Friday, June 22, 2007


I doubt I will make this most recent posts a permanent part of my "gratitude" journal. But maybe. Thanks for all the comments and for making me think a little. I was doing a little too much navel-gazing for my own good.

So, I was thinking about some pictures I saw a lifetime ago from 1988. When the man who supposedly had no WMDs unleashed an attack on people in his own country killing thousands of people in a single day. Makes me wonder how we define "weapons of mass destruction"?

Jiyan Means Life in Kurdish; In English, Death Will Do
Kani Xulam
The American Kurdish Information Network (AKIN)
June 30, 2003

I don‚t know if it ever happens to you, but it happens to me often, I am either listening to someone on the television or in a lecture hall -- granted that the person has piqued and kept my interest -- and then bingo, the person utters the name of an interesting book or movie, I rush to my pen and paper and jot down the information, and place it somewhere visible, like the corner of my yearly calendar by my desk in my office, till I get hold of the thing itself, to see for myself, if what I heard dovetails with what I read in the book or see in the film. It usually does. I read the book, An American Tragedy, by Theodore Dreiser this way and I am very grateful for the tip. Jiyan is a Kurdish film by Jano Rosebiani, stop reading this right now, reach out to your pen, post it paper, write it out, J-I-Y-A-N, and place it somewhere visible in your office or study till you either see it in a movie theater or rent it out from a video outlet.

You will be glad you did, I would not joke with you in a public forum like this one otherwise, and after seeing it, you will thank me for it, but the person you should thank and that goes for all the children of Kurdistan and their friends, past, present and the future, is the struggling Kurdish artist who first worked as an usher in a movie theatre some 26 years ago, and after watching not thousands but tens of thousands of films, moved his Kurdish camera to produce a Kurdish film that at first sight dazzles you with its beauty and horror, joy and sorrow, soaring human spirit and depravity of the kind that makes you wonder if humans deserve to live on this earth, and all of it, in a span of 94 minutes; in short, all your senses, good and bad, are treated to a veritable feast with the culmination of, you guessed it, hope triumphing over despair, life blooming in moonscape, and Jiyan, the ten year old Kurdish girl whose last and parting shot in the film is her face with rivulets of tears flowing from her eyes, in slow motion, outlasting her nemesis Saddam Hussein, and slowly gravitating towards a future, very fragile for her, of hope, of light and of beauty. But you are never too far from the day, in her words, when „chemical rain‰ poured on her -- disfigured her -- and her loved ones -- killed many -- while the „civilized‰ world was in a state of stupor, oblivious to the danger that blighted her kind and her generation, because the dead were Kurds and the murderer was Saddam Hussein, the first did not matter, the second made the indifference of those who could have spoken on this crime against humanity look glorious by comparison, for, at least, they did not harm their citizens.

I would be lying to you if I said that the movie did not disturb me. The temperature of my anger reached a crisis point. My tears flowed when I sensed that Jiyan was about to shed hers, they started flowing again every time I heard -- I could not keep my eyes open -- the Kurdish flutist, a Kurdish mullah, the equivalent of a priest in the Christian faith, play for God, or was it for the sun, moon and the stars, I don‚t know, on a rooftop in all weather, for the loss of his eight children and wife. I don‚t know why, but I thought of Arundhati Roy -- the lighting rod of the antiwar movement, I proudly marched along her likes, by the way, with my quaint sign, „Down With Saddam Hussein; No War, prompting one protester to ask me if I was for the war or against it, and leaving my conversation with this deluded activist aside for a moment, and getting back to Ms. Roy again, who came to embody the feelings of, by her counts, ten million people who marched, worldwide, against the recent war -- and wished to God, she were watching it with me. Referring to George Bush, she had often said, „he is more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. If she had seen the film, I was convinced now, knowing that the film would cure her of her ignorance, about the darling of the deluded, Saddam Hussein, not that I was equating the president of the United States to the Mother Theresa of Calcutta, she would go down on her knees, I imagined, true scholars eat their words with grace, and apologize to Jiyan and her blighted generation for the misuse of her pulpit, she is on C-SPAN all the time, to lash out with her acidic tongue against two wrong doers, one, Saddam Hussein, in her diction, a man as dangerous as Al Capone, who in his „best selling‰, ghost written, novels equates all Kurds to adulterous, treacherous, and fickle creatures; and the other, George Bush, treated as a modern day Adolph Hitler, who used the Kurds, to be sure, as a prop for the war, but had a better appreciation of the man who had used chemical weapons once and could do so again, remember Hitler who had reminded his generals how the Turks got away with the Armenian genocide, unless he was stopped in his tracks.

But it looks like there is a feeling of remorse gripping both the Great Britain as well as the United States, not because war is organized crime let loose and as much as possible should be avoided, and if undertaken, the United Nations should be the institution to invoke it -- that boneless wonder that did not even acknowledge the Kurdish dead when they were gassed in broad daylight -- but because the weapons of mass destruction have, get your eyes ready for this, not been found. I have to assume that these peaceniks and the inadvertent supporters of Saddam Hussein have never heard of the Kurds and their 281 villages, towns, and cities which were indiscriminately gassed not just in one day, between the sunrise and sunset, but in a span of eighteen months, in the course of an operation called al Anfal, which for those of you who are versed in Islam, the name means, the spoils, and comes from a chapter heading in Quran. Imagine if you will, Ariel Sharon using chemical weapons on a Palestinian settlement, and christening his diabolical plan with an Orwellian name, like, say, „tikkun! To paraphrase Ms. Roy, I can almost hear the footsteps of ten million peace activists marching in the streets of major cities all over the world, all shouting in unison, „Never Again! It would be a sight out of this world, signifying the hypocrisy of our generation of peace activists, who are quick to condemn the wrongs of Israelis and Americans, but hardly can be bothered, when the unspeakable is committed in the name of Islam and by the likes of people like Saddam Hussein.

For online version of this article:



Blogger Greg said...

Someone correct me or clarify, but I think what happened was this: The U.S encouraged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam, saying we would back them up with additional force. The U.S gave them no aid, and Saddam slaughtered them.

The chemical weapons, I believe, were purchased from the US. In the 80's, when Saddam was already a known tyrant and murderer, he was a close ally of the US. He can be seen shaking hands with special Envoy to Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld. Here's the photo:

Anti-war activists were well aware that Saddam murdered his own people. What we found curious was the fact that this deed had been ignored for so long, and then suddenly became important. The lie that Saddam had ties to Al-Quaeda made it seem relevant, but the notion that Saddam was A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES was a fantasy.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has human rights track record on par with many "evil" regimes, AND was the home country of 15 of the 9/11 hijackers (NONE of them were from Iraq). Yet we ramain close allies of Saudi Arabia.

Iraq never attacked the US. Before the invasion, no American civilian had ever been killed or even wounded by an Iraqi soldier. WE SHOT FIRST. That might be justifiable if it were proven that Iraq even LOOKED like a serious threat; to many it did not.

2:43 PM  

Little known fact - Saddam Hussein was once given the key to the city of Detroit, Michigan.

Greg, I don't know if your facts are right or wrong. It sounds right. But I don't know enough of my Kurdish history. Scriver never covered it.

But I do recall one thing. Yes, Saddam Hussein DID have chemical weapons - what could be classified as WMD's. But it has since been shown that after the Gulf War of 1991, he began the process of dismantling and eliminating them. (Compliance) If memory serves, Iraq has been WMD-free since around 1995.

3:08 PM  
Blogger mimikatemom said...

Hm. Lots to say, but no time to get it down. Drat. Thanks for sharing your brains with me! continue...

3:27 PM  
Blogger jennifer said...

the u.s. knew what and where saddam was the whole time. we knew what he was doing and knew of his where abouts at every moment. bush and all knew exactly what he was doing at evey second. it was all a media hype on how "we"took him down and found him in a bunker. IT WAS ALL MEDIA HYPE. I WORKED ON MILITARY PERSONAL WHO LIVED IN SAN DIEGO AND WORKED ON MOSQUITO SIZED INTELLIGIENCE CAMERAS AND KNEW WHERE SADDAM WAS THE WHOLE FRIGGEN TIME!!!!!!! IT'S ALL MEDIA BEING DRAMATIC AND PRO BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
now.. this is not knew news. so many poeple have come forth to tell about there contribution of this fake false war. (if you think this is atrocious check out what has been done to Tibet and Africa for god sakes and why haven't we invaded china and the congo?) I am so sorry if this comes across as anger but i am very sad and frustrated about our media and education to the americans in general.) Martin Luther King states that Violence begets violence. ONE NEVER NEVER NEVER USES VIOLENCE TO STOP VIOLENCE!!!!!!!! We, as in Bush and his cronies" could have stopped all of this chemical poisoning. It's all Media hype. Before you believe anything you see, check out to see who owns the source of media you are watching, reading, or listening to. In the future try to use media that is not bias to the dems or republicans. Indymedia is a great place to start.
proud to be a commie!!!

5:08 PM  
Blogger Saint Nick said...

Well Gregg and Jennifer if America is such a terrible place runs by such monsters, I wonder how you can even stand to call your self Americans.

The war was something that Saddam controlled. He continued to call the bluff of everyone. The war was the next step. When this time came the House voted 296-133 and the Senate voted 77-23 supporting the use of force. Depending what poll you listen to somewhere between 60%-75% of Americans supported the Now when things are difficult. People are dying. Pictures appear that show the suffering a war carries. The numbers change. The troops lose support.

The mission at hand has remained the same from the start. To remove a ruler who killed by some estimates over 100,000 of his own people and stabilize the country. To me there are two sides to any conflict. When it’s all said and done what side do you want to be on?

8:38 PM  
Blogger jennifer said...

i'm really not "anything". i just happened to be born in this country. i don't believe in borders, nor do i believe in any war over such borders. i'm an advocate of non-violence and peace. peace is possible you know.

9:25 PM  
Blogger Jeff said...

"I wonder how you can stand to call yourself Americans"

With all due respect, Nick... You're using the old bait n' switch. I used to sell cars so I know all about it.

Presumably what you're saying is, if you dissent with this administration and their war plans, you are no longer patriotic. It's just like when a lone voice in congress stands up (on either side of the aisle) and says, "hey, 100 more deaths this week, can we talk?" Right away it's "YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE TROOPS, YOU HATE AMERICA, blah blah blah." It gets old and worse it doesn't present any solutions.


"The mission at hand has remained the same from the start. To remove a ruler who killed by some estimates over 100,000 of his own people and stabilize the country."


Hello? Said ruler removed, dug out of spider hole, hanged.

Mission accomplished?

Er, wait a sec, we've heard THAT already.

Again, I respect your points, I just am having trouble understanding them.

12:02 AM  
Blogger jennifer said...

7:56 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

I love America. This is the greatest country in the world. That is why I expect better.

PBS's "Frontline" had a show about a month ago that detailed exactly how the media was used as a propaganda machine.

NBC is owned by GE, a huge military contractor. CBS is owned by Westinghouse, a huge military contractor.

I hate feeling like everybody here is ganging up on you, St. Nick, but I really think there are few things you haven't considered. I don't know if you consider yourself a "conservative," but if you do, really think about how you've been betrayed.

I know a lot of Republicans who are terriffic people. But this president really is not acting in their interests. A lot of them are starting to figure that out.

8:38 AM  
Blogger Jeff said...

It is my opinion, Jen, that if Bush actually comprehended that Sagan segment, he would have a crashing moment of realization and commit suicide on the spot.

The late great Douglas Adams had a very funny take on this angle in his book The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. It was a cabinet you walked into which, when activated, showed you your true insignifigance in the Universe as a whole. Most people dropped dead within seconds, the realization too great for them to comprehend.

If ever there was an "argument closer," Jen, that was it.

8:43 AM  
Blogger Gregg said...

My two cents, not that they'll be worth much (about two cents, I'm guessing)...

Nick does make some very valid points in his comments, both here and in the other post. And I'm not just saying that because he gave me a handful of free beer chips at the Blue Goose many years ago, or because I've got the same last name as his.

It wasn't just Bush being a renegade when this whole thing began. He had plenty of support in Congress, as the vote totals show. (I just said something moderately positive about George W. Bush. please shoot me now.)

I agree that the war kind of loses its luster for many people after they begin to see photographs and videos of the damage that war does, and their opinions change.

I don't necessarily have a problem with taking Saddam out of power. It's not going out on too big of a branch to say that he was a bad man, with bad intentions. But it's a good thing that this current administration doesn't have much time left on the clock to continue globe-hopping and "liberating" other countries, because who knows what it might run into if it gets too cocky. (Kim Jong-il would be a much bigger speed bump than Saddam.)

If this administration wants to save any kind of face whatsoever before the next band of miscreants takes over, it needs to get bin Laden (remember him?) out of his cave and put him right next to Saddam. Haven't heard much lately on how that mission is progressing.

Nick, what I think many people have an issue with is that the administration looks like it doesn't have a clue what to do next. Stabilizing that country might be an impossibility for the next And how long do we stay? It's not about having the conviction to see it through, it's about the big-wigs in charge asking themselves, "uhhh...what do we do now??" I don't think Bush and his team thought that far ahead. I think it's time to bring the troops home.

And I certainly don't think that America is a terrible place. But I do think that the current monster in charge is one of the worst ever. (although who knows what the next monster will be like?) Bush just totally rubs me the wrong way, in about a kabillion different ways. Hearing him a few years ago, talking about Saddam, and saying, "Well, he tried to kill my daddy!" and a couple months ago when he stands up in front of people with that stupid smirk and says, "I'm the commander guy." You can practically hear his frickin' spurs jingle-jangling as he walks to the podium.

(sorry, my two cents has apparently grown to a nickel. even though it's probably only worth about a penny.)

8:45 AM  

America - love it or leave it.

That's a phrase that originated during the Vietnam War. It's a phrased coined by the generation of our grandparents to describe the hippies who were out protesting the war.

The phrase was just as wrong then as it is now.

Being able to speak out against your own government is one of the greatest freedoms this nation provides. In fact, it's that very freedom that we're trying to help Iraq to achieve.

Sure, the United States has its share of problems. But there is still no place in the world I'd rather live. I truly believe that our country is the best country in the world. I have no desire to leave it.

Being able to have a voice - even if no one is listening to you, is what makes this country great. And it IS patriotic to do so. And remember, you CAN support the troops while at the same time vehemently opposing the war.

Gregg talks about the timeframe for stabilizing Iraq. The administration thought it would take less than six months. To date, it's been 4.5 years - which is about one year longer than America's involvement in World War II. How disheartening is that?

The longer we stay, the more the resentment against our presence grows - and the more the violence increases. I suspect it would take 20-25 years of occupation to stabilize that country. And that's simply unacceptable. So do we wait it out and tack on hundreds of thousands more lost lives? Or do we cut our losses now?

Iraq is one big clusterfuck. Has George Bush done anything positive while in office? Probably. But no one will ever remember them if he did. He will be remembered for one thing - Iraq. Iraq is George Bush's legacy. And it's not a good one.

Kudos to Nick though, for standing up to the onslaught of opposing opinions.

11:43 AM  
Blogger Jeff said...

7 more of our sons and daughters died today, folks, protecting our gas, er, freedom. Top yahoo news headline.

In case you missed it...

2:50 PM  
Blogger Saint Nick said...

So were do I start……

I guess I will work my way down from my last post….

Jennifer….Wow…I hope your at least thankful that you live in America. In some countries you would be shot for posting such things. And a little secret for you.....most people consider themselves advocates of peace. Unfortunately sometimes the old “can’t we all get along” and ‘make love war” does not work.

Jeff…Not quite sure what you mean by bait and switch… I am simply questioning how they can stand to associate themselves with a country that would do the things they list in there posts.

I am not sure what part of the following statement you don’t agree with....

"The mission at hand has remained the same from the start. To remove a ruler who killed by some estimates over 100,000 of his own people and stabilize the country."

Saddam was captured and hung. That’s the remove the ruler part. I believe we are now in the stabilize the coutry portion.

Jennifer….That is a pretty cool clip. It does make you think how great it would be if everyone had that exact outlook.

Greg…..Please do not feel as though I have ever felt ganged up on. This blog is not the first time I have discussed my views on this subject.

As for what I am…..I never thought to label myself. I guess I am more topic driven and tend to make decisions based on my own beliefs. My vote usaully goes to the person with the line of bullshit I can most closely associate myself with. I did vote for Bush twice, but only because Gore and Kerry were such total assholes.

Gregg……It’s too bad that I have to log on to talk politics with my cousin.
Ya…only if they could find that Osama guy? That would be a good day.
Two questions.….
1. Do you really feel that Bush is a monster? . I would agree with cocky and smug but a monster?
2. Do you still have those Blue Goose beer chips?

Burt. …Love it or leave it? Is that what you got out of

“Well Gregg and Jennifer if America is such a terrible place runs by such monsters, I wonder how you can even stand to call your self Americans.”

For the record….in no way did I mean to imply that they or anyone should leave the country if they don’t agree with me.

With that I sign off….I have discovered over the past few days that I really do not enjoy blogging. I am more of a face to face conversationalist. Until our paths cross again…

9:54 PM  
Blogger Gregg said...

Ohhh,'re gonna make me say it out loud, aren't you? (this is going to hurt.)

No. The word "monster" is a bit too harsh. I just grabbed that word from one of your comments above, and used it in my own comment for dramatic effect. (notice, though, that I labeled the incoming president...whoever he/she/it may the next "monster." Hell, they're politicians! What else should we call them, right?)

If you pose question No. 1 to me in that fashion, then I have to give you my honest answer and say no. Cocky, inept, pompous, egomaniacal, not exactly presidential material, two peas short of a casserole...all of those and more. But not a monster, as such.

The fact that Kerry couldn't slam-dunk this guy in '04 really speaks volumes about.......Kerry! Doesn't it? That was a sad day.

I love your line up there that says, "my vote usually goes to the person with the line of bullshit I can most closely associate myself with." Well said. They're all peddling their own lines of the same political bullshit.

I was somewhat ambivalent toward Clinton when he was in office, but it might not be a stretch to say that if there were no term limits on the presidency, we could have had an impeached president elected to a third term in office. I realize that's totally a hypothetical, but...damn, that guy was popular.

It will be most interesting to see how the '08 contest plays out, and who steps to the front on either side of the aisle. I have to admit that I like quite a bit of what Giuliani has to far. I don't know if that translates into a vote from me, but he makes some sense to this social liberal.

Perhaps we'll have to get together and discuss this stuff further over a few beers as the presidential races continue. I'd offer to split my free beer chips with you at the Blue Goose, but to answer your question No. 2, those must have been cashed in a long lonnggg time ago for cold refreshing beverages. (much appreciated.)

Click on my name and you'll find my e-mail. Drop me a line, Nick.

And I hope there are future topics among these blogs that you feel compelled to respond to, because your comments definitely brighten up the screen.

11:21 AM  
Blogger jennifer said...

hey nick, i totally understand about being a face to face conversationalist as opposed to blogging. every time i hit publish i want to take it back, however, if there ever was a safe place to blog it would be erin's blog. i hope that you continue to chime in. i, 100%, respect your two cents.
please know that i thank my lucky stars for being in this country at this moment. when i said that i am not "anything" doesn't mean i don't love my country. i suppose i show my patriotism in other ways than supporting this war, like keeping our rivers, lakes, soil, etc. clean. i ride my bike everywhere, conserve energy, i volunteer my services as much as possible in hopes of educating and taking care of this land we live on. and as a famous beatle once said," i may be a dreamer, but i'm not the only one." you can give me shit all day long about making love and not war, but hey that's what i believe and that's where i stand!!! so peace my old paper delivery guy. have a good one!!!! om mani padme hung!!!nameste!!

6:39 PM  
Blogger GMAFB said...

Saddam gassed the Kurds before the Gulf War in March of 1988 toward the end of theIran/Iraq war. He attacked them again after the Persian Gulf war for trying to rise up (gas?).

The INITIAL "mission" was to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions and if that meant by use of force then force is what we would use (hence the vote in Congress). If that meant that Saddam would be removed from power, then so be it. I was on board originally - on UN sanctions alone. There might have been some post 9/11 patriotic/nationalisitic hype that I was caught up in as well. THAT was the mission.

Over the next months, the "mission began" to evolve and I became skeptical. It was clear that the administration was setting up the "War For All People". We needed to force Iraq to comply with UN sanctions, disarm Iraq, remove a dictator, stabilize the region, ensure that Iraq did not BECOME a safe haven for terrorist, liberate Iraq and install a democracy (think of the parades in Paris in 1944 was the picture that was being painted and watch the dominio effect, remember?), preserve the safety of the United States because Iraq was an iminent threat to the United States, destroy/dismantle Iraq's nuclear capability, Iraq was / was not (couldn't make up their minds) somehow linked to 9/11 and had to be dealt with, they were giving the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for goodness sake - surely that was reason enough to invade, right?).

The old "they (the Congress) saw the same intelligence we saw" fiasco. It was intelligence that the Bush administration framed. They were provided with the intelligence that they wanted to be provided with. This in turn was given to Congress. That is a joke. Those using that argument must not be taken seriously. They should be laughed at and discounted as mindless. That doesn't let those that voted in favor off the hook. Most of them were playing politics. What would look better on the resume? What was the climate of the country at the time? They do not deserve a pass for being stupid and more concerned with being re-elected.

The "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emption was written by Paul Wolfowitz 10 or 15 years before must people even knew there was another George Bush.

Dick Chaney said to the media after the Gulf War that it would be a bad move to go into Iraq. A vacuum would be created and tribal and Sunni vs. Shiite violence would spring up. Maybe Chaney didn't really believe that but previous Bush administration believed that as a whole. Maybe he was just spreading the party line.

Experts across the globe warned about Sunni vs. Shiite clashing if the Baathists and Saddam were removed. As horrible as they were, as evil as they were they STABILIZED the country, much like Marshall Tito in the former Yugoslavia. It doesn't mean Saddam and the Baathists didn't need to go, but it might have been better if it were an inside job. It was also taken for granted that the Kurds and the Shiites would fall in line even though they were encouraged to revolt and then abandoned after the Gulf War. The Kurds have been ok but they have a different agenda (home to the largest oil deposits, a Kurdish homeland, etc.), but the Shiites haven't necessarily bought into the idea of being occupied by infidels while the democracy "takes root".

"The troops lose support."
These sorts of phrases are usually made by those who support the war, those who support the administration, or those that have been brain-washed. It is used in an effort to subdue or shame those that are vocally opposed to the war. The idea is to try to recreate the perception of the late 1960's and early 1970's those war protesters that appeared to want anarchy. There was also a minority of those protesters that blamed drafted soldiers for answering the call. This minority spit on and at returning soldiers. They called parents of men in Vietnam telling them their son had been killed when he really had not. They wrote letters made calls to the families basically saying "Good" when their sons were killed or wounded. They wrote hateful letters to soldiers in country.

If you poled all the protesters or those that simply are not for the war in the US and asked them if they wanted to see any soldiers die or get wounded while serving in Iraq, 99.99% would say "no". A similar percentage would say that if the soldiers are there they should have the best equipment and resources to help keep them safe. Most would also say, perhaps reluctantly, that when called on, they would want the serviceman or woman to do their job. The opposers and protesters today realize that the war is not the doings of the soldiers, it's the civilian draft dodgers that have brought this upon the Country. The rabid, idealistic, drug-clouded, anti-establishment, naive protester of the late 60's and early 70's has been replaced to a large extent.

For those that think no one has tried to use the war and the greater war on terror for political purposes should probably have their heads examined and perhaps have their voting rights suspended until cleared by mental health experts.

"Mission Accomplished"? GMAFB

Don't allow politicians to run from their records. If they voted to authorize, make them pay. If they are trying to run from their record now make them tell you what they are going to do about it. They HAVE to have an answer. If they don't have an answer NOW, they don't deserve your vote. If they voted against the use of force, they have to have an answer NOW as well. They don't get a pass. By the way, "cutting and running" is an option, but not a serious one. With all this talk about how screwed up things are, pulling the plug isn't going to make it any better, it will be worse.

Saddam ruled with fear. That is true. I don't think most Iraqis were fearful of going to the market during his rule. I doubt they were fearful of going to school. They probably weren't fearful that mortars would be used on them as they commuted to work. Various death squads were not roaming the streets. It was a bad situation before. For the average citizen in every day life, it is worse today. WE made the mess. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to leave a mess behind, however, we can't be there forever.

Having 4 sons born in the late 50's and early 60's, my mother once told me that she was actually worried (mothers do that). As the years rolled by and troop levels increased, she was actually fearful that one day she would have to see one or more or perhaps eventually all of her sons go off to fight in Vietnam. The eldest son was about 18 months away from being eligible before they all came home.

Someone needs to but a bow on this one, but it needs to be a pretty damn good looking bow unfortunately.

Maybe then we can spend more time and resources straightening out Afghanistan and the Al-Quaida supporting Taliban. Oh yea, maybe we can fix something their that we sort of broke. Opium has always been a big Afghan cash crop. Well, except for the Taliban years. They forbid it. Much of the "Northern Alliance" were opium producers. Opium is a big cash crop again in Afghanistan, so much so that the Taliban are actually extorting protection money from th opium growers. Opium aside, that country is still not stable. Unfortunately, we OWE them help in making it stable. Afghanistan is another topic altogether.

2:01 PM  

Wow. Good post.

2:33 PM  

Oh, and who are you???

2:33 PM  
Blogger mimikatemom said...

It's clear now that you're not who (whom? gah! why can't I ever get that right?) I thought you were.

Well written post; thanks for that.

3:04 PM  
Blogger jennifer said...

thanks for taking the time to write your post. sometimes i get too expresive with my peace and love that i tend to forget about expressing the importance of the process of expressing the educational/informational tidbits of what i believe is important and in the forefront of education.
your post is awesome.

9:45 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home