has been and is a perennial source of inspiration for all those who struggle
for the emancipation of the mankind from the clutches of the world-gendarme,
viz. U.S. imperialism, which, in the name of democracy and freedom, is killing
and maiming tens of thousands of hapless children and civilians in the AFRO-ASIAN
COUNTRIES. His steadfastness in holding on to the great ideals of SOCIALISM
even after the collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union speaks volumes about his
commitment to the well-founded ideology. It's neither he nor his predecessors
like Stalin and Mao that are dictators, but it is your Bush and his ilk who
want to impose their brand of Democracy and Freedom on the "Third World." BY
CARRYING AN ARTICLE LIKE THIS ON YOUR WEB PAGE YOU HAVE BESMIRCHED YOUR OWN
REPUTATION AS AN ORGANIZATION FIGHTING FOR NOBLE CAUSES SUCH AS AN IMMEDIATE
END TO THE U.S. OCCUPATION IN IRAQ AND ELSEWHERE.
~ A.V. Samikkannu
I don't know what article you are referring to.
Second, if the
Cuban people support this great leader, why is he afraid to have an open election
or to even allow Internet access to the Cuban people? No other leader in the
world has been in power so long without putting himself up to a vote.
Third, the fact
that Bush is a fascist does not make Fidel better. They both belong in the dustbin
is Guantanamo Bay, not bloody "Gitmo." I agree with the basic gist of your argument,
but why do you, like so many other people in the U.S., regardless of political
affiliation, feel the need to change the place names of sites in other countries?
This is insulting. Likewise, Rice's given name is Condoleezza, not "Condi."
The latter appears to be a nickname given to her by her supporters and allies
from Bush down almost as a term of endearment. She is a truly despicable, corrupt,
and inept person, and you ought not be using a name, however much in jest or
sardonically, which acts to make her more endearing.
~ Chris Holder
Bay is the location of the U.S. base in Cuba. The nickname used to indicate
the prison/base has been Gitmo for a long time. I think it is insulting to call
the horrid prison "Guantanamo Bay," when that term describes a wider area of
Cuba. It is illegally occupied, and there is no reason to make it sound like
the Cuban government in any way sanctions it.
now? OK, here's the drill so you can mark your calendars. These six prisoners
must be convicted and executed before Bush leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009. He
cannot leave any of them alive and available for direct questioning by any legal
inquiry or authority trying to determine the ways they were tortured and the
kinds, provability, and provenance of the evidence used against them. Of course,
to execute them, they must be convicted and sentenced beforehand, preferably
within the 10 days preceding the election on Nov. 4, 2008.
From August through
mid-October of this year expect a series of "leaks" from the Guantanamo tribunals
that reveal the horrendous number of ghastly attacks on the United States that
have been prevented by an astute, pull-no-punches Bush administration. (These
Islamofascists on trial, or their accomplices still at large, would have succeeded
in all or almost all of these attacks on our sacred soil if the American people
had been reliant for their salvation on those candy-assed, international-treaty-constrained
Democrats WHO AT THIS VERY MINUTE ARE TRYING TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY AND CONTROL
OF CONGRESS in the upcoming election). During the same time-frame (August-October)
there may be intermittent rumors, dutifully fanned in the major American media,
that bin Laden has been sighted and we are hot, hot, hot on his trail. But failing
bin Laden's capture before Nov. 4, the American public will be relieved and
acquiesce at least in the conviction and condemnation of these six terrorists
at Guantanamo (they ARE terrorists, aren't they, huh? The government says so,
RIGHT?). How do I, a nobody, know all of this? Because I have an IQ above 100,
have recognized the cruel and perverse human potential in my own heart, read
world history and the foreign press in original languages, and have watched
for eight years now the unrelenting duplicity of the Bush administration, the
cowardly complacency of Congress, and the abysmal and therefore CULPABLE ignorance
of my fellow citizens. Just for the hell of it, mark your calendars for the
rest of 2008.
~ William K. Scattergood
may be right, but I think it's probable that the process will be inherited by
the next administration. However much Bush wants to go out having achieved "closure"
on 9/11, the military commissions permit the accused to be represented by lawyers,
and at the moment military defense lawyers are thin on the ground. I don't think
the process can be unduly expedited. I therefore anticipate that, like every
other aspect of the commissions to date, this will proceed at a snail's pace.
I maintain, however, that it's probably worked as a PR job for center-right
voters, and that it's also meant to divert attention from the ramifications
of Michael Hayden's "confession" that the CIA waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,
Abu Zubaydah, and Abdul Rahim al-Nashiri. Waterboarding is torture, and torture
Worthington's reply on Gitmo is opinionated, not fact-based. Military tribunals
are recognized courts. The U.S. would like to try the Gitmo detainees in a military
tribunal at Gitmo. Why can't the U.S. use this recognized court? His answer
is opinionated, not fact-based. He thinks justice is served best in a civilian
court. Totally opinionated.
tribunals are courts recognized by whom, exactly? Congress approved their resuscitation
after the Supreme Court ruled them illegal in June 2006, but, like Frankenstein's
monster, that's no guarantee that every part is working. To continue the analogy,
I suspect that the problem is with the brain. The monster was given a convict's
brain, whereas the commissions have Cheney and Addington's. The legislation
was written in a hurry on the back of a fag
packet, and it's full of holes. Why do you think we haven't had a successful
is reason to suspect the Bush administration's push to pass new Security Council
sanctions against Iran is actually focused on a single provision: authorization
for the inspection of sea cargo bound for Iran, which the United States would
then use to create a casus belli.
Any council member
wanting to prevent the outbreak of war between the United States and Iran should
press for removal of this provision.
While the United
States delegation has shown uncharacteristic flexibility regarding various provisions
of the draft resolution, as Secretary of State Rice and other administration
officials have repeatedly called for swift passage of the resolution, any suggestion
to remove the inspection-of-sea-cargo provision would meet with strong United
States objections, if this assessment is correct.
By proposing removal
of the inspection-of-sea-cargo provision, Security Council members can better
assess United States' intentions.
~ William H. White
Theology Makes Bad Foreign Policy
you for being one of the few voices making sense out of this insane situation.
How do we get the Christians in America and the rest of the world to understand
just how misguided the current trend of unconditional support for Israel is?
I am passionate to see "all Israel" saved, just as I am to see all
England saved, and all Iraq, and all Japan, and all the rest. God no longer
deals with nations as a whole but with individuals. Jesus did not lay down His
life for any nation, but for every individual who will trust in Him.
~ Rob Beckwith,
Balkanization Beckon Anew?
am always wary of parallels with 1914. There is no more danger of a war in Europe
than of the Southern states seceding from the Union and seeking to reestablish
slavery! In both cases, the issues has already been settled in blood. So I wouldn't
expect to see the Austrian cavalry clattering through the streets of Belgrade
That said, the last of the old pre-W.W.I multinational empires still largely
intact is Russia and, logically, one would expect its constituent "nationalities"
to seek their independence. After all, an Eskimo living on the western shore
of the Bering Strait is not very "Russian"! The breakup of the Russian
Federation is not necessarily a bad thing for a whole series of reasons, not
least because it allows the Russians to take their place as the most numerous
of all the European peoples without the diversions of empire.
~ Michael Kenny