I agree with Atropine, but it didn't sound as though it was atropine which was found in those cases in the hospital. I'm probably wrong, but I never heard them say atropine.

DavidK - thanks for elucidating on that one point. The underlying question actually is kind of interesting. unlike mustard gas, most modern gassing agents degrade with a reasonably short half-life. once they've degraded, can they be spectroscopically linked to a source batch? Don't know the answer to that one.

we must rid the world of this terrorist regime in iraq. then-liberate it. i am a democrat for bushs war on terrorism, however think not too good of him when it comes to the economy.

Jingoism is a convenient term, you could also say we are 'waving the bloody shirt', if you believe there is any blood to begin with. Regardless, Jingoism here is usually a reaction to a stimulus, i.e. the normal Tourette's Syndrome-style reaction to a news blurb or a pamphlet they just read.

I think Hussein's strategy is to pretty much give the US everything except Baghdad. Then, just when Baghdad becomes a house-to-house battle, the international community will throw a fit about the civilian death toll and demand we leave. Then with the help of Russia, China, N. Korea, and lots of cash from France to buy it all, he'll be basically undefeatable the next time he attempts to harm his people or invade his neighbors.

Propaganda is the key to that. Arguments like "America set him up in the first place", "America just wants the oil", "America doesn't care about the Iraqi people", etc., etc., are the best propaganda he can get. When you see the war with 'a priori' ideas of what you *think* the US is after, then everything you see will reinforce those ideas, especially when there is an evil showman ready to sacrifice his civilian population just for that purpose. Open your mind to radical, anti-establishment, anti-free-market, Neo-Luddite propaganda long enough and you will believe about anything Saddam will have to say about the US.

re: reading lists.

Don't think for a moment that anti-establishment radicalism isn't big business. Do they give their propaganda away? Are their publishing houses non-profit? People like that simply *can't* ever be satisfied. They thrive on perceived evils, and would be lost without them. Frighteningly like McCarthyism.

They are endlessly helpful for anyone who hates their society as well. I would suggest adding Machiavelli's "The Prince" to your reading list. Self-interest is universal. Sadly, though, some people ( read: activists ) allow it to be parasitic and self-defeating; biting the hands that feeds them.

Auguste, buddy, throw your radio away, it's worse than TV when it comes to poisoning your mind.

Apparently you're not familiar with the books I listed. With the possible exception of Greg Palast, every book in the list is by a highly respected conservative author. They each present a wealth of factual data and research complete with dates, names, photo copies of documents and an extensive in-depth clear examination of historical events. Your right-wing saviors of America's innocence know these facts, but they would never want them publicly presented without a healthy dose of spin, ridicule and disinformation. They can live with the ugly truth just fine, as long as they don't have to publicly defend it. These authors present us with facts without the spin.

Body of Secrets is a tribute to the NSA detailing its history and the history of encryption and code-breaking. It was written to glorify the quality of the intelligence community and its achievements. If you read it you will find many interesting historical details about the last 50 years. Like "Operation Northwoods" which was an attempt by the Joint Chiefs in 1963 to dupe the public (in America and the World) to support an invasion and regime-change in Cuba by staging a terrorist assault on America. They were going to kill hundreds of Americans in a bloody terrorist attack in Miami, shoot down a plane full of students, sink a Navy destroyer in Guantanomo Bay, etc. blaming it on the Cubans. This plan was actually being implemented! Robert McNamara, Kennedy's Defense Secretary, decided it couldn't go forward without the President's approval. When he showed the plan to Kennedy it stopped and Kennedy planned to fire the Joint Chiefs (he said some of them had actually gone insane) and disband the CIA who he said were becoming a government of their own. Six months later Kennedy was dead, the Joint Chiefs stayed and the CIA was expanded.

Betrayal of Trust is about the Public Health Care systems of the world and is considered the best resource for information on that subject ever written. Laurie Garrett is the most respected 'expert' reporter on the international medical scene.

David Korten is a respected and distinguished member of the conservative business community, a former professor at Harvard University Graduate School of Business with over thirty five years of experience in world economic affairs. He became disillusioned when he realized that a deepening global crisis was being promoted by the US and world economic institutions and change was needed to prevent a global catastrophe. Reading his book was the first time I ever felt like I could understand what global economics is all about. It's actually written from a seriously considered desire to promote reform to prevent the inevitable collapse of the world's economic system. If you really want to know something about how it works, this is the book to read.

Greg Palast is probably the most respected investigative journalist in the world today, coming from a background of being a private investigator for labor unions, but you could say he is more leftwing than conservative. That doesn't change the value of hard data that would otherwise never be known by the public. When Greg Palast writes an article about the World Bank he spends months digging up documents and detailing events with more factual precision than any reporter I've seen. He interviews all the players on both sides and then brings us Joseph Stieglitz's (the World Bank's Chief Economist) own revelations of inside information that us mere mortals were never supposed to know. The facts are inciting enough, there's no need for radical spin, and there's nothing in it that needs to be debunked by the right for the clueless. Just learn some truth and make up your own mind. His book is a compilation of articles on a variety of subjects (Enron, 2000 election, Pat Robertson, IMF etc.) that have been published in the last few years by the BBC and the Guardian.

All these books present facts. Real information you can use to make up your own mind.

And as for the radio... a great example of what I'm trying to say is the debate over Bush's tax cut. In Congress I hear Democrats saying that 80% of the cut goes to the wealthiest 1% of the population (who I always figured never paid taxes in the first place). On the radio I hear Rush Limbaugh say that's not true and he has the data on his website to PROVE it. He says that 96% of taxes are paid by the wealthiest Americans! so there! if you don't believe me go to my website the data is right there for everyone to see! So I did, and here's the data... the top 50% of Americans by income pay 96% of the taxes. hmmm... So I went to the Census Bureau's website to see what that meant. The 50% mark of our population in income is about $40,000. Rush's data includes the entire middle class (even the lower part). For all we know the top 1% still pay no taxes (or maybe a very small percentage) but it proves nothing, other than he will knowingly mislead you while filling you with catchy phrases to prevent you from arriving at your own conclusions based on real facts.

"Taxes are for little people, WE don't pay taxes" -- Leonna Helmsley

"They paid no taxes for 4 years but somehow, they qualified for $30 million in federal tax return funds" -- CBS news regarding Enron

david k thinks he is pretty smart on this war stuff- NOT!

@shu: "Many people on this board are from the US, are of the voting age and hence can and do affect the policies of the US (I believe that at the time of writing this piece, the US is a Democracy). You could have stopped this war from happening."

Many people believe it's that simple. I don't. The US has a republican form of gov't. (And in this case the electoral college elected a President who did not win the overall US popular vote. One of those bits of our Constitution that people forget about until it comes up. The popular vote in a state determines who wins the state's votes in the electoral college. That's how Florida gained importance in the election.) We don't get a popular vote on the policies and actions of the gov't.

The people vote to elect their representatives, Senators and President. Once they're elected, they can have input from their constituents which include not just the average voters but also corporations and other interests with lobbyists and campaign contributions. I recall one state representative (state gov't) who in a public forum essentially said to a constituent, "Did you donate to my campaign? Who am I going to listen to someone who just votes or someone who contributes money to my campaign?" That's not an anomally or unknown, but it was amazing to see a politician come out and say so in public. To aver that those "special interests" don't have a say in influencing gov't policy and actions would be naive.

As for public opinion, politicians and administrations spend a lot of time and money on people whose job is to try to gauge and "shape" public opinion. To literally "sell" their agenda to the public. Then they can say they have the will of the people behind them. No doubt there are "true believers" influencing Administration policy. But the current actions also are based on a wider basis of self interest that indeed may include, but is not limited to, the safety of the American public and humanitarian concerns for the people of Iraq.

According to an article in Time or Newsweek or one of those mags, Bush decided as early as March 2002 to take out Saddam. In June of 2002 there was funding allocated and a Presidential directive to the CIA (if I recall correctly) for the purpose of infiltrating into Iraq and taking out Saddam if possible. The Administration determined what it was going to do and war plans were developed after that. And essentially a PR campaign was mounted to get people to support it. Going to the UN was a pro forma thing: if a resolution for military action could be passed, fine. If not, the previous resolutions and noncompliance would be used as the justification for military action.

But it is pointed out, the President went to Congress and got support for military action....a bit of arm twisting went into that to get votes of those not initially inclined to support the resolution, I'm sure, and politicians also look out for their own self-interests, not just those of their constituents. Those who voted against military action knew that it would be used against them. Anti-American, traitors, etc, they would be called and have been in some venues. And likely their "no" votes will be used against them by their opponents in their next election campaign.

In 1964 there was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave Congressional authorization for the Viet Nam War. Only much later it was revealed that the Administration knowingly lied to Congress (and the people) in the "facts" it presented to get that resolution passed.

I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here. But for people perhaps to think the people tell Presidents what to do and they do it, no, it's not that simple and hasn't been for the duration of the Republic.

DavidK - any great attorney will tell you that the real trickery in his craft is not so much in distorting the facts as it is in masterfully controlling which facts the jury is never allowed to see. in every serious "expose" class of book that i've read, the writer tried to show evidences which would hold up under strong scrutiny, and completely neglected a sizable body of contrary evidences which also hold up under scrutiny. caveat emptor. investigators with an agenda see only what they want you to see, and bring back evidence accordingly. when this person is also afflicted with the desire to sell books you have a double demon.

I never mentioned the radio, Dave, and i utterly despise Rush Limbaugh. Like I said, most people who know me wouldn't call me Conservative.

I am vaguely familiar with David Korten through YES! magazine. I don't consider him a conservative, though some left of him do. Populist would be a better description, i think, with a bunch of 'green' mixed in.

"Body of Secrets" is a book i will never read because I despise paranoid expose' disguised as history. When speaking to any conspiracy nut, James Bamford's name invariably comes up. Don't forget, Dave, rural america is the home of 'black UN helicopter' angst, and I live there. No, I doubt i will read that book considering I have been beaten about the head and shoulders with it so many times in arguments with people far, far right of yourself. I've had a lot of it angrily read TO me, anyway...

Greg Palast is where you get your ideas about how the last election was fixed. You knew what I thought of him before you posted.

I didn't read Eric Schlosser's book either, I don't really like gross-out, food-industry muckraking, and frankly the title "Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal" says all i need to know about the work's objectivity. After going back and reading a few reviews and an interview with him just to be fair to ya, I'm even less interested. lol, Nazis, Disney, and McDonald's, sheesh.

Are you seeing my problem with the books you are listing? These are people, like I said in my last post, who make a living throwing mud at what they consider to be the 'establishment'. That is their goal, and they have a following because of it.

I am an avid member of the T.E. Lawrence Society's mailing list, and I have spent years reading *good* works of historical bent that I disagree with entirely. People who have a point to make can write books one of two ways:

a) they can write a book with historical fact that allows the reader to come to their own conclusion

or they can use history as an excuse and and intersperse it with long streams of opinion.

The kind of books you are pointing out are not, imho, works of solid journalism or historical study, rather opinion-based arguments that use fact as a backdrop. Nothing wrong with that, but you don't go to them to 'learn' or become informed, you go to them to see what so-and-so thinks about a given subject. If you are lucky, they might give ya some evidence.

As for your fiscal politics and figures I'm not even gonna bother, because anyone can easily find an interpretation of tax numbers to say what they want said. Time will tell.

Anyway, the topic was Iraq, and while I am sure any one of your authors could tie McDonald's, the NSA, or disenfranchised florida voters to what is happening there, I doubt seriously the ties would have a whole lot of impact on my opinions on the war. They would be a good way to distract people from the fact there are really good reasons to have this war though, and that the world will be a better place without Saddam Hussein.

anyone going to explain to Paul that your address/debate the subject and not the person?

Since the subject is the war, here is an interesting headline...
Al-Qaeda fighting with Iraqis, British claim
Near Basra, Iraq: British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra.

At least a dozen members of Osama bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions, according to the Iraqi prisoners of war.

It was believed that last night (Thursday) British forces were preparing a military strike on the base where the al-Qaeda unit was understood to be holed up.... more here: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653833092.html

Al-Qaeda has become the Hell's Angel's of terrorism, i think. Everybody knows someone who knows someone who is a member, and they were always there about ten minutes before you showed up. I'd be willing to bet that every city in the world with a major university has a few guys walking around who think they are card-carrying members; kinda like all the arabic guys I knew in college were in the PLO lmao . With all the people who went through their training camps, donated or laundered money for them, etc., one would think everyone has an Al-Qaeda cousin or uncle.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people fighting the US in Iraq think they are members of Al-Qaeda. Doesn't lend them any infamy or make them any more formidable to me. Would be fine if they all made Iraq their last stand.

Not surprising. I wouldn't be surprised to hear Iranians or Afgans had crossed the border to join the fight either.

You know I love you Baker...

I didn't think you where a 'ditto head' and I'm relieved to hear you say it.

My point in putting those titles here was more because of your previous comment "think about how many people read this". I've also read lots of books. Very few ever left me feeling like I understood things better, but these did. You and Bangkokboy make your point well. I think information (from both sides) is critical to forming an opinion. I think you've misjudged Bamford btw, he's really a supporter of the world's largest intelligence community and was welcomed into the NSA's inner circle to write his book. The only reason you hear his book mentioned by "conspiracy nuts" is because the truth fuels their fires.

So we all know how you and I feel about the war in Iraq. My opposition goes way beyond some concept of the US liberating Iraqi people. That's an easy thing to be in favor of and I'd love to see it. We are watching historical events with global consequences and my interest in the events is colored by my distaste for the political process so far and my apprehension of the eventual outcome.

One of the chief architects of the war in Iraq, Richard Perle, has just resigned his position on the Pentagon Advisory Committee because of (allegations) of abuse of his position to influence government contracts to make himself and his friends wealthy.


---------------------------

"I didn't know him, he was supposed to bring in the Gulf connection. But it didn't come to anything. We were buying political influence. That was it. He was not much of a businessman." -- billionaire George Soros explaining why his company, Harken Energy, bought George Bush and his failing oil company in 1986 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/19/1026898920079.html

You know i love ya too, Dave.

The Bamford thing puzzles me, because I have been told countless times how the NSA had tried to keep his books from being published by intimidating him and trying to have him put in jail. You'd think he was some kind of NSA Salman Rushdie the way some people talk about him. How far they went to stop the books will always depend on who is telling the story, lol. I'll take your word on that one, but I'll see if i can pick up a couple of those other books, since you recommend them.

I don't doubt people will become wealthy in this war, whether we win or lose. I'm just more jaded than you on that, i think. I just assume there is corruption and interest involved in everything, and if you can have that *and* get something as good as removing Saddam Hussein from power at the same time, then it is better than corruption and interest alone.

Dave & bakerstreet
I am starting to be crazy about both of you
You have given me good reading and stimulating remarks.

I agree with you baker, I hope Saddam is removed. I never wanted a war, but it has come to that. There is nothing to do but watch the news, and hope and pray a lot.

I like to stay and be informed. But since 9-11 I have learned something about myself...having lived and traveled a certain amount overseas...been very tight with those in Europe and "felt" part of everywhere...that after how international I thought I was, my roots are really deeply planted here. We're not perfect, but this United States is ours. I have learned to love it a whole lot.

(Speaking, knowing one of you and presuming the other is living in and from the U.S.)

Thanks Xerraire, I love America too...

We all need to keep cool heads and open eyes. Coruption can't stand the daylight, that's one of the good things about our democracy. It's not easy to expose and even harder to prosecute but just a knowledge of it is sometimes enough to wake people up.

I'm glad you don't think of me as "a nutcase spewing leftist propoganda from a deep-dark hole" as I was described about a year ago in a thread at deskmod...

Well I never did like labels much David, they do such a disservice, and generalize too much.

Of course "a nutcase spewing leftist propoganda from a deep-dark hole" isn't too general, hehe

No, I wouldn't ever label you, or anyone else.

I just scared the begesus out of Boomer, siiting on the front porch and the wind was blowing the flap on a box up and down and he started to woof at it really low. So I got up and walked over to it telling him it was ok it's just a box, and when I got right next to it I grabbed the flap and wrpped it around my leg and scream it got me BOOMER! He jumped like 4 feet in the air and 6 feet bacowards before touching the ground!

Then he ran up and started jumping all over it like it was a snake or something ...

my hero, homeland defense at it's finest!!!

welp, now he's back to normal, snuffling up ants and eating them, eck...

puppy or not, he is really got to change his snacking habits

nah, dave, i wouldn't say 'leftist'...

what is a leftists?
what is a rightwinger?

people concerned with an opinion?

or labels to depict contempt of those with opposing opinions?

who shot rodger rabbit and where exactly IS waldo?

enquiring minds really don't care...

story at 11:0 and 12:00 and 1:00, heck should be worth a month of media coverage if they play it out correctly and they can employe a whole new slew of experts to boot...

#961 by IPlural - 3/27/2003 6:12:44 PM
anyone going to explain to Paul that your address/debate the subject and not the person?


I think you already did

I always find it funny when somebody disagrees with a person, but can't prove why (or just doesn't) and returns with a one line put down. Pretty stupid. I don't agree with quite a few people, but I don't come back with "you're just wrong. so there." as a response to a 4 paragraph post.

IP+, btw, your puppy sounds quite normal. Dogs like bugs. Mine still like to play with them before eating them. Dogs....they're just such animals!

true about the quip, snipe responses for sure...

why I attempt to avoid commenting really...

I did actually type out a really long response about that too, and then edited it three times
to make it shorter than two pages, and then on the third time noticed it was so disjointed reflecting just how thought processes flow with someone who is DID ... I deledted the whole thing and started it new, and then gave up because the contradiction of thoughts, feelings and opinion, revolving around war are so grossly opposing it seems pointless...

so I gave up

Doggins:

lol. eck... HE always gets this goofy look too when you call his name and then just jumps back to snuffling



" dogs... they're just such animals"

Boomer was doing that last night and the ant bit him on the lip, but he got it, rubbed his face all over the ground and then rolled all over it after it was knocked loose, stomped on it with both paws a few times..

kinda woofed at it and walked away the proud winner, then off to snuffle some more