The charms of the installation art exhibits in Marfa, Texas are often lost on Americans but the place is very popular with German tourists. My favorite new experience in Marfa was a dark room filled with blue LEDs hung from wires (photo doesn’t really do it justice due to massive overexposure compared to the darkness you feel with just your eyes) by Erwin Redl. Shortly before our little group was enjoying the high desert scenery and trying to understand the art, the Associated Press reported that “In a scene reminiscent of Somalia, frenzied [Iraqi] crowds dragged the burned, mutilated bodies of four American contractors through the streets of a town west of Baghdad on Wednesday and strung two of them up from a bridge” (source).
A German couple talked about how they’d met some retired U.S. Air Force pilots in California. “They were lied to,” the wife noted. “They were just 19-year-olds and nobody told them they would be bombing civilians. Otherwise they would never have bombed German cities.” The implication was that bombing civilians was so clearly immoral that nobody would do it knowingly. Certainly the results of the bombing were terribly painful for Germans:
“The total bomb tonnage for the Second World War dropped by both the RAF and the 8th and 15th Air Forces in Europe on Germany totalled 1,234,767 tons of bombs more than 60 percent of which were dropped between July 1944 and April 1945. The Allied aerial onslaught killed no fewer than 305,000 German factory workers or area residents in targeted cities. It wounded about 780,000 other persons, made 1,865,000 people refugees, compelled the removal of another 4,885,000 additional persons, and cut off 20,000,000 people from their public utilities. By the third quarter of l944, coping with the aftermath of the Allied air strikes tied down an estimated four and one-half million workers, about 20 percent of the non-farm labor force, in cleaning and rebuilding operations.” (source)
Equally certain is the fact that for every German civilian killed or inconvenienced by bombing there was a statistical chance that an Allied soldier’s life would be spared. The German death camp system for Jews was also impaired in efficiency and brought to an earlier end by the Allied bombing of German civilians. Apparently there is a large school of thought within Germany at least that saving the lives of Allied solders and Jews did not justify killing German civilians randomly in hopes of striking those who were useful to the war effort and/or death camp system.
1940s summary: We were at war with the German and Japanese governments and we killed many civilians who did not support those governments and with whom we had no quarrel.
What about today? I have not been following events in Iraq very closely but I seem to recall American officials saying that it is tough to prevail against our enemies there because we can’t find them. They hide amongst the general population and only come out at night in small bands. Yet last week in Fallujah a huge group of people who apparently hate Americans and are prone to expressing that hatred violently exposed themselves in broad daylight, right in the open. What better opportunity for rolling out the helicopter gunships? Apparently the military commanders in Iraq did not think so because they didn’t bother to attack any of the rioters.
Modern summary: We are at war with subsets of the civilian population in various countries around the world but we are only willing to attack governments. It is tough to see a path to victory via this strategy because we’re actually at peace with the governments of France, Germany, et al., and in many cases close personal friends with the owners of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, et al. We can only occasionally find a government or country owner that we don’t like, e.g., the Taliban in Afghanistan or Saddam in Iraq. Our military is able to dispose of said government or dictator very quickly but with victory we become the new government in that corner of the world. And then we discover that it was not the former dictator trying to kill us but rather a subset of the civilians in that country.
Philip, in the 1940s, the bombing stopped outright when the governments signed formal surrenders. It didn’t stop when we’d killed “enough” civilians, or crossed some magic death threshold. Berlin fell, the government collapsed, and the remaining military commanders surrendered. In Japan, the government realized they were powerless to prevent more cities being obliterated, and surrendered.
This is where the analogy to today’s conflict fails. In Iraq the government was just one of many organizing layers – ethnic, tribal, and religious leaders also organize the people. We attacked and defeated the government, and it’s the governmental layer that we want to restructure. The rest, we don’t have a plan for, other than hoping they’ll agree that the new government will be better than the old one.
Of course, it might have helped if we did get a formal surrender signed by Saddam Hussein himself, about a year ago, but that would have remained just a part of the puzzle. There’s no reason to think that a linear accumulation of corpses is going to be part of the solution.
Modern media coverage changes the situation drastically, in my opinion. In World War II there weren’t hundreds of reporters with sending live photos and video via satellite, nor was the reporting from the other side [warning: graphic] accessible.
Every war has its lessons, and maybe some were mis-learned. The very recent advent of ‘surgical bombing strikes’ may be exposing the falacy that the carpet bombing techniques of the past were wasteful in both materials and lives. Most of the, um, advertising that I have seen for JDAM’s and the like point to the effectiveness of the targeting, the efficiency of the use of materials and the lack of collateral damage. These aspects of the modern weapons systems have been evident in recent conflicts in Bosnia and Iraq where the existing military materials (mostly of Soviet design, a message never missed by the weapons advertisers) were wiped out in a matter of months with very little loss of lives to either the agressors or civilians.
What is also evident is that the defenders soon realize that the materials and bases are targets and that the civilian populace is just as effective a ground cover as any dense jungle or system of tunnels. The civilians as well gain a sense of invulnerability and are more likely to aid the defenders, who now become imbedded freedom fighters. In the past, the over bombing and civilian deaths seemed to have led to an acceptance if not even a relief that the defending governments, and armies, were no longer active.
War is hell, why should we become comfortable with the idea that we can institute ‘easy’ regime change.
“Yet last week in Fallujah a huge group of people who apparently hate Americans and are prone to expressing that hatred violently exposed themselves in broad daylight, right in the open. What better opportunity for rolling out the helicopter gunships? ”
Weren’t these people dressed in civilian clothes? The image of dead “civilians” would be absolutely disastrous in terms of public relations.
The Serbs tried that with Alabanian thugs dressed in civilian clothes and were portrayed as cannibalistic maniacs.
Yes AIFE, those poor serbian soldiers and their leaders. They tried so desperately to give freedom to all people in the balkans, only to have some “Alabanian thugs” make them look like the bad guys. Gotta feel sorry for them…
Bas,
Let’s not forget that muslims in Bosnia attacked their own people for media coverage. Albanians in Kosovo, yes fighters dress in civilian clothes, lied relentlessly to bring up attention only to have their lies exposed later on. Many greedy journalist fell for the disinfo. Except now, you not only can’t find any of the “mass graves” in Kosovo, but the figures of dead Albanians keep getting re-estimated down, while the actual numbers of dead Serbs go up. Witness the recent troubles that started because some boys drowned while being chased by Serbs and their dogs. Turns out, the surviving boy lied, and the drowned boys went in the river on their own. Too bad, NATO and the peacefully minded Europeans weren’t so sure of their duty to protect the few remaining Serbs. Somehow it is more convenient for them avoid conflict with the criminal Albanian enterprises that rule Kosovo then to defend few Serbs, who, what the hell, should’ve seen it coming, right?!
Philip’s point is very well taken because precision weapons puts the US Army in a bind when dealing with urban warfare. Everyone ragged on the Russians during the second Chechen assault, but the fact is there is no other way to subjugate unfriendly population and eliminate support for guerrilas than what the Russian’s were doing, and similarly the Serbs. The Russians, sealed off the cities, and proceeded with targeted raids and artilerly barages. This forced the population to leave, while the guerillas stayed. With a small opening, the guerrilas left and were trapped outside Grozny. Today’s resistance in Chechnya is much, much smaller and disorganized than what it is in Iraq. Same with Kosovo. To prevent wide-spread logistical support of rebelion, the Serbs simply chased half-the population out of Kosovo, not killed, chased. There were 500k refugees in Macedonia with similar numbers in Albania. This left the terrain empty for Serbs to pursue the fighters, which were all pushed back to Albania eventually. Bad from the media perspective, but journalists need beating everyonce in a while. You can’t lie and expect protection.
UW is a bitch, and the US Army needs to dispense with niceties, seal off the cities, like Falluja, remove reporters (oops, didn’t see that camera) and force people out slowly. Everyone gets tired of war pretty soon, and it is worse off for folks who get no supplies, power, food and housing. Cruelty is a necessity that raises the price for folks. Rebels and unfriendly populations get away more with the media coverage than the Army does, and they are under no treaties. So f-em!
Bas, I think you got it confused. In the bosnian war, the United States bombed *the serbians* in order to protect the bosnians and albanians; therefore, the serbians were obviously the good guys and the albanians the bad ones (I mean, the USA were on their side, so they couldn’t possibly be good, right?).
Reading your past comments in this blog, it’s obvious that your remark above against the side bombed by the U.S. is just a slip-up on your part, so I’m just correcting it. Glad I could help.
“They tried so desperately to give freedom to all people in the balkans, only to have some “Alabanian thugs” make them look like the bad guys.”
Bas,
That was a very lame attempt at sarcasm. During 1998 (prior to the NATO intervention,) when trying to suppress the Albanian rebellion, it took Serbs several months to kill 600 Albanians. Compare that with Falluja where US troops killed 600 people in a week. In both instances, the dead wore civilian clothes.
How did we come to fire-bomb Tokyo, Dresden and Hamburg?
How did we come to atom-bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
In WWII, the Allied bombing of civilians became acceptable after the Germans hit Coventry. Pearl Harbor meant that the Japanese had placed themselves outside the rules of civilized warfare.
But one rationalization – which I don’t hear very much used anymore – not since say, Rolling Thunder – is that a civilian population always retains SOME responsibility for the behavior of their government.
Yes, they lived under appalling totalitarianism systems, where dissent could easily mean death – but the Germans were happy to enjoy the benefits of the conquest of Europe, the Japanese were happy to bask in the reflected glory of the conquest of Nanking, etc.
At some level, they reaped what they had sown.
But how much MORE responsible are are the citizens of a (nominal) democracy? America’s illegal regime has killed tens of thousands of civilians in the course of its (…our…) illegal attack on Iraq. And we have not done enough to reign in the war crimes being committed (right now, tonight) in our name. Remember that, when retribution comes for US.
AIFE, Victor and Bob…
What a blood-thirsty lot we are, ready to crush our enemies and awful quick to buy in to the story that the innocents merely walked away under mortar fire. We should not pursue a different course for the sake of political nicety or just to avoid public scrutiny. What we need to realize is that the use of brutal force (be it carpet bombing, surgical strikes or sniping) only leads to the desire for retribution and further bloodshed. Just because Japan and Germany don’t send suicide bombers into the us is no justification for pursuing the reckless politics that brought us ww1, ww2, etc…
What we need to develop is the means to produce more velvet revolutions, the ability to motivate the populace to move against totalitarian oppresors while removing the support that the totalitarian regimes rely apon. The ebb of the cold war presents us with an opportunity to reduce easy access to arsenals. This process must contune to abate the remaining despots that continue to inflame their own oppressed peoples to strke out at, well, the enemy of the day.
Sure, you can just call me names, but can any of you provide some pieces to this puzzle? How can we get the ‘commen people’ to realize that we have no war against each other, just a desire to provide a world that our children can prosper in.
“In WWII, the Allied bombing of civilians became acceptable after the Germans hit Coventry.”
Coventry was not the starting point. Before it, there was Guernica (Spanish Civil War,) Warsaw in 1939, Rotterdam in 1940.
“But one rationalization – which I don’t hear very much used anymore – not since say, Rolling Thunder – is that a civilian population always retains SOME responsibility for the behavior of their government.
Yes, they lived under appalling totalitarianism systems, where dissent could easily mean death – but the Germans were happy to enjoy the benefits of the conquest of Europe,”
It’s worse, Germans elected Hitler. And prior to 1938 Germany’s totalitarianism was pretty mild, with dissidents risking seldom more than a labor camp.
This argument does not apply to
I left the last sentence unfinished. This is what I intended to write:
It’s worse, Germans elected Hitler. And prior to 1938 Germany’s totalitarianism was pretty mild, with dissidents risking seldom more than a labor camp.
This argument does not apply to Falluja uprising, though.
i guess Mr. Philip did not read Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut. That statistics part was cool, i don’t know if it has much to do with reality.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440180295/102-6581202-7446523?v=glance
PaulJ, if you want to troll, go to Slashdot. This blog is way out of your league.
A lot has been going on _before_ 1998 in Kosovo, when the US media started to take interest, the real war and Serbian war crimes were well before that.
And for those bringing up Chechnya, that is an entirely different case. When the Soviet Union fell apart, many states gained their independence. The Russian leadership for some reason wanted to show they still had some power and wouldn’t let them have their independece and forced it to be part of Russia by force.
When we were bombing Germany, there wasn’t much worry about the war expanding beyond Germany – we were already at war with all of Germany’s allies.
If we bomb civilians in Iraq the way we did in Germany, we’ll lose the sympathies of Pakistan and the entire Arab world, possibly more.
If you want to start WWIII, unify the Arabs by bombing muslim civilians deliberately.
“A lot has been going on _before_ 1998 in Kosovo, when the US media started to take interest, the real war and Serbian war crimes were well before that.”
Whatever Bas Scheffers’ vague “a lot” (no numbers given) means, it does not change the fact that killed rebels, dressed in civilian clothes, can be reused for propaganda purposes as “innocent civilians”.
AIFE, you make me laugh, you realy haven’t a clue, do you? When exactly did you emmigrate to the US?
“A lot” is vague to you? What about the civil war that broke out in June 1991 and lasted until the November 1995 Dayton Peace accord? Not to mention the July 1995 overrunning of the Srebrenica “safe area” by the Serbs, killing over 7000 Bosnian Muslims captives.
Of course you will say these numbers are exagurated. But with no Western country having had significant economic or strategic interest in the region before the war, nor established one after, I find it hard to believe the evidence has been doctored as much as in the current conflict in Iraq. Western powers would have had nothing to gain from doing so, other than keeping people from dying.
No, it probably doesn’t change the “facts” of the incidents you mention, but the Serbs gave themselves the bad guy image, the “thugs” you speak of are guilty only of exploiting that image. That may not justify their actions (I do not know enough about those) but it certainly doesn’t make me feel sorry for the Serbs.
“AIFE, you make me laugh,”
It doesn’t take much to make a fool laugh.
“you realy haven’t a clue, do you? When exactly did you emmigrate to the US?”
I usually ignore ad hominem attacks. Anyway, to answer you question, I emigrated when you were 10 years old, kiddo.
“A lot” is vague to you?
Yes.
“What about the civil war that broke out in June 1991 and lasted until the November 1995 Dayton Peace accord? Not to mention the July 1995 overrunning of the Srebrenica “safe area” by the Serbs, killing over 7000 Bosnian Muslims captives.”
You should learn to remember and understand your own writings. The phrase “a lot” comes from your own sentence, to wit:
“A lot has been going on _before_ 1998 in Kosovo”
In Bas Scheffers’ mind, the 1991-1995 war and Srebrenica are examples of “a lot” going on “in Kosovo”. Learn geography Bas, perhaps you’ll learn that Bosnia and Srebrenica are not in Kosovo. After that you may progress to harder subjects.
Anyway, it was not my intention to make this a thread about Balkans, which Bas somehow feels very strongly about. My point is that killing armed civilians (e.g. in Falluja) has potential for bad PR as the dead can be easily portrayed as unarmed civilians.
Bas,
I think you are the one who has no clue. What was going on in Kosovo (and please don’t insult our intel with messy geography) before 1998 was Albanians killing serb policemen, firebombing serb houses and intimidating serbs and non-albanians to move out of Kosovo. How else do you think their 90% majority happened in Kosovo: through intimidated and forced removal under threat of death many times. This trend was very active in the 1980s and well documented in NY Times of all places. Again, story after story of attrocity against albanians in kosovo came undone when the accusers finally admited to lying. This same mindless land grabbing supported by criminal enterprises (heroin and white slavery) and usual media propaganda pushed the idiotic Albanian insurgency in Macedonia. So, according to you, bad guy image results in continued guilt by association and nullified crimes perpetrated by others. So, unless the Iraqis in Falluja develop the “bad guy” image, we can’t touch them. Otherwise, it’s ok to slaughter them for something they didn’t commit. Additionally, your analysis on Chechnya is very superficial. You clearly lack depth to understand the analogy for urban warfare.
Bas Scheffers: I don’t know why do you accuse me of trolling. I was merely following the pattern of your past comments in this site, where you have been systematically against whatever side the U.S. was on, while supporting/appeasing whoever the U.S. was fighting against (including your classic remark “terrorists will leave you alone if you leave them alone”, which you wrote in the entry about the spanish elections). So when I saw you attacking the side bombed by the U.S. in the bosnian war, I couldn’t help but think that it was a slip-up on your part. After all, if Noam Chomsky came out tomorrow in favor of a U.S. military intervention anywhere in the world, we’d all think that he had lost it, wouldn’t we?
FWIW, I do think that the U.S. intervention against the serbians in the mid-90s was a good thing, and Sarajevo inhabitants, in particular, owe a debt of gratitude to the american pilots who bombed the serbian artillery positions surrounding the city. But then again, I do not think that the U.S. is the Great Satan, as Mr. Scheffers’ friends (the ones that leave him alone) do.
Philip,
There is a lot of evidence that the WWII bombing of Germany (and the German bombing of England similarly) had the opposite effect of it’s intended purpose. The effect of the bombing was to entrench German workers even harder to fight.
Also, when comparing WWII battles of Europe and Japan to Iraq and Afganistan try to remember that Afganistan and Iraq do not have a long hisotry as nation-states. Their traditions are fiercely tribal so a war against a nation is not going to work unless, of course, we have the moral imparity that it would be a good thing to bomb Iraq and Afganistan into parking lots. That’s the only option to “win” at this point.
So, AIFE, older and wiser? Well, the smug remark only goes to prove that you weren’t around Europe in the early 90s when European UN soldiers were trying their best to keep the peace in the region and the situation was headline news here every day. And yes, I know my geography. The balkan area has been hotbed of conflict for centuries and that is where the problems in Kosovo come from. It was only a matter of time before that country got involved again as well.
PaulJ, you are wrong. I do not automaticaly oppose any military action by the US. If you want a quick list of those actions I support: War of Independence, Civil War, WWII (both theatres), Korea (Except for the overdoing it and ticking off the Chinese part), 1991 Gulf War, Somalia (The protecting UN Aid distribution part, not trying to capture the rebel leaders without enough effort and ruining it for everyone, then blaming the UN), Afghanistan and Kosovo. And there will probably be others that I am not aware of or have otherwise failed to mention now.
People that “leave [me] alone” are not automaticaly my friends. Just because someone does not question my views in public does not mean they support them. Nor have I ever said the US is “the Great Satan”, those are your words, and it certainly doesn’t mean “the ones” not attacking my views do. I assume you were a great fan of Dubya’s “you are either with us or against us” speech?
Victor, what does Chechnya have to do with “urban warfare”? The pictures on my TV and stories in my news papers show the Russians shelling and bombing civilian filled cities into rubble, WWII style, without ever entering the city itself.
Why is it that whenever I make a point of showing that the side named as “the good guys” in this blog doesn’t really have a squeeky clean slate of their own do my words get twisted into saying that I support “the bad guys” and the “good guys” are nothing but evil? Where two fight, there are two to blame. This is true in probably 99% of conflicts between two countries or factions.
Similarly, when I say I understand why someone takes up arms, it does in no way mean I support or approve of their actions. If you really had read my previous posts you would have learned by now that I oppose any violence other than eliminating a direct and immediate threat. The best way to perpetuate violence is to try and stop it with violence.
Here’s a message for all you living in a romantic, black and white, Hollywood-esque good vs. evil world. The world doesn’t work that way.
How many years ago was it that Sadam was the good guy? Or the Russians evil and the Taliban good?
So, AIFE, older and wiser? Well, the smug remark only goes to prove that you weren’t around Europe in the early 90s when European UN soldiers were trying their best to keep the peace in the region and the situation was headline news here every day. And yes, I know my geography. The balkan area has been hotbed of conflict for centuries and that is where the problems in Kosovo come from. It was only a matter of time before that country got involved again as well.
PaulJ, you are wrong. I do not automaticaly oppose any military action by the US. If you want a quick list of those actions I support: War of Independence, Civil War, WWII (both theatres), Korea (Except for the overdoing it and ticking off the Chinese part), 1991 Gulf War, Somalia (The protecting UN Aid distribution part, not trying to capture the rebel leaders without enough effort and ruining it for everyone, then blaming the UN), Afghanistan and Kosovo. And there will probably be others that I am not aware of or have otherwise failed to mention now.
People that “leave [me] alone” are not automaticaly my friends. Just because someone does not question my views in public does not mean they support them. Nor have I ever said the US is “the Great Satan”, those are your words, and it certainly doesn’t mean “the ones” not attacking my views do. I assume you were a great fan of Dubya’s “you are either with us or against us” speech?
Victor, what does Chechnya have to do with “urban warfare”? The pictures on my TV and stories in my news papers show the Russians shelling and bombing civilian filled cities into rubble, WWII style, without ever entering the city itself.
Why is it that whenever I make a point of showing that the side named as “the good guys” in this blog doesn’t really have a squeeky clean slate of their own do my words get twisted into saying that I support “the bad guys” and the “good guys” are nothing but evil? Where two fight, there are two to blame. This is true in probably 99% of conflicts between two countries or factions.
Similarly, when I say I understand why someone takes up arms, it does in no way mean I support or approve of their actions. If you really had read my previous posts you would have learned by now that I oppose any violence other than eliminating a direct and immediate threat. The best way to perpetuate violence is to try and stop it with violence.
Here’s a message for all you living in a romantic, black and white, Hollywood-esque good vs. evil world. The world doesn’t work that way.
How many years ago was it that Sadam was the good guy? Or the Russians evil and the Taliban good?
So, AIFE, older and wiser? Well, the smug remark only goes to prove that you weren’t around Europe in the early 90s when European UN soldiers were trying their best to keep the peace in the region and the situation was headline news here every day. And yes, I know my geography. The balkan area has been hotbed of conflict for centuries and that is where the problems in Kosovo come from. It was only a matter of time before that country got involved again as well.
PaulJ, you are wrong. I do not automaticaly oppose any military action by the US. If you want a quick list of those actions I support: War of Independence, Civil War, WWII (both theatres), Korea (Except for the overdoing it and ticking off the Chinese part), 1991 Gulf War, Somalia (The protecting UN Aid distribution part, not trying to capture the rebel leaders without enough effort and ruining it for everyone, then blaming the UN), Afghanistan and Kosovo. And there will probably be others that I am not aware of or have otherwise failed to mention now.
People that “leave [me] alone” are not automaticaly my friends. Just because someone does not question my views in public does not mean they support them. Nor have I ever said the US is “the Great Satan”, those are your words, and it certainly doesn’t mean “the ones” not attacking my views do. I assume you were a great fan of Dubya’s “you are either with us or against us” speech?
Victor, what does Chechnya have to do with “urban warfare”? The pictures on my TV and stories in my news papers show the Russians shelling and bombing civilian filled cities into rubble, WWII style, without ever entering the city itself.
Why is it that whenever I make a point of showing that the side named as “the good guys” in this blog doesn’t really have a squeeky clean slate of their own do my words get twisted into saying that I support “the bad guys” and the “good guys” are nothing but evil? Where two fight, there are two to blame. This is true in probably 99% of conflicts between two countries or factions.
Similarly, when I say I understand why someone takes up arms, it does in no way mean I support or approve of their actions. If you really had read my previous posts you would have learned by now that I oppose any violence other than eliminating a direct and immediate threat. The best way to perpetuate violence is to try and stop it with violence.
Here’s a message for all you living in a romantic, black and white, Hollywood-esque good vs. evil world. The world doesn’t work that way.
How many years ago was it that Sadam was the good guy? Or the Russians evil and the Taliban good?
“And yes, I know my geography”
Bear in mind, this is a public debate, you may claim anything you want regarding your knowledge of geography, but onlookers can see that you claimed Bosnia and Srebrenica as examples of “a lot” going on “in Kosovo” and make their own judgement accordingly.
So I said Kosovo where I should have said “the balkans”. So sue me. So far you haven’t come up with any arguments to counter the greater scope of my claims, only where I got details slightly wrong.
It’s great to see you picked up one trait from your adoptive Americans, if you can’t win a political debate with arguments, resort to character assassination. Pathetic. At least I have the guts to stand behind my words with a real identity for all the world to see.
PS: Sorry for the tripple post, the first two times my proxy returned that it was unable to contact the server. Seems that it could for the POST, just not for the redirect.
“So sue me.”
Why bother? Like I said, it was a public debate and I am perfectly happy to let onlookers judge for themselves.
AIFE, aside from your last several posts where you attempted (ineffectively) to look like a really smart guy, you seemed to be making a point.
If I get it, then your point is that it is possible for the ‘bad guys’ to act like ‘good guys’ and then make the ‘real good guys’ look bad. Hmmm… It is unfortunate that the folks that (seemingly in your own experience) are cited by you as the ‘real good guys’ are generally believed to be war criminals. And slamming the ‘liberal media’, etc… won’t buy you a lot of room here, the evidence is pretty damming.
WHat would be pretty astonishing at this point would be for you to attempt to see the other side of the coin, etc… and realize that there really are ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ and ‘good guys gone bad’, etc…. on both sides of any conflict. Unless we are all able to rise to a higher level we all will be doomed to wars of retribution forever.
“And slamming the ‘liberal media’, etc…”
‘liberal media’ are your words, not mine. May I suggest that you get out of the insinuation business?
grate i like it
grate i like it
nice
i’m in shock
The blog is very useful.