Posted June 10, 2003

Regarding "Retrospect: Balkans And the Big Picture – A Year Later" by Nebojsa Malic:

And not only in Hollywood. See the BBC's "Spooks," Episode 1.

"Government sources say a Serbian terrorist ring has been smashed, averting the risk of major terror attacks across the country...."

~ P. Darka

Nebojsa Malic replies:

Thanks for mentioning this. Apparently, English TV writers have an even more prurient imagination than their American counterparts. Not only do they invent a 'known Serbian terrorist' (while their own country harbors those who support Osama!), they also have him framed for pedophilia in Egypt (death by stoning, if I remember my Shari'a correctly), instead of sending him to the show trial before the Hague Inquisition. And these are 'heroes'? If I were a Brit, I'd be both angry and afraid.

Regarding "On to Iran?" by Alan Bock:

Bock is guilty of the same sin that he imputes to others. In fact, most of the media did "get it", that Sorenstam was playing for herself. That's why she got so much positive press after all, that she "just wanted to see what happens." Bock is as guilty of using Annika as a blank slate for his own opinions as anyone else.

~ Peter McIlroy

Alan Bock replies:

Maybe the media got it tacitly, but did anyone else explicitly make the point I made? And I suppose I am GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY of doing what I do for a living every day, trying to find a larger meaning in everyday news events. I still maintain that my opinion, as evidenced by Mr. McIlroy's contention that the media "got it," has the virtue of being closer to the truth than most.

Regarding "Ethnic Cleansing: Some Common Reactions" by Ran HaCohen:

I really like all your articles, and find them daring....

I have a few questions: there is a certain religious Jewish group that doesn't accept Israel as a state and I can sometimes find them in demonstrations with Palestinians.

Who are those people?

Second, what is behind this strong pro Israeli politics in the USA, with the connection of those Christian fundamentalists who believe in the outcome of the Messiah if they support Israel. Where is this written in the Bible and where can I find information about that? ...

~ Nadja Z.

Ran HaCohen replies:

Thank you for your support. The best known anti-Zionist Jewish group is Neturei Karta. For a general overview of non-zionist Jews, cf. http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/.

I am not an expert on Christian fundamentalism, but for some background see
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/north7.html.

"Question of the Day: 'Would You Have Left Saddam in Power?'" by Whiskey Bar:

Your essay is very important, the Republicans have so much money they can blitz the media with their propaganda and make it seem like "breaking news" the only hope for the Democrats is to have a very strong and active grass roots network, so keep the articles coming and encourage everyone to spread the word.

~ Zim Zu

Billmon of Whiskey Bar replies:

Thanks Zim Zu. I do what I can.

It is much to soon to to reach any conclusion . A few months have past. Much negative occurrences are overblown and limited in size. In another year or two everything will be for the best.

~ NER

Billmon replies:

So this really IS the best of all possible worlds, eh? Well, I guess we better tend to our gardens, then.

...This recent abomination is so reminiscent of the German invasion of Russia, equally racist and vile. ...

~ Matthew E.

Billmon replies:

Your heart is in the right place, but your head is . . . well, somewhere else. The German invasion of Russia caused the death of an estimated 12 million Russian civilians. Millions were shipped to death camps to be gassed. Millions more were worked as slave laborers until they died. To compare the U.S. invasion of Iraq with those genocidal crimes is as absurd as comparing Saddam to Hitler. That kind of overheated rhetoric does our cause no good at all.

...I find it ironic that these countries have been around for hundreds of years yet live in poverty...

~ M. Small

Billmon replies:

Iraq was cobbled together by the British after World War I – as were most of the other countries in the Middle East.

Try reading a book every once in a while.

Mike Ewens Replies

I've been reading Antiwar.com avidly since the Iraq buildup began. It's been a great source of information and intelligent opinion – from a wonderfully wide range of sources.

Recently I read the "Who We Are" statement and discovered that this website began in reaction to events in the Balkans. I was surprised to learn that it began in opposition to intervention against Serbia. I can understand a rational basis for caution about intervention, but does your group actually defend Serbia's actions? I'd be curious to know about this. Can you steer to archival material that would explain your stance?

~ Michael O.

Student Coordinator Mike Ewens replies:

A closer look at our history reveals that we oppose American military intervention in all non-defensive situations. You appear to understand our "caution" in regard to much of US foreign policy.

However, you imply that by, say, criticizing intervention agaist a brutal dictator, we are concurrently defending the actions of said dictator. Clearly, this is not what are position maintains. Are you defending the actions of gangs in a nearby community by not intervening and helping those affected? Simply, we do not defend any actions that aggress upon the person and property of individuals be it our government or other governments. By definition, military intervention by the American government violates this very principle.

Your query presupposes that it is America's duty to rid the world of evil...something we say upfront we do not believe in. Thus, our demands for nonintervention in both peaceful and dictatorial nations, ignores (perhaps selfishly) the plight of those nations. Simply, we hold that was must place "America First" in all our dealings with the world, of course with the respect that other nations can do the same in regard to themselves.

Here are some resources about our ideology:

Columnist Joseph Stromberg made some reading lists:
http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s013001.html
http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s022001.html

and book reviews....
http://www.lewrockwell.com/stromberg/stromberg23.html
http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s072500.html
http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s113099.html.

He also writes about empire:
http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s092899.html.

On a great thinker, Murray Rothbard:
http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s061200.html
http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s062000.html

Here are some books I would suggest you look at:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j042103.html
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=15
Isolationism Reconfigured: American Foreign Policy for a New Century by Eric Nordlinger.

My name is SGX. I'm an Italian girl and I have a no war site, sgxLabs.com. I listed your site in my Views and News section as one of my favorite site and I just thought to let you know.

~ SGX

Mike Ewens replies:

Wow, the site looks great. Thanks for link! Keep up the wonderful work!

I am a Journalism student in Sydney, Australia and was wondering if I could possibly get a contact number/email for a journalist with views on war censorship regarding the recent wars in the Gulf and Afghanistan.

~ Ian H., Sydney, Australia

Mike Ewens replies:

Here is a great site with an overview of this issue: http://www.tandl.vt.edu/Foundations/mediaproject/home.htm. They have some contact info that should be helpful.

Rodney Jenkins: ...Please will someone address (or you point me in the direction of) and examine whether it is plausible that the flag waving, uncritical and frankly unethical support for the administration was or could have been the result of a behind the scenes deal with the administration whereby the White House effectively gave the nod to Fox and CNN and indeed the principal print media and the likes of Clear Channel – to the effect that if they backed off on the Iraqi question then the FCC would push things thorough in their favour down the track?

Mike Ewens: My theory is this: the media tells us (us usually means the majority of the public), what we want to hear. If they did not do so, they would lose money. This leads one to conclude that the majority of Americans likes war in foreign lands...not a far-fetched theory. So no matter what happened with this possible "deal," it really doesn't matter.

RJ: This question comes from an English/ Australian citizen who has been utterly appalled by the fourth estate in the USA where all the issues percolating to the surface right now were there for all to see and especially so for any journalist to comprehend way before now. Funny that huh?

ME: I assume he suspects such a thing because the mainstream media controls a lot of the "valves" of information, thus leading a lot of the public to only hear a portion of the facts. Unfortunately, there is little that one can do to avoid this without violating property rights or enacting a law that relegates what information we hear. The latter is a bit authoritarian.

If the public prefers to hear their news only from Fox and CNN, then we must deal. We should focus on making our means of communication more attractive to the layman, so that when they make a conscious decision to seek other sources of information, they come to us. Simply, you can't convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. And in some sense, perhaps media consolidation you allude to may actually increase the demand for independent news outlets such as Antiwar.com. Who knows, but I trust that the market will figure it out!

RJ: ...Only problem with your theory ... is that ‘what they want to hear’ is precisely shaped by the mainstream media in the first place – and in turn of course that is determined by corporate media policy which in turn again is dictated by the principal shareholders – and what do you end up with: why the status quo troika of Media, Corporate, Government diktat.

ME: I disagree. Apparently, I have a little more confidence in the individual than you do. I believe that we have preferences, and that the most successful firms are those that suit our desires. Many contend that advertising – the most blatant form of "preference-adjustment" – is a means of corporations to get people to buy things they wouldn't have otherwise. I rely on Ludwig von Mises to answer such a claim:

"It is a widespread fallacy that skillful advertising can talk the consumers into buying everything that the advertiser wants them to buy. The consumer is, according to this legend, simply defenseless against “high-pressure” advertising. If this were true, success or failure in business would on the mode of advertising only. However, nobody believes that any kind of advertising would have succeeded in making the candlemakers hold the field against the electric bulb, the horsedrivers against the motorcars, the goose quill against the steel pen and later against the fountain pen. But whoever admits this implies that the quality of the commodity advertised is instrumental in bringing about the success of an advertising campaign. Then there is no reason to maintain that advertising is a method of cheating the gullible public." (Human Action pp. 345)

Simply, any firm attempting to persuade – either to buy a good, or agree with a position – must appeal to already existing preferences. Of course, they may introduce you to something that you didn't have in you "preference set." However, for this to occur, it must fit into a higher level of preference. For instance, no one would have thought that bell bottoms would have come back into style a few years back. I suspect that they did because they fit into the "something new" category, the "not like everyone else pants" etc. preference set. That is how styles and even ideology works. The media, during the Clinton era, was slanted towards the Left. Now that the administration has public support (for whatever reasons), the media sensed this, and the Right now dominates the discourse on the airwaves. I believe that the media reacts to the consumer, not the other way around.

Honestly, I think it is pompous to think that you can see through the advertising and persuasion, while the rest of us can't. Rather, I think we all see what we want to see. Rather than degrade our choices, this fact reinforces the individuality of our decisions.

RJ: But all of the above – which is essentially the nub of your response to my initial query – simply begs the question as to what the media is FOR: simply a contribution to GDP and for the benefit of those holding stock – or – something to do with accurate and fearless analysis of the world around us – or simply another dose of Hollywood Prozac?

ME: The media is what the "general" consumer demands it be. Many people don't like news, commentary or analysis (I would say the majority of America). The "accurate and fearless analysis of the world around us" is a wonderful vision for the general media, but you have to remember that is your demand, your taste. In your criticism of the media, you must admit that you are attempting to place your value judgments upon it. You saying what the media should be is just as much a judgment as my declaration that women should be more attracted to me, my professors should be kinder to my math assignments, etc.

RJ: The real problem is that the media has a unique position in it’s principal source of credit – access – which the rest of do not have – and the real question is whether we determine as a democracy whether that access has primary responsibilities that go with it – it is just not the same as any other corporate structure, and that is why I am concerned as to the equity and openness of the FCC inquiry– reality or window dressing – and to me it is something that I would have though you MUST be passionate about? – but from the tone of your response seemingly no.

ME: The real problem is that people don't have the energy to look for other sources of information; they prefer to be spoon fed. However, this is a symptom of individual taste. There are plenty of place to receive information without going through the mainstream media (read: Internet). Of course, this demands a little work, but so does a lot of things. In my case, I am too lazy to look for books online anywhere but Amazon.com. I suspect that I could find better and cheaper books elsewhere, but I am too lazy and prefer to stay with what I know. Would you contend that we ensure that the supply of booksellers is more diversified so lazy people like me have even more choices? I think that borders on intrusion.

About my passion...I am passionate about making the antiwar message more accessible, more informed and more respected. I do not want the government to force Antiwar.com's position upon the public, by giving us, say, a certain share of air time. That goes against all my principles on the role of government.

RJ: What bothers me actually, Mike, is the seeming acceptance of the manner in which you have responded to me – along the lines of a sort of observation that it is I who am being naïve – whither the ideal behind the concept of the duty and professionalism of the fourth estate? Same garbage bin as the Hippocratic Oath in the medical profession perhaps? And the thing that really worries me is that here are you doing your very best to try to counter the vapid and the venal and the shoddy in American mainstream media – and yet your starting point leaves me wondering whether the white hot lance of hot idealism I assume Antiwar.com stands for has been lost in the quotidian grind and that you are simply exhausted – or signifies an even more troublesome underlying malaise, trapped by the domestic tribal culture huh Mike – and this is truly meant with sympathy not cynicism....

ME: I am far from cynical. I have a view of the way the media and consumer (of information) interact, and I am working productively within that framework. I also, as mentioned, do not want the government involved, be it behind the guise of "democracy" of "access to information." Someone still has to arbitrarily decide what is this information, and although corporation may not be the "best" means, the government surely isn't better. I suspect that if you attacked this "problem" through democratic means, i.e. voting, the same results with concentration and news dissemination would result. Us intellectuals, who want informed information, are, unfortunately few and far between.

Overall, I am not fighting against the mainstream media, rather fighting to appeal to the preferences and tastes of the consumer, in the hopes of showing them that we are right.

What in the hell is going on in Iraq? There is not a site that can explain the details about the continued resistance by Saddam Hussein!

~ Arty P.

Mike Ewens replies:

A lot of "hell" is going on in Iraq. A quick glance at the Antiwar.com front page reveals the chaos that has been created by American intervention.

About the continued resistance of Saddam...I suspect that their is little, if any. Rather, the resistance has now taken the form of an independent people – the Iraqis – demanding their sovereignty from an occupying force (e.g. see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10207-2003Jun3?language=printer).

Hope that this helps.

Just curious as to your opinion on the likelihood war will ever end. It seems like war has been going on since the beginning of mankind. Can you tell me a period of time when no war was going on? And, if not, doesn't that lend sensibility to the fact that the "war" on war is futile?

~ Matt Wandel

Mike Ewens replies:

Asking when "war" will end is akin to asking when "conflict," "disagreement" or "animosity" will cease to exist. Thus, it is a difficult question to answer. I do believe, however, that the likelihood and frequency of wars will decrease when the main vehicle for the waging of war – the State – is weakened and downsized. The State has been the main beneficiary of last few centuries of wars. From war, the State finds increased power to coerce, kill and tax the citizenry. Contemporary war, one that requires vast amounts of resources and manpower, can only be organized by an entity such as the State, who has as it command the power to tax, regulate and perhaps conscript.

Unfortunately, some semblance of a State has existed throughout time, so war has followed. Daniel McCarthy, columnist for LewRockwell.com, helped me out with your query. He writes:

There have been wars in Europe in the last couple of hundred years, but Switzerland has not been party to them. Again, we're not antiwar in some kind of utopian sense, we just want to stay out of wars ourselves. In that, the Swiss are a very good example. Why should we be interested in a period of time when there was no war? What matters is a time when there is peace for us. Savages in Africa or socialists in Russia might always have war, there could be war anyplace at a given time. What matters is, is it our war – do we, however "we" define "we" – have peace?

Basically, our goal is not to stop all war – that may be impossible – rather keep the US government from engaging or inciting unjust ones.

Finally, you suppose that because war is inevitable, that there is no point in fighting against in. To that I counter: "Well we are mortal – death is inevitable – let's just kill ourselves now." I do not accept the Hobbesian notion of humanity, that left to ourselves, without the guidance of some great leader (read: the State), we will kill, steal and maim each other. Given this, I think that our war against war is a fruitful enterprise. Who knows, perhaps without our protest, instances and brutality of war would would be much worse. I like to think that what Antiwar.com is fighting for is a peaceful and prosperous America. War is the main obstacle to this end.

This makes me think of an analogy of a doctor; he isn't anti-disease, rather he is pro-health. He doesn't succumb to the fact that disease and injury will never go away, instead he attempts to "promote" health and well-being by fixing problems, studying prevention and researching cures. We take the same approach to war: it is a disease, one the now seems very formidable, but one that demands attention and removal.

So, our fight against interventionist American foreign policy is not futile, despite the fact that war may always exist.

Antiwar.com is my home page, and last year I donated to the site. I plan to do the same again. I only wish I could give more. This is the BEST site on the web. And, Justin Raimondo is brilliant. I'm listening to his interview as I write this, but I read every one of his columns and can't wait for his book.

Thank you.

~ Suzanne D.

Mike Ewens replies:

No, thank you for that wonderful label (Best site on the web)! We will continue to work hard at keeping you and our other readers satisfied. Keep reading!

I teach history in the state of Washington, USA. I have been unsuccessful in my search for a death tally in Iraq. More specifically, I want to see and show my students how many died during the war and now as occupiers.

Can you help me?

~ PH

Mike Ewens replies:

Check out: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/.

PeaceUK.net also tried to categorize the localities and now they are working on names. And here's their extensive database: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm#db.

In terms of the numbers of military dead during occupation, those numbers are difficult to gather. However, I do spend a lot of time reading the news (that's part of my job), and I would estimate that the number of Allied soldiers killed (accidental and in combat) since the fighting ended is around two dozen. We are searching for a listing of the exact number.

Regarding "Keep the United Nations out of Iraq – and America" by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX):

If we were to treat the rest of the world as we want to be treated, i.e., that we quit trying to control other counties policy, as Dr. Paul would like them to quit trying to control ours, then I wholly agree. But as long as we are slapping sanctions and embargoes around, not to mention destroying and invading other countries, I don't think we have a whole lot of room to talk.

~ E. Toomsen

Regarding "Iraq's WMD Intelligence: Where is the Outrage? – Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV):

No one ever seems to ask why, if there HAD BEEN sites with WMD, these sites were not the FIRST target of US troops.

If your troops face the prospect of SERIOUS weaponry, the FIRST act of any good commander would be to neutralize them.

That there is no evidence these supposed WMD sites were targeted or prioritized, it makes it difficult to believe those planning and conducting the assault had any reason to believe WMD really existed at those sites.

~ CG

Bully for Senator Byrd!

Can't he breathe some fire and outrage into some of his colleagues. I would think that the Democrats could now find courage to come out forcefully and challenge Bush. (He may be high in the popularity polls, but it's because so many of our political leaders either go along with him or are scared to criticize him. So he's getting a free pass.)

Maybe now, with the with the evidence growing that Bush and his administration lied about the potential dangers the US faced from Iraq, others in the Congress can admit that they were deceived, and will now come forward and speak out, and reclaim their Constitutional authority to declare war, and repeal the authority that they gave up last fall.

Better late than never!

In the meantime, God bless Robert Byrd.

~ Charles Lewis

Regarding "Liars 'R Us" by Justin Raimondo:

Was a dominant reason for the recent conflict Iraq's Oil Reserves? And by "a dominant reason" I mean if Iraq was without this resource would we have invaded. I think in these terms it was a dominant reason.

Here's a theory. Once Saddam and his mob are completely deposed the US of A will decide to privatize the these resources which in terms of volume are the second largest in the world or there abouts. We will do it in the declared name of the Iraqi people and auction them off to Western producers such as Chevron, Texaco, Exxon, Shell and BP. Forget nationalized oil companies they are a signature of socialism and won't be invited to the party.

The prices paid for access and production rights will parallel the royalty payments that states pay here in the US. Sounds fair ? It isn't as the fields are Jumbos, there is no dry hole risk as they are discovered, and they are pressurized with very low lifting costs plus of course they are on land rather than expensively "off shore". In short the Iraqi are going to get screwed in terms of price and royalties.

But there's the real rub and benefit for the western folks. They will jointly control the marginal barrel of oil in world markets and will be able to dictate shortages and surpluses and hence price at the well head and gasoline pump. Ooooooh how nice for the majors will use the Joint Iraqi Resources Council, or whatever they choose to call their federation, to supplant the Saudi's dominance in OPEC.

At least this is what I would do if I believed in monopolies and had the chance to set one up for myself and friends for fun and profit.

Just speculation but what an opportunity to steal both a great resource and manage a world market.

Pray for us and the demise of this administration which is the best government money can buy.

~ Peter S. Hunt

Regarding "Hell to Pay" by Justin Raimondo:

Whatever the ties of the neocons to the left, they are not monolithic. For one thing, Bush and his daddy were never leftists of any sort (W probably thinks Trotsky is something that happens to you after drinking the water in Juarez). For the other, these strategists are firmly against any sort of social programs at home. Like Reagan they seem intent on spending us into a hole from which no socialist schemes – for reducing poverty, employing the unemployed, housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, or providing medical care to those who can't afford insurance – can ever be launched. I am not sure the division between left and right is terribly relevant here. I think the contest is between authoritarianism and libertarianism. Both the right and the left have shown terrible tendencies toward authoritarianism, and both have produced libertarians a well. ...

~ Ean Dubh

"How can they complain: they signed up to fight, didn't they? Yet the truth is these guys didn't sign up to conquer the world, but to defend the U.S. against those who would harm us."

Sure, they signed up to defend the US– and it must also be true that they haven't read any history, newspapers, magazines, haven't seen TV newscasts, documentaries, haven't watched any movies, and, of course, they've been living in a rabbit hole where they can't do these things or talk to anyone who has. Oh – they also must not be capable of thinking for themselves nor capable of managing their own resources and, therefore, looking after their own best interests. ...

~ Richard Storey

Korea

I have read a number of articles regarding the planned redeployment of US troops away from the border between North and South Korea – but virtually none of them explains what it means in any detail.

First of all lets get the facts straight:

- North Korea cannot, and for a very long time has not been able to, invade South Korea with any hope of success. Even capturing Seoul was always unlikely: urban warfare scenario, South Korean outlet to the sea for supplies, North Korean need to head south, etc.

– South Korea has twice as many people and something like 25 times the economy. I think they can defend themselves.

– The North Korean military is obsolescent. A lot of old metal equipment (targets), little in the way of electronics.

– The large North Korean army is for deterrence. They are not going to attack South Korea – that would be suicide – they just need the capability to make an attack upon North Korea too costly for the US and South Korea. In this they have been fortunate to have Seoul within range of their longer range artillery pieces. I don't have the specifics, but I guess that Seoul represents somewhere around 25-35% or more of total South Korean population and economy. As an added plus, the North Koreans have also had a large number of US troops within range of their artillery and conventional ground forces. An attack on North Korea has thus been made catastrophic for South Korea, and damaging for the US And as always, immolation for the North Koreans. But, the North Koreans HAVE had a defensive deterrent. The planned deployment of US troops out of range may change the balance of deterrence, and looks like lunacy for the South Koreans to agree to it.

The Bush Doctrine states that the United States reserves the right to attack other countries as it sees fit – even if those countries are not a threat to the US, and just want to be left alone. Recent history seems to demonstrate that they mean it. As such, it appears obvious that the US wishes to have the ability to bomb North Korea without suffering US casualties. They can sit back out of range, bomb with aircraft, and the North Koreans will be unable to strike back at the US soldiers in Korea.

The North Koreans have a few highly inaccurate medium and intermediate range missiles, but they are negligible since they can only carry one warhead of at most 1000 pounds. This is a pathetic capability compared to the payload of just one US bomber equipped with numerous 2000 pound precision guided bombs.

The North Korean nuclear capability is very primitive, and they have no reliable delivery system. So, the North Koreans are left with their hundreds of artillery pieces that can range Seoul, and a lot of obsolescent metal equipment.

And so to the South Koreans. They appear to be putting themselves in the position where the US can bomb strategic and nuclear targets in North Korea with impunity – while on the other hand the South Koreans stand to have Seoul destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of their citizens killed. Not to mention the possible millions of their brethren killed in North Korea.

It is possible that the US and South Korea believe that a North Korean collapse is near without war.

Or, the South Koreans have been convinced by the US that the North Korean deterrent artillery along the border can be quickly destroyed before it does too much damage. After all, the number of long range North Korean artillery pieces that can actually range Seoul is a small percentage of their total artillery pieces. In addition, the arc within which these long range artillery pieces must be positioned in order to reach Seoul makes targeting them that much easier. ...

Of course these are the facts, but the customary D.C. Orwellian spin will be liberally applied, and widely distributed by the "news" media. The announced "deadline" will pass (or maybe even before it passes), and then a large portion of US stealth bombers will strike North Korean nuclear facilities and other strategic targets. At the same time there will be a massive aerial bombardment, using the newest conventional bombs and perhaps even small nuclear bombs, which will target the North Korean artillery that can hit Seoul. US and South Korean artillery will also strike the North Korean artillery, and stand ready to use their far superior counter-battery capability to eliminate the North Korean artillery that opens fire.

If all goes well, the damage to Seoul will be "limited." Or so it seems the South Koreans seem to imagine. One can only imagine what they are thinking, or have been told.

So, I hope this clarifies the essential issues pertaining to the redeployment of US troops to the south, out of range of the North Korean deterrent artillery.

I have read so much nonsense, mendacity, and Orwellian spin on the subject that I just felt compelled to do my small part in resisting this strange pseudo-reality of mass delusion that seems to be gripping the US populace.

~ JM