Posted November 8, 2002

Exodus

Regarding "Attack of the Oxymorons" by Justin Raimondo:

Wow Justin, thanks for the trip down memory lane. Your reference to Exodus brought it all back. For a long time it was one of my main sources for forming my opinions about the Jewish state.

Thanks to it, I was indoctrinated with the "Palestinians left because they didn't want to live with Jews" party line as to the cause of refugee crisis (it never occurred to me to ask "why not let them back in, if they'll live peaceably?") It wasn't until much later when I heard about Deir Yassin. Even then, my fallback position was to blame the Irgun and leave Ben Gurion and the Haganah innocent. Here again, Exodus was excellent preparation, with it's portrayal of the Irgunists (most notably Sal Mineo) as a bunch of fanatical, self-hating ex-Sonderkommando, perfectly suited as the scapegoat for any atrocities during the 1948 war that might come to light.

Finally, while you're quite correct in identifying the composer of the music as Ernest Gold, credit for the lyrics goes to none other than Pat Boone!

~ Eric M.

Pakistan, India, Nukes

Mr. Bidwai continues to be a puzzle to me, ever since I've discovered him and have been reading him. Sometimes I'm too tempted to regard him as a true antiwar writer trying hard to make his voice heard unbiased, and regardless of him being an homegrown Indian speaking against Mother Indian Government most of the time. Then, at times, whenever in context of Pakistan, he seems to tilt very tactfully, very subliminally (or totally subconsciously, I hope) towards wearing the cloak of the Righteous Indian Son. I'm totally wrong, right! But regarding "A North Korea-Pakistan Connection?," he doesn't fail to baptize the nation of India as a steadfast practitioner of Nuclear proliferation. He says India's 'self righteous claims of developing missile's programme would've sounded convincing', unlike Pakistan's, if those 'had not been based on borrowed, bought or stolen technologies', then quickly sets the record favourably straight by mentioning "in addition to indigenous [Indian programmes]".

He then tries 'to be fair' (relative to what?) by asserting that 'India has never transferred nuclear technology to another state', while he must mention the Libyan softcorners of George Fernandes to appear 'straight', but then falls short of speculating on (isn't that what this is after all?) the newfound best friendship with Iran. Speculation, right? Otherwise how could he possibly prove the state-to-state transfers from Pakistan to Korea by claiming that the 'only' instances of a significant transfer (albeit of components, not evolved technology,) are probably Israel and South Africa. How could he possibly know and differentiate what are components and what exactly is technology? ...

~ Zuffar H., Karachi, Pakistan

Free Republic

The comments of Ellis C. regarding FreeRepublic.com [Backtalk, November 5] rang a bell with me. I had also been a poster for many years almost exclusively on the Kosovo debacle under the name of 'Sandnes'. Free Republic did invaluable service during the conflict in allowing the assembled peasantry (of which I am a proud ... member), to find out what was going on.

It was the style of the site which was the genius and not its politics. There you could read the articles of brightest and best of our Western media ripped to pieces by the comments of the rank and file posted below. No wonder it was sued by Newsweek and the LA Times. Sad to say though, I started straying off the Balkans threads recently and onto Iraq as Bush and Tony Panzi started to gear up for their blitzkrieg on the evil Saddam – Blair playing a sort of Benito Goebbels to our supreme leader GW. No sooner had I switched track and started criticising the war effort, than I was banned as being a disrupter. Not only that, they went to the trouble of banning all my previous posts and posted articles. Under new email addresses and names I went on again in a similar vein and was again banned. This happened around half a dozen times. If it is happening to me, then it is happening to others. I soon realised that they have an active thought police trawling through the threads for comments that don't suit their recent agenda. I have the sneaky feeling that the Bush Administration have bypassed the CIA and are keeping its owner Jim Robinson in drugged 'patriotic' slavery. I think Justin Raimondo should look into the subject.

It has been obvious from the start that the Allies (of evil?) have decided to go and attack Saddam. All this bull about WMD, Al Qaeda is just so much peasant gruel to feed the public. They know also that attacking Iraq will increase terrorism, but state the opposite. You may well wonder why they put out such blatant lies. Well I used to wonder too and would mull it over in my mind until the penny dropped. It is Parettos 80/20 rule. They tell you what they can get the majority of the people to believe, knowing that most people are not really interested in Iraq and so eat their mental gruel without complaint. After all we are living in a democracy. We might have rubber wheeled, horse powered carts and electronic hearths, but we are still peasants to the lords of the manor.

Part of Tennyson's poem 'Locksley Hall' seems to sum up the struggle that is unfolding:

For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;
Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;
Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew
From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue;
Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm,
With the standards of the peoples plunging thro' the thunder-storm;
Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

I don't think it is the Bushies' favourite.

~ 'Sandnes', Norway

National Debt

I have enjoyed reading recent articles about the cost of war with Iraq.

I've come up with my own take on how to evaluate the cost of the war. I have two assumptions. One, let's say the war costs 200 billion, which may be very conservative. Two, let's say, and I believe the numbers bear me out that after inflation, on average the stock markets increases in value by 7%.

If the 200 billion was invested in at this rate, within 51 years it would be equivalent to about 6.3 trillion, which is close to our debt according to http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/.

~ Jim Vinsel

Lack of Coherence

Is it just me, or is the lack of coherence in the news reported on your site obvious? Frankly, I don't know what to think. You report the Russians and the French will or will not support the revised resolution side by side. One day, the Saudis will not allow US access to bases or use of airspace. The next day, or the day before, you report they will support the war after all. I can't make sense of what is going on. Will the Israelis join the war or not? Will they use nukes or not? It seems this varies by the hour. Americans are against the war, but vote overwhelmingly for the architects of this war. I don't get it! And, I want off this planet. Now! The purpose of reading your site is to learn enough of the world so that we might act responsibly and in the general welfare of our own citizens and of humanity in general.

~ Matt M.

War is Hell

War is hell – horrible, destructive, demonic! It destroys the innocents and devastates lands and peoples for generations. It's senseless slaughter to impose peace or democracy, to right a supposed wrong by force, to avenge wounded pride, or to gain territory and wealth, and by its fruits you know it.

The Enemy loves it, because he hates life. God hates it, because He loves life and hates to see His children suffer. He also hates the warmongers, and warns that those who take up the sword to live by it will die by it – whether physically in war and conflict, or as they endure a slow spiritual devastation as they try to live with their conscience, the knowledge of what they've done, for the rest of their life.

America has waged many horrible wars during its existence, and one day it will pay the full price for them. The Lord's Word is true, sure and steadfast – we reap what we sow, whether good or bad. So America will reap as it has sown, as will France and many other nations around the world. And when the Lord returns to rule in righteousness, He'll do away with war, and men will beat their swords into plowshares, thank God!

~ Ted Rudow III, MA, Menlo Park, California