Military's interaction with foreign kids will be long remembered
published 12/28/05
This is a story about children in foreign lands and how Americans interact with them. The first part is from ABC News.
A little boy was brought to the station where the paramedics were working in a remote valley in Kashmir. He was lifeless in his father’s arms, and the paramedics from New York City could not even find a vein to start an IV due to his dehydration.
They started an IV into his shin, while the child showed no indication that anyone had touched him. A half hour later, the child was crying and protesting the strange men speaking a strange tongue who were sticking needles into his arm. As he tried to escape the strange (heat-retaining) blankets to get to his father, these same strange men would not let him. But he could clearly see his father, who had a smile on his face as he cried tears of joy. His son was clearly going to live.
Now that child did not understand the situation he was in, but it is clear that when he grows up, his father will see to it that he knows what happened.
He will know who exactly saved his life after he got sick with double pneumonia and became severely dehydrated. The father had already lost his wife and daughter to the earthquake, and his joy at seeing his son survive was very obvious and heart warming.
Another story involving children and American men came from the pages of the Asheville Citizen-Times, a story about U.S. troops interacting with Iraqi children. That article stated: “Soldiers generally believe the presence of children lowers the chance of enemy attack.” To believe such a thing, and to then go to where children are, would indicate that the soldiers are willing to use the children as human shields. I sincerely hope this is wrong.
Children are generally delightful, and I am sure that is true no matter what part of the world they come from. In the article called “Winning Small Hearts and Minds in Iraq” the soldiers were giving candy and toys to the children in Iraq. At first, the children reacted with fear to their presence, which in light of the fact that they are in a war zone, would be the normal and expected response. They soon warmed up to the men, and it appears all had a good time.
However, it was not prudent on the part of the soldiers to reduce the children’s fear of getting close to U.S. troops. It puts them at risk, since there are 80 to 100 attacks per day against U.S. troops in Iraq. (This is the overwhelming majority of attacks, by the way, even though we hear more about the attacks against civilians, which result in a higher death toll.) One teacher at this school stated very plainly: her primary concern was the sewers. It matters not if the children get candy and trinkets if they get sick from the unclean water and lack of sanitation.
The soldiers and their families gathered the toys and the candies that were handed out that day. I applaud them for trying to brighten the children’s lives. However, I do not feel it is prudent or safe (at this time) for them to personally hand out these items or interact with the children. They could certainly place the items in boxes with a note saying they are from the Americans, and drop the boxes off with the teachers.
I have heard many painful stories of children around U.S. troops who have fallen victim to the violence overwhelming Iraq at this time. The fact that they are near U.S. troops marks them as targets for the terrorists. Recently there was a report of a terrorist bombing directed toward U.S. troops handing out toys to children in a hospital in central Iraq.
We must do everything possible to keep these children alive and provide them with a future. I would like to see our U.S. Congress, particularly Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., who serves on the U.S. Armed Services Committee, redirect our troops’ efforts in Iraq. The troops should focus on providing security, clean water, sewers, electricity and medical services in Iraq, all of which are in dire need of improvement.
They can collect and distribute toys and candy for children, but their interaction with the children should be limited to providing direct medical care only in the event of an emergency. Playing with the children, and interacting with the children, will have to wait until the day when peace comes to Iraq.
And when these children grow up, their parents will see to it that they understand and remember what happened when they were too young to understand.
Link to publication.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Saturday, December 24, 2005
About Zarqawi's letters
Isn't it rather odd that the US military in Iraq can intercept a letter reportedly to Zarqawi, yet they cannot find Zarqawi himself?
And isn't this the third or fourth letter intercepted? How come they seem to mirror Mr. Bush's ominous talking points about Iraq?
What ever happened to that Pentagon "Office of Strategic Influence" anyway? Well, here's what Mr. Rumsfeld had to say about it:
"And then there was the Office of Strategic Influence. You may recall that. And 'oh my goodness gracious isn't that terrible, Henny Penny the sky is going to fall.' I went down that next day and said fine, if you want to savage this thing fine I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have."
Indeed, I think he has.
And isn't this the third or fourth letter intercepted? How come they seem to mirror Mr. Bush's ominous talking points about Iraq?
What ever happened to that Pentagon "Office of Strategic Influence" anyway? Well, here's what Mr. Rumsfeld had to say about it:
"And then there was the Office of Strategic Influence. You may recall that. And 'oh my goodness gracious isn't that terrible, Henny Penny the sky is going to fall.' I went down that next day and said fine, if you want to savage this thing fine I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have."
Indeed, I think he has.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Concerning Zarqawi's letters (letter to the editor)
Isn't it rather odd that the US military in Iraq can intercept a letter reportedly to Zarqawi, yet they cannot find Zarqawi himself?
And isn't this the third or fourth letter intercepted? How come they seem to mirror Mr. Bush's ominous talking points about Iraq?
What ever happened to that Pentagon "Office of Strategic Influence" anyway? Well, here's what Mr. Rumsfeld had to say about it:
"And then there was the Office of Strategic Influence. You may recall that. And 'oh my goodness gracious isn't that terrible, Henny Penny the sky is going to fall.' I went down that next day and said fine, if you want to savage this thing fine I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have."
Indeed, I think he has.
And isn't this the third or fourth letter intercepted? How come they seem to mirror Mr. Bush's ominous talking points about Iraq?
What ever happened to that Pentagon "Office of Strategic Influence" anyway? Well, here's what Mr. Rumsfeld had to say about it:
"And then there was the Office of Strategic Influence. You may recall that. And 'oh my goodness gracious isn't that terrible, Henny Penny the sky is going to fall.' I went down that next day and said fine, if you want to savage this thing fine I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have."
Indeed, I think he has.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Letter to Christian Science Monitor
John Hughes claims in his article that "...people must decide whether Bush, in the face of all this opinion, was lying and really knew Hussein did not have these weapons, or whether he believed, on the basis of overwhelming opinion at the time (which ultimately proved to be wrong), that the threat was real."
It certainly was a popular position at the time (and now) that "overwhelming opinion" said that Iraq had WMDs, but this most certainly not the case outside the USA, then or now.
I work as a pediatric audiologist in North Carolina, and I used my six year old notebook computer and an AOL connection to determine that there were no nuclear WMDs in Iraq by October 2002. Furthermore, if there were chemical or biological weapons there (which was plausible) there was certainly no means for Saddam to deliver them to the USA, hence no threat. I reached these conclusions by reading widely from around the world, and researching available evidence.
If I could do this, so could the White House and the US Congress. My conclusion is that they are either liars or amazingly gullible fools.
Here is some memorable evidence I uncovered:
Rice and Powell both publicly stated in early 2001 that Saddam was contained and not a threat.
Many on the UN Security Council did not believe that Iraq was a threat.
There had been no WMDs uncovered in Iraq since 1991.
All prior WMDs uncovered in Iraq were done so with the assistance of Iraqi weapons and intelligence experts.
In 1998, the UN weapons inspectors left because Clinton was going to start bombing Iraq, not because Saddam kicked them out. The UN weapons inspections had been compromised by political agendas back here in the USA which Clinton signed on to.
There was no concrete evidence that Saddam had restarted his nuclear weapons program since 1998, and there was no nuclear weapons program in 1998.
There were credible former UN weapons inspectors (notable Ritter) claiming that Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
A working connection between Saddam and bin Laden defied common sense.
After October 2002, more evidence emerged:
UN weapons inspectors numbered in the hundreds were on the ground and were finding nothing of significance.
With the exception of Kuwait and Israel, Iraq's neighboring countries did not feel Iraq was a threat and did not want a war started there in Iraq. If Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and several other middle eastern countries did not feel a threat, how could there possibly be a threat to the USA or Europe? Again, it defied common sense.
Powell's presentation at the UN was based on circumstantial evidence. Almost no one at the UN bought it. Many sources outside the USA discredited what he had to say immediately afterwards. This mainly went unreported in the US media.
Saddam publicly stated on British TV that he had no WMDs and no connections to bin Laden. He said if he did have a connection, he would be proud to announce it. This went unreported in the US media.
Tens of millions of people around the world demonstrated against this war, which was unprecedented in history. With a few minor exceptions, this was mainly ignored in the US media. I saw no real attempt to have a discussion with these protestors as to why they were objecting to this war. There was no real attempt to bring in dissenting voices of some authority into the mainstream of discussion. Rather, they were often ridiculed and dismissed, both in the media and by US officials.
With these above mentioned events going on in the world, it was clear to me that mainstream media in the USA, particularly television, was not to be trusted.
There was growing and growing evidence in 2003 that there were no WMDs in Iraq. After the war started, I remember sending an emotional letter to one of my Senators, John Edwards, saying "I hope you find those WMDs in Iraq so you can justify this illegal and immoral war."
I knew he would not. I knew the nuclear WMDs were not there, and quite likely there were no biological or chemical ones either. I predicted, and I sincerely hope I am someday proven wrong, that Iraq would melt down into a civil war that will spread to a regional war engulfing the entire middle east. I would be very happy to be wrong about something concerning this war. I do not buy that "everyone thought" that Iraq had WMDs because that is simply not true, particularly in the world at large. I do not believe that this administration and the prior US Congress could not figure this out. If that premise is true, then they are fools. And if they did figure it out, then they are tools (liars).
Fools or tools.... you pick. Either way, we need to get them out of office and elect people who are both intelligent and honest. I do hope you publish this to counter the prevailing position that "overwhelming opinion" around the world said that Iraq had WMDs. That was delusional then, and now.
They did not publish my letter.
It certainly was a popular position at the time (and now) that "overwhelming opinion" said that Iraq had WMDs, but this most certainly not the case outside the USA, then or now.
I work as a pediatric audiologist in North Carolina, and I used my six year old notebook computer and an AOL connection to determine that there were no nuclear WMDs in Iraq by October 2002. Furthermore, if there were chemical or biological weapons there (which was plausible) there was certainly no means for Saddam to deliver them to the USA, hence no threat. I reached these conclusions by reading widely from around the world, and researching available evidence.
If I could do this, so could the White House and the US Congress. My conclusion is that they are either liars or amazingly gullible fools.
Here is some memorable evidence I uncovered:
Rice and Powell both publicly stated in early 2001 that Saddam was contained and not a threat.
Many on the UN Security Council did not believe that Iraq was a threat.
There had been no WMDs uncovered in Iraq since 1991.
All prior WMDs uncovered in Iraq were done so with the assistance of Iraqi weapons and intelligence experts.
In 1998, the UN weapons inspectors left because Clinton was going to start bombing Iraq, not because Saddam kicked them out. The UN weapons inspections had been compromised by political agendas back here in the USA which Clinton signed on to.
There was no concrete evidence that Saddam had restarted his nuclear weapons program since 1998, and there was no nuclear weapons program in 1998.
There were credible former UN weapons inspectors (notable Ritter) claiming that Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
A working connection between Saddam and bin Laden defied common sense.
After October 2002, more evidence emerged:
UN weapons inspectors numbered in the hundreds were on the ground and were finding nothing of significance.
With the exception of Kuwait and Israel, Iraq's neighboring countries did not feel Iraq was a threat and did not want a war started there in Iraq. If Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and several other middle eastern countries did not feel a threat, how could there possibly be a threat to the USA or Europe? Again, it defied common sense.
Powell's presentation at the UN was based on circumstantial evidence. Almost no one at the UN bought it. Many sources outside the USA discredited what he had to say immediately afterwards. This mainly went unreported in the US media.
Saddam publicly stated on British TV that he had no WMDs and no connections to bin Laden. He said if he did have a connection, he would be proud to announce it. This went unreported in the US media.
Tens of millions of people around the world demonstrated against this war, which was unprecedented in history. With a few minor exceptions, this was mainly ignored in the US media. I saw no real attempt to have a discussion with these protestors as to why they were objecting to this war. There was no real attempt to bring in dissenting voices of some authority into the mainstream of discussion. Rather, they were often ridiculed and dismissed, both in the media and by US officials.
With these above mentioned events going on in the world, it was clear to me that mainstream media in the USA, particularly television, was not to be trusted.
There was growing and growing evidence in 2003 that there were no WMDs in Iraq. After the war started, I remember sending an emotional letter to one of my Senators, John Edwards, saying "I hope you find those WMDs in Iraq so you can justify this illegal and immoral war."
I knew he would not. I knew the nuclear WMDs were not there, and quite likely there were no biological or chemical ones either. I predicted, and I sincerely hope I am someday proven wrong, that Iraq would melt down into a civil war that will spread to a regional war engulfing the entire middle east. I would be very happy to be wrong about something concerning this war. I do not buy that "everyone thought" that Iraq had WMDs because that is simply not true, particularly in the world at large. I do not believe that this administration and the prior US Congress could not figure this out. If that premise is true, then they are fools. And if they did figure it out, then they are tools (liars).
Fools or tools.... you pick. Either way, we need to get them out of office and elect people who are both intelligent and honest. I do hope you publish this to counter the prevailing position that "overwhelming opinion" around the world said that Iraq had WMDs. That was delusional then, and now.
They did not publish my letter.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Information on Progressive Democrats of America
How is PDA Different From DFA (Democracy For America), MoveOn, Progressive Majority, etc?
This question is asked so many times that we thought we’d give you some talking points to help answer the question.
PDA is the only group that coordinates with progressive leaders on the hill. By organizing on a Congressional District model, PDA serves as the grassroots base for the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC).
PDA is the only group organizing progressives within the DNC.
PDA is the only group that works through our inside/outside strategy to move social movements into the political process of the Democratic Party.
PDA works on state party reform by supporting progressive activists to gain voice and vote within their state party structure and by embracing the Progressive Caucus model within the Democratic Party’s State Committee.
PDA is accountable to no one except the grassroots who support us. We rely on donations from grassroots “Sustainers” to support our work. Please go here to contribute.
More information on Progressive Democrats of America here.
PDA is not a click-and-join organization. We are about feet on the street and heat in the street.
“Who is left to open the eyes of the country – to tell Americans what is happening? There is no one left, none but all of us.” Bill Moyers 10/1/05
This question is asked so many times that we thought we’d give you some talking points to help answer the question.
PDA is the only group that coordinates with progressive leaders on the hill. By organizing on a Congressional District model, PDA serves as the grassroots base for the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC).
PDA is the only group organizing progressives within the DNC.
PDA is the only group that works through our inside/outside strategy to move social movements into the political process of the Democratic Party.
PDA works on state party reform by supporting progressive activists to gain voice and vote within their state party structure and by embracing the Progressive Caucus model within the Democratic Party’s State Committee.
PDA is accountable to no one except the grassroots who support us. We rely on donations from grassroots “Sustainers” to support our work. Please go here to contribute.
More information on Progressive Democrats of America here.
PDA is not a click-and-join organization. We are about feet on the street and heat in the street.
“Who is left to open the eyes of the country – to tell Americans what is happening? There is no one left, none but all of us.” Bill Moyers 10/1/05
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Bush makes some comments
From Bush's comments on 12/19/05
BUSH: "If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone."
I recommend we stop provoking them and NOT leave them alone. Talk to them, study them, try to understand what they are about and try to anticipate what they might try next. As soon as they commit a crime, arrest them, try them, and if guilty, lock them up for life. Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime.
BUSH: "September the 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them."
This ignores the reality that you and former US officials, had been provoking them for decades.
BUSH: "My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them."
No, you create terrorists by killing and harming innocents. You invite terrorism by ignoring this reality and showing the world you do not care.
BUSH (referring to terrorists): "fear the rise of a democratic Iraq."
So how come they called a truce for the election?
BUSH: "I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much -- but tell me he loved being a soldier, he believed in his mission, and, Mr. President, finish the job."
I want to see you publicly encourage your daughters to serve in Iraq.
BUSH: "If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone."
I recommend we stop provoking them and NOT leave them alone. Talk to them, study them, try to understand what they are about and try to anticipate what they might try next. As soon as they commit a crime, arrest them, try them, and if guilty, lock them up for life. Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime.
BUSH: "September the 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them."
This ignores the reality that you and former US officials, had been provoking them for decades.
BUSH: "My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them."
No, you create terrorists by killing and harming innocents. You invite terrorism by ignoring this reality and showing the world you do not care.
BUSH (referring to terrorists): "fear the rise of a democratic Iraq."
So how come they called a truce for the election?
BUSH: "I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much -- but tell me he loved being a soldier, he believed in his mission, and, Mr. President, finish the job."
I want to see you publicly encourage your daughters to serve in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)