Is as Evil Does
Let us add to
hubris, the average American's unique abilities at deafness, amnesia, disdaining
intellectual initiative, gullibility on a full stomach, and righteous stupidity.
The people of our nation still possess a fine wit and considerable character,
but they have come to accept the importance of a nanny state as a given. Perhaps
when the stench of the diaper is finally overwhelming, the American will learn
to walk again, if nothing else, in order to get out of the crossfire.
~ D.W. Sabin,
Roberts is correct in saying that Bush, Blair, et al. are living by a different
standard in the administration of their policies at home and abroad. In Bush's
own words, "Evil people kill innocent life to achieve political objectives."
This is truly an amazing statement, even from the delusional Bush. He sits there
with a straight face and describes himself to a "T" without a clue that he is
just as guilty of war crimes as any of the so-called "axis of evil" players.
It is as if we are an audience in the theater of the absurd, and although we
shout out our boos and displeasure, the play keeps right on going.
No one in government
seems to have the will or the power to stop this lunatic as he and his cadre
prepare for more war. The American people could, but as PCR says, they seem
to prefer to ignore his double standard. It may be that having failed in all
that they have done so far, having caused so much death and destruction, having
demeaned America's image in the eyes of the world, Bush & Co. see no other alternative.
It is like little children shouting, nyah, nyah, nyah!, we can do this and
you can't stop us, at their critics.
children, these nitwits have the capability to cause a lot of trouble, a lot
of death and a lot of destruction.
Uranium Risk 'Ignored'
I am glad to see a link on Antiwar.com to news coverage of a story as important
as DU, and while I can applaud the accuracy of the title of the
"U.S., UK Militaries Still Using Depleted Uranium Despite Warnings," unfortunately,
there are some signal errors or even intentional deceptions in the BBC article
the ICRP methodology for testing veterans for DU exposure is part of the problem,
so it's no great service to the public that the BBC chose to close the article
with some shill for the UK's Ministry of Defense insisting that research had
to be guided by "the professional advice of the Health Protection Agency and
the International Commission on Radiological Protection."
Dr. Rosalie Bertell
has proven that the ICRP knows not what it is doing. A scientific article by
Bertell addresses the failings of the ICRP methodology:
Uranium: All The Questions About Du And Gulf War Syndrome Are Not Yet Answered"
by Rosalie Bertell
International Journal of Health Services, Volume 36, Number 3,
2006 Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. © 2006
I would direct
you to pp. 504-5, where Bertell writes:
papers by physicists and several semi-official governmental organizations have
attempted to eliminate DU from consideration by just such analyses (4–8). These
studies are not really independent, since each follows the guidelines, methodology,
and risk estimates recommended by the International Commission on Radiological
Protection (ICRP) (9).
accepted scientific causality methodology for analyzing radiation dose response
includes a mathematical model predicting damage to the cellular DNA resulting
from a homogeneous spread of ionizing radiation over the critical organ(s),
weighting the organ dose to approximate whole-body exposure, and using a risk
formula to estimate the expected number of fatal cancers due to that dose. If
the calculation yields only a small expected number of cancer deaths, the radiological
hazard is declared to be trivial. This ICRP methodology assumes that the affected
persons care only about cancer death, that they have normal physiological health
and intact cellular repair systems, and that no other life-threatening exposures
confound the radiation experience. The methodology assumes that radiation effects
are independent of the effects of the toxic matrix and can be separately ruled
out using a radiation-exposure-specific mathematical formula recommended by
physicists on the main committee of the ICRP.
methodology is especially inappropriate and misleading in the case of Gulf War
So you see, one
of the most knowledgeable international experts on DU is being willfully ignored
by the MoD, as well as by BBC reporters. Really the main point of Bertell's
most recent article on DU as a root cause of Gulf War Syndrome is to lay to
rest the very ICRP methodology that the British MoD and the American DoD are
One is forced
to conclude that the BBC article is actually a whitewash. The BBC editorial
line is known to be hopelessly pro-military, and BBC editors would likely suppress
any of their reporters who tried to be critical of the MoD on this issue.
behooves you, at Antiwar.com, to assign someone the task of covering depleted
uranium properly for your reading public.
~ Tony Nuspl
I read your article
on ideology, especially the division between the"Left" and "Right" in current
politics and society, along with the consequences to any likely peace movement
for the foreseeable future. Rather than try to work with either the Left or
the Right as they are currently constituted, it may be worthwhile to seek greener
pastures, especially among the growing numbers of independent people who see
the flaws and shortcomings of both, and who want something better. They won't,
and probably can't, all become anarchists or libertarians, but at least they
will give us a hearing without large amounts of destructive prejudices and misconceptions.
about the "Left" and their antiwar activism certainly resonates with many libertarians.
They will not work with Antiwar.com (and probably not with you personally) since
the one thing that many (not all) leftists hate even more than
imperialist war is the social order of private property, free trade and exchange,
and entrepreneurship, i.e., laissez-faire capitalism. As this social order is
the foundation of our libertarian political and foreign policy vision, one can
hold forth little hope of cooperation or useful collaboration from their "antiwar"
movement. Since your view of peace includes this view of human action, and the
society produced by it generally, Antiwar.com will be persona non grata
with any left-wing antiwar coalition.
it might be more worthwhile to turn your attention not only to those rare conservatives
who are unhappy with the war party, but to those growing numbers of people who
see the flaws of both halves of a defective political and ideological
structure. The "Right" with its warmongering, its fascism, its grotesque intolerance
and demonization of certain (often private) religious and cultural differences
between otherwise humane and decent people, and its blind devotion to "the leader"
whatever the costs to the rest of us, and also to those who are disaffected,
even disgusted with the leftist zoo, with their mania for "equality," along
with their need to see any and all signs of inequality as somehow "unfair" or
the results of so-called "exploitation," their blind hatred of anything and
everything associated with white, Christian America, almost as a reverse
mirror-image on their part of the political Right's irrational idealization
even of our political and cultural flaws, their inability to distinguish between
right-wing "crony capitalism" all too characteristic of the modern state and
the libertarian laissez-faire kind, along with their idealization of thoroughly
repulsive and authoritarian varieties of primitive and irrational communism
and communal democrazy. Trying to work with most "leftists" may well
produce too many headaches, and occupy your time better spent with more worthwhile
Both sides have
deep and increasingly irreparable flaws. A great deal can be gained by offering
a vision which transcends them. I think that libertarianism can do this, and
can appeal to a growing number of independent Americans, both "liberals" and
"conservatives," both of whom are revolted by both the vision of Irving Kristol
et al. (perpetual war for perpetual peace), and the visions of, e.g.,
Howard Zinn et al. (perpetual class-warfare for perpetual equality).
We can offer something
better. How about it?
~ David K. Meller
have to comment on Helen Robinson's comment about Malic's "The
Edge of Madness." Of course the U.S. had nothing against Serbs! There was
nothing TO have against them – Serbs had only been allies to the U.S. and had
proven themselves as such many times over. Therefore, the likes of Albright,
Holbrooke, Clinton, et. al created and invented things to have against the Serbs
because, yes, it served THEM well. Not the United States; it served the careers
of these bloated, self-serving, what I would call un-Americans (in the
sense of what the U.S. is SUPPOSED to stand for). They determined that Yugoslavia
had to be dismembered (the money they got from the Muslim lobbyists felt so
good in their pockets), and they knew very well that the staunchest defenders
of Yugoslavia, those who truly called themselves Yugoslavs as opposed
to calling themselves by their ethnic name as other ethnic groups in the former
Yugoslavia did, had to be demonized and destroyed in the process or they wouldn't
succeed in their vile mission. This is not to discount Germany's role in her
never ending obsession to adopt Croatia and Slovenia away from Yugoslavia. These
countries, the U.S. and Germany, are now succeeding in fulfilling Hitler's mission
in the Balkans.
No, they had nothing
against Serbs. But, yes, they invented something to serve their ends.
As for Oleg
Beliakovich's comments, I can understand his feelings of bitterness at what
"ingrates" the Serbs are because that is how Serbs felt about Russia when she
absolutely sold Serbia down the river during the bombing in 1999. There's one
example for you. I'll leave it to Nebojsa to give you some of the others.
~ Anna Pullinger