Help unravel these fallacies

[silverweb]

A good friend sent me the following essay today, which has been hailed by her and many others (judging from the number of comments on the multiple forwards) as the "clearest thinking" they've seen on the Iraq situation. Even in my cursory first reading, I spotted a number of errors and fallacies -- and I'd like your input in responding.

The essay is long and somewhat convoluted, and I have limited time to dig into it right now with my crazy work schedule. Any and all contributions you can make to my rebuttal are appreciated. Thanks in advance!



==========

Subject: This WAR is for REAL

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocation's by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made
no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see
http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm).

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept
the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.

Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying.

We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.

These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred
corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense.

If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.

Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.

Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim
terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into all non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or
we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of
the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history
books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be
fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too.

There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

Charles B. Funk
Philadelphia, PA

[kiki]

1. "Why were we attacked?"

"Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms."

Stopped reading after this point. I imagine Charles B. Funk personally asked each and every terrorist, dead or alive, what their reasons were, and they all said "ooh, we're just jealous".

Same old happy horseshit; anyone who would swallow this probably isn't going to listen to any kind of reasoned argument.

[meegbear]

2. I gave up there too ...

Everything from there is RW rhetoric.

[OneBlueSky]

3. HUGE . . . crock . . . of . . . shit . . .

don't waste your time responding . . . it's not worth the effort . . .

[elehhhhna]

4. Re; #4 Islam's one fifth to one quarter and growing.

So since 50% of the worlds pop. believes Jesus was at least a prophet, could we all SHUT UP and stop killing each other? Whaddaya say we do it for the honor & memory of BabyJ.

[amjfv]

5. Wow!

The first sentence is blatant nonesense. Terrorists do not pose a threat to the existence of the US. They can kill Americans, but suggesting that terrorism is a more serious threat that the Cold War (with it's threat of thermonuclear war) or the Nazis or Japanese during WWII (who actually succeeded in killing half a million Americans between then (?) to say nothing of many millions of Russians, Chinese, Poles, Jews etc) is the act of a historical illiterate.

I'll read some more of it for kicks, but I doubt it's worth taking seriously.

[Emit]

6. This is one of those internet letters that was circulating before

the (s)election. In your post, who is Charles B. Funk? I tried to find the original author and this (posted below) is the earliest post of that letter I could find. If you google the first few lines, you can see it has been around for a while. Just for info and context, this was apparently written by an attorney as a letter to his sons prior to the (s)election, according to several blogsites:

Quote:
Retired attorney sends 'wakeup message' in letter to sons, U.S.

ROCKPORT PILOT EDITORIAL/OPINION PAGE
Wednesday, July 28, 2004

by
Mike Probst
Editor & Publisher

Today's column is a complete email I received from my brother. It's long, but a good read. Your political preference matters not - but I hope you'll read this. It's scary, but I believe there's truth in what he is saying. We free Americans want to stay free - for our grandchildren and theirs.

The following was reportedly written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004:

A Letter to My Sons

Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,

As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer-term perspective fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to. To be sure you understand this is not politically flavored, I will tell you since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre-WWII and WWII (1933 - 1945), up to and including our present President, I have, without exception, supported our Presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt; President Truman - Korean War (1950); President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs (1961); President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961); eight presidents (five Republican and four Democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991); President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). So be sure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point.

Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics.

When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September, 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).


Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the Presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.


<<snip>>


I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way we can lose. I believe after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.

Love,
Dad
Here's the link--scroll down about halfway thru a bunch of stuff:
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/book04q3.htm

[Village Idiot]

7. This seems to be a large batch of CRAP...

Explanations of bombings:

1 - U.S. admits deposed Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlevi to the U.S., thus incurring the wrath of protesters, 500 of whom took over the embassy.

2 - U.S aids Israel in invading Lebanon - 1982.

3 - U.S. and Libya clash over navigational rights in the Gulf of Sidra, also U.S. bombings in Tripoli and Benghazi kill 37 Libyans.

4 - U.S.'s continued support for Israeli occupation, refusal to get troops out of Saudi Arabia, etc. Also, look at the testimony of convicted bomber Emad Salem, who insists that the FBI had foreknowledge of and were involved in the plot.

5 - See #4.

6, 7 - See #5, #3.

8 - Unexplained - either done by Palis as a response to Israeli-US aggression in the Middle East, or (AFB theory) perpetrated by Israel itself, similar to 1967 USS Liberty incident. Strange that the U.S. declined to provide Yemeni authorities with ANY information regarding this attack...stranger still, the lone videotape of the attack seems to have been "altered..."

9 - MIHOP.

10 - see #9.

[XemaSab]

8. There are factual problems here

but you might try an attack based on the neocon premise that US global domination is contingent on having troops in every country in the world.

From everything I've read, the terrorists don't hate us for our freedoms, but for our hubris. They don't like our culture, they think we are secular devils, and they don't appreciate our forcibly exporting our culture to their holy lands.

I would ask the sender of the note what they know about military power abroad, and why they think we need a permanant occupying force in the middle east? And if they give you circular shit like "we need more troops to keep a handle on nations like Iraq so we can protect Kuwait/oil/troops already in the region" ask them why they think whatever needs protecting in the first place. If they manage to cook up a good reason for having large numbers of troops in the middle east (unlikely), ask why we have so many troops in germany, italy, or japan. Exploit a semi-xenophobic angle, and ask why these rich countries need protection from us while our own border goes underprotected.

Ask them how they would feel if other countries had bases here.

Try to destroy the neocon premise of this article, that US domination of the globe means the US dominating every single region of the globe.

[amjfv]

9. Ah, yes, the usual claptrap about how we must...

...stop being kind and gentle to the terrorists. Interestingly enough I recently came across the following article, written by John Derbyshire of the national review. This is apparently what the Republicans really want:

To put this in it's proper context, I found the article below by klicking through a link on the following sentence. (Derbyshire does not publicly state that he thinks his alternate timeline would be a good thing in the article itself):

I support the war on terror; would, in fact, support a much more vigorous and ruthless one.

What follows is both long and appaling:

Back in the 1940s the sci-fi writers Lyon Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt discovered how to travel into alternate universes by reciting the logical axioms that underlie the structure of those universes. They called this mode of transportation the "syllogismobile." After some months' intensive study of the work of these pioneers, I have been able to recreate the syllogismobile for myself, and recently used it to visit an alternate universe in which the U.S.A. has been conducting a real war on terror. Here are some cuttings I brought back from newspapers in that world.


Cairo, Egypt; Sept. 12. The U.S. government has refused to issue an apology for the explosion in Alexandria, Egypt this month. The Department of Defense acknowledges that the explosion, which destroyed a large office building, killing several hundred workers, was caused by a U.S. submarine-launched cruise missile. The D.o.D. claims that the building was being used by the Al-Jazeera TV station. Since their expulsion from Qatar in March 2002, Al-Jazeera have been attempting to broadcast from various locations around the Arab world. However, the broadcasts have always ended after a day or so, usually following a U.S. strike of the type seen last week in Alexandria. Said the D.o.D. statement issued this morning: "We are at war. Al-Jazeera broadcast enemy propaganda. Any place they broadcast from is an enemy emplacement, and therefore a legitimate target. While we regret collateral loss of life, this war must be fought and won. We strongly recommend that owners of real estate in the Arab world exercise extreme caution in renting out their properties."

Los Angeles, Calif.; Sept. 12. A pool-maintenance contractor found to have employed illegal aliens on his work crews has been sentenced to four years in jail and a fine of $250,000 in Los Angeles federal court. The crime originally came to light when a Spanish-speaking homeowner who had engaged the contractor overheard two workers discussing their wages, which were far below the usual rate for this kind of work. Six of the workers were subsequently discovered, after background checks, to be Mexican nationals who had entered the U.S. illegally. They were at once deported in accordance with the strict new rules established by Congress after 9/11, with lifetime bans on reentry for themselves and their family members. Attorneys for the contractor have said they will appeal.

Newark, N.J.; Sept 12. The 200-odd members of the Saudi royal family in detention here are to be granted U.S. residence after all. These Saudis — 43 royal princes, together with their families and servants — have been held in custody since their flight from Saudi Arabia last year, following the Islamist uprising in that country. The INS has declared them "thoroughly vetted," and the administration has approved a waiver to the post-9/11 rules that exclude all Saudi nationals from the U.S. "They have nowhere else to go," explained the INS commissioner. "And after all, it's our fault their monarchy lasted as long as it did."

Detroit, Mich.; Sept 12. The last sports-utility vehicle came off the production line over a year ago, but the huge backlog of unsold SUVs is still causing headaches for auto manufacturers. GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner yesterday announced that the company's remaining inventories of SUVs will be sold to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to be used for landfill. A spokesman for the Department of Energy welcomed the announcement, adding: "With gas prices stabilizing at the pump now around eight dollars a gallon, we have finally broken the long-ingrained American conviction that this nation has a God-given right to cheap gasoline. We have also broken the dependence on foreign oil entailed by that conviction."

Atlanta, Ga.; Alaska; Sept. 13. The Al-Hamr Mosque in central Atlanta as been stripped of its tax-exempt status and ordered to pay business and property back taxes from September 11, 2001. This follows the discovery that the imam of the mosque, Ahmad Hasan Al-Bakr, had been preaching jihad (holy war) against "Zionists and infidels" for some years prior to the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. Imam Al-Bakr, a U.S. citizen, protested in an Atlanta Journal op-ed yesterday that he has preached no jihad since the attacks. U.S. Attorney General Bill Pryor, however, in a rebuttal op-ed, has argued that this is insufficient defense under the terms of the Incitement to Terrorism Act of 2001. The act states that any church, temple, mosque, or other place or worship known to have given aid or comfort to the nation's enemies must submit to a lengthy and expensive federal recertification process before it can again claim tax exemption on religious grounds.

Washington, D.C.; Sept 13. The administration continues to suffer fallout from the president's remarks yesterday about the just-completed southern border zone. Responding to Mexican President Vicente Fox's criticism Wednesday that the watch-towers along the zone resemble the Iron Curtain, President Bush had replied: "We'll do what's best for our country, and to hell with what anyone else thinks." President Fox, in an appearance on Mexican television last night, angrily characterized Bush's words as "insensitive" and "unneighborly." There has so far been no response from the White House. Meanwhile a new controversy has erupted following a Fox News interview with Homeland Security chief Rudolph Giuliani. Asked how the U.S. should respond if anyone were to be killed while attempting to enter the country across the border minefields, Giuliani replied: "Oh, we'll bag up the bits and pieces and toss 'em back over the fence." The Mexican ambassador this morning lodged a "very strong protest" with the State Department, calling Giuliani's remarks "cruel" and "inhuman."

Gaza, Sept. 13. A funeral procession for slain Hamas leader Abdul Al-Jaffara seemed about to turn into an angry demonstration when it was suddenly attacked by Israeli planes firing rockets and dropping napalm. The area of the demonstration is still, several hours after the event, "a sea of flames," and there has been no estimate of fatalities, though estimates run as high as a thousand. This was the first attempt at a large public demonstration in Palestinian territories since the riots that followed the funeral of slain terrorist leader Yasser Arafat in 2001, which drew a similar Israeli response, with more than 2,000 reported dead. A spokesman for the Israeli government declared after that event that: "Demonstrations in support of terrorism are acts of war. That is clearly implicit in the phrase 'war on terror'." President Bush later said he was in "full agreement" with this policy.

London, England; Sept. 15. Britain's highest court has ruled that the suit against the British government by relatives of the late Gerry Adams has "no merit" and will not be permitted to proceed. Mr. Adams was shot to death by British soldiers in Belfast last year, along with several of his colleagues in the now-banned Sinn Féin party. The High Court ruled that the shooting fell within the terms of engagement as defined by the War On Terror Act of 2001, since Mr. Adams's involvement with terrorist activity was well documented. The relatives have said they will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Albuquerque, N.M.; Sept. 15. A passenger on a United flight from Houston to Los Angeles was shot dead by flight attendants over New Mexico this morning. The passenger, a Moroccan businessman, had complained loudly of having been delayed at the boarding gate because of "profiling" by security personnel. Half an hour into the flight he began cursing at the cabin staff in mixed English and Arabic, referring to the United States as a "racist" and "terrorist" nation. Then he jumped from his seat and began walking briskly forward toward the flight cabin. When an attendant ordered him to stop, he paid no attention. The attendant, together with a colleague, opened fire with the sidearms issued to all flight attendants since 9/11. The passenger was declared dead at Albuquerque airport, where the plane made an emergency landing. A United spokesman praised the actions of the flight attendants, who, he said, had done "exactly the right thing." Asked whether the passenger, who was of Middle Eastern appearance, had indeed been profiled by United staff at the Houston departure gate, the spokesman replied: "Of course. That's what our security people are trained to do."

Paris, France; Sept. 16. At an emergency meeting in their new Paris headquarters, the Security Council of the United Nations has passed a resolution "unequivocally condemning" the U.S. mining of Iranian harbors, the interdiction of Iranian land and air traffic, and the cross-border raids into Iranian territory by U.S. forces. The resolution described these actions as "gross violations of Iranian sovereignty." Asked for comment, an administration spokesman replied that since U.S. withdrawal from the U.N. last year, that body has no authority over U.S. actions. He reiterated the U.S. position that we shall cease all offensive actions against Iran and provide full mine-sweeping services to Iran at reasonable fees, just as soon as the Iranian government has thrown open to unrestricted U.S. access all remaining sites — most are believed to be buried deep under Iranian cities — suspected in the development of nuclear weapons technology.

Seoul, Korea; Sept 16. The Korean government has announced that it will accept the U.S. offer of aid for reconstruction of the country's north and rehabilitation of refugees. In Washington, a State Department spokesman welcomed the announcement, and predicted that further steps towards reconciliation between the U.S. and Korea will be forthcoming. One Seoul newspaper has run an unsourced report that the Korean government may, contrary to earlier declarations, permit official U.S. representation at the coming celebrations to mark the first anniversary of Korean reunification. Korea and the U.S. have been estranged since surprise U.S. nuclear strikes against troop and artillery concentrations of the now-defunct Kim Jong Il regime along the 38th parallel, and subsequent accusations by the Seoul government that the resulting fallout had caused health problems in cities near the target zones. The Defense Department continues to insist that only low-yield neutron bombs were used in the strikes, that the Kim dictatorship could not have been brought down by any other means, that fallout has been negligible, and that the U.S. is none the less willing to discuss the issue of compensation for proven health problems, in addition to the promised reconstruction aid.

Damascus, Syria; Sept. 17. The Syrian government has lodged "the strongest possible protest" at the U.N. following last week's decision by the State Department to relocate our Israel embassy to the Golan Heights. Addressing the General Assembly, the Syrian foreign minister declared: "The Golan Heights is Syrian territory under occupation by the Zionist entity. This is the sacred soil of our motherland. We shall never, never accept this. After the recent aerial bombing of our peaceful nuclear facilities, this is outrage upon outrage." National Security Adviser Daniel Pipes, asked to respond at yesterday's press conference, said: "When the Syrians have withdrawn their remaining troops from Lebanon, ceased all support for terrorism, got themselves a constitutional form of government, and established full trading and diplomatic relations with Israel, we'll be glad to discuss the matter in a sympathetic way."


Normandy, France; Sept. 17. The exhumation and repatriation of American dead from the two world wars are proceeding well ahead of schedule, declared Defense Department War Graves Commissioner Bob Dole. He predicts that all known remains of U.S. servicemen will have been repatriated by year's end. "Our boys will all be home by Christmas," promised Commissioner Dole. "After that, the Europeans can fight their own damn wars."

Chicago, IL; Sept. 17. Two citizens of the Dominican Republic, arrested in Chicago for drug offenses, were found to have no valid documents for entry into the U.S. Handed over to the federal authorities under the Illegal Immigrants Criminal Activity Act of 2002, they now face the mandatory 25-year sentence under that Act for engaging in criminal activities while illegally resident in the U.S.

Riyadh, Islamic Arabian Republic; Sept. 17. In the three-sided civil war that has been devastating this country (formerly Saudi Arabia) for the past 18 months, the forces of Ghazi bin Aziz's Pure Wahhabist faction have now surrounded the capital city, which is held by Mohammed Al-Qasr's True Wahhabist faction. Meanwhile, the southern oil fields seem to be firmly in the hands of the Holy Wahhabist armies of Khaled Al-Nihaya — although, since the technical and support personnel have all fled or been killed, the country is currently in its sixteenth straight month of zero oil production. At an off-the-record State Department briefing Tuesday, a senior U.S. official denied persistent rumors that American arms are being shipped to all sides to prolong the war. "Why on earth would we do that?" asked the official. "Having no longer any reliance on Saudi oil, our only interest is, on behalf of U.S. Muslims, to see that the holy places of Islam are not damaged in the fighting."

Berlin, Germany; Sept. 20. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has formally protested the Defense Department's "scorched earth" policy in evacuating U.S. bases from German soil. The evacuations were, the chancellor asserted, carried out "in too much haste," adversely affecting the economies of local communities. He also claimed that the dismantling of the bases had been "too thorough," and "destructive." The chancellor especially objected to the policy of plowing over the sites of the bases and sowing the ground with salt. Asked for a response to Chancellor Schroeder's remarks, Defense Secretary Colonel David Hunt said: "Bite me, Adolf."

Baghdad, Iraq; Sept. 22. Turnout was high in yesterday's elections in the Federal Republic of Iraq, the first nationwide elections since the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in summer of 2002. A group of volunteer observers from Europe, South Asia, and South America has issued a provisional declaration describing the elections as "free and fair," with only a small number of disturbances, mostly near the Iranian border. President Bush has declared himself "encouraged" by the speedy recovery of the country. Answering questions from reporters at a meeting this morning with visiting Afghan parliamentarians, the president confirmed that troop withdrawals from both Afghanistan and Iraq are on schedule. "These countries can manage their own affairs," said the President. "They understand now that U.S. friendship is far, far preferable to U.S. enmity. Some other nations have yet to learn this; but all will learn in time."

Tripoli, Libya; Sept. 22. The Libyan government has published a new batch of papers recovered from the ruins of the presidential palace of former dictator Muammar Khaddafi. These documents provide further evidence of the involvement of the Khaddafi regime — destroyed by U.S. forces in an "out of the blue" decapitation strike in December 2001 — in international terrorist operations around the world from the 1970s on. The speaker of the Libyan parliament has confirmed that an invitation has been extended to President Bush to witness the opening of the new parliamentary session after next month's elections.

Washington, D.C.; Sept. 23. In a widely anticipated ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has voted 9-0 in Gonzalez vs. State of California that children born to illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States in the sense required by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are therefore not automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship. The decision is expected to cause a furor, as the citizenship status of children born to illegal immigrants before the ruling is now uncertain.

Paris, France; Sept. 24. The French daily newspaper Le Figaro has published the first official U.S. response to Monday's charge by foreign minister Dominique de Villepin that France "is not treated with respect, as a serious nation" by U.S. policymakers. In the response, printed as an op-ed in today's edition of Le Figaro, U.S. Ambassador to France Jonah Goldberg claimed that...

* * *

[silverweb]

10. Peeking in on a work break....

Wow, you guys are great! I'll review all this information and start digesting it after work, but it's obvious at a glance that you've given me some great ammunition.

The friend who sent this is ex-Army, elderly, and evangelical Christian (but not Dominionist), and she tries very hard to be open to ideas that may be uncomfortable for her. I know she relays any well-reasoned rebuttles I send to the members of her family and her circle, which is why I go to the trouble of responding thoughtfully.

Gotta get back to work now, will check in later on.

Keep those ideas coming!

:yourock: