath was directed not only at his people but on his neighbours too. One had to visit the memorial to the martyrs on the outskirts of Teheran to comprehend in its stark truth the magnitude of the tragedy of the Iraq-Iran war.

Yet, under Saddam Iraq also touched high levels of social formation. There was gender equality, hundred percent literacy, and an economic and social pyramid that placed primacy on merit, mobility and professional capability. Where did things go wrong for Saddam?

Clearly, Saddam posed a near-insurmountable challenge to the geopolitics of the Gulf and the Middle East. It is a saga riddled with contradictions.

In a curious way, the torch of Arab nationalism came within his reach in the post-Nasser era, although there was always a simmering rivalry on that score between the Baathists in Baghdad and Damascus.

But it is difficult to be sure how much of the 'Nasserite' role came natural to Saddam.

To be sure, he had an acute sense of the theatrical, and he was good at playing to the Arab gallery. He was gifted with that rare swagger that elevated men from mice.

But he also made it a matter of statecraft to calibrate himself with the Anglo-American regional agenda. Most certainly, he launched the eight-year war against Iran in the 1980s in pursuance of the American agenda aimed at throttling the Islamic regime in Teheran.

Now we know Donald Rumsfeld, who used to be US defence secretary then, visited him secretly. If Saddam were to have written a memoir, that would have been extremely embarrassing for the Western political class.

Nothing could be more poignant than what Rev Jesse Jackson said Saturday, 'Saddam's heinous crimes against humanity can never be diminished, but he was our ally while he was doing it� Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth will make us blind and disfigured� Saddam as a war trophy only deepens the catastrophe to which we are indelibly linked'.

More than 400 Western companies, including 25 American companies, 15 German and 10 British have been known to have supplied chemical weapons to Saddam which he used with great abandon on the Iranian troops. Such was the hurried despair in the Western capitals to throttle Iranian nationalism that the 1979 revolution posed.

Retired CIA operatives have written about their assignments with Saddam's regime. That phase of the Middle East's current diplomatic history holds out many morals.

While the US supplied Saddam in the war with Iran, Israel supplied the Iranians with much-needed military hardware. And millions of Shia and Sunni Muslims were set against each other in the gory war.

Saddam, arguably, would have been prepared for an accommodation with George W Bush, too, if only the latter weren't hell-bent on the invasion in 2003.

In his republicanism, Saddam posed a great challenge to the archaic monarchs of the Gulf. Yet, he consorted with them. He took generous financial help from them. They acquiesced in his pretensions of being their Praetorian guard.

He cast himself in the role of the protector of the Arab world from the 'threat' from the Persians.

Political Islam was anathema to Saddam � through most of his life, at least, until irreversible adversities took him to realise God in his final years.

Yet, curiously, Saddam is slowly, steadily destined to acquire the aura of a martyr in the cause of the jihad against the infidels dominating the Muslim world.

Thus, in Saddam's execution, we find Iraq and the region torn between conflicting emotions. Iran has cause to feel gratified that 'justice' has been done. Teheran has been pressing for a day of reckoning for Saddam for the atrocities of his regime.

Teheran says Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran 200 times during the war in the 1980s.

Kuwait feels justified to openly 'celebrate'. Within Iraq itself, Saddam has come to symbolize Sunni aspirations. But this is a direct outcome of the sectarian divide in the country during the past four years of American occupation.

Significantly, his mourners today include the Taliban in Afghanistan and religious figures in Indonesia.

In the wider regional context, with his departure, the last great Arab nationalist has left Middle East's political stage. Yet, the torch of Arab nationalism has never shone brighter. Saddam undoubtedly caught the imagination of the Arab street.

There is a great alienation in the Arab world today between the ruler and the masses. Can that be Saddam's final legacy in the annals of Arabia's history?

Queen Mary of Scotland said, 'In my end is my beginning', when she delicately parted her curls and held out her tender neck to the guillotine assigned to her by Queen Elizabeth of England. In the manner of his death, in our troubled times, Saddam Hussein too may have immortalized himself in the pantheon of Arab nationalism."

Mirvat said...

rhiannon this is great. i posted your info on the book and i can't wait to get it..

Anonymous said...

Some people forget.
That little peace of shit country of Kuwait, where the monarchy mostly resides in my home country, Switzerland - supported Saddam with tons of money to fight the war against Iran. Why? Simple, they were afraid that access to the gulf would be dominated, or even cut off and regulated by the Ayatollah's in power in Iran. Their oil transportation options would be diminished.
And after the stalemate and the end of the war, Saddams regime was broke, no more money whatsoever.
Then Kuwait had the nerve to ask Saddam to pay back the "loans" - sort of immediately, or else pay outrageous interests on them!
An other straw and an other camels back ....
With the blessings of the then US ambassador to Iraq (..."we don't mess with your internal affairs"), Saddam invaded Kuwait.
We can play endless ping-pong here, but the burning of the oil wells was a direct result of the "first Gulf war". Call them cowards or what not, the Iraqis had only one option left, destroy what they couldn't get while Bush senior was gleefully anticipating a change in course of history. Well, senior didn't calculate well, and junior has no clue. Now we are stuck with that bloody mess.
If I were for the death penalty, which I am not, I could easily find some other people who deserve the gallows.
To end this, Saddam actually created in his tyranny, one of the most liberal Arab countries ... in some respects.
His reign would have ended of natural causes, and the ones who would have taken over (naturally) could have spend their time to make things right ...
But that was prevented by the second Gulf war.
20,000 or so more troops now from the US will not reverse that issue.

Have a great weekend, yours - Zee

Rhiannon said...

Mirvat :o)

I got the info from Nadia, her Iraqi blog called: "Talking about Iraq".

Good info on Chomsky and Saddam. I will be happy to use that elsewhere.

Interesting Zee.

Anonymous said...

Chomsky is OK, but his cynicism of reality only goes that far. He formulates well, after all he he a linguistic professor at MIT!
From my side of the green flowering lawn, my thoughts about the first Gulf war (when it happened) were even more sinister than my emotions about the second one. This (the first one) is when "it all started."
Greetings, Zee.

Anonymous said...

... I am tired,
... after all he IS -
that's it, right.