Assume the Position

Saturday, September 07, 2002
You lose, now shut up. Although Eliot A. Cohen's Washington Post op-ed, "Hunting 'Chicken Hawks'," and Dr. Weevil's Blogathon for Sniveling Idiots should be enough to put most every chicken louse* in their place, there will probably be a few of the craven wretches who continue to spout the "chicken hawk" nonsense. One of the reasons the chicken lice try to use such an inane concept in place of an argument is that their cluelessness knows no bounds; they expect, because the military is regimented and far from democratic in organization, that no inkling of the non-coward opinion toward Iraq will surface. The armed services certainly aren't going to decide what to do by holding a vote among active military, so the chicken lice think they can disqualify "chicken hawks" from the discussion without fear of military people being granted a voice in the discussion. They lose:

The Retired Officers Association, week of 3/20-3/27 online poll:

Would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power?
(889) Favor 72%
(279) Oppose23%
(60) No opinion5%
1228 Responses
The Army / Navy / Air Force / Marine Times online poll, 3 weeks ago:
Should the U.S. invade Iraq?
Yes73.89 % (2,091)
No26.11 % (739)
Total votes: 2830

When I went looking, I had expected military opinion to run about 2:1 in favor of military action against Iraq, but it's closer to 3:1. While these results come from internet polls and are not scientific for all the normal reasons (i.e., self-selected respondents, potential multiple votes, etc.), I would guess they are probably more accurate than internet polls on popular sites such as Yahoo or CNN because the pool of potential respondents was more limited, therefore ballot-stuffing email campaigns were less likely. In other words, if an email and web ballot-stuffing campaign were started, the polls would have become widely known and the chicken lice would have been using all their bandwidth to "prove" the rank-and-file military was opposed to action against Iraq. That apparently didn't happen. However, I have no doubt that the chicken lice will simply sputter about how this just shows that all the non-cowards are warmongers. Too bad, if "chicken hawks" aren't entitled to have an opinion on the subject neither are chicken lice, and that just leaves those with some military experience—and they're just wondering what the hell is taking so long.

*Menacanthus stramineus, a small parasite, individually incapable of causing more than minor irritation, but gravely injurious to the host when present in sufficient numbers to weaken the body and render the host susceptible to other threats.

UPDATE - September 28, 2002. Interesting to see the change in the later TROA poll (scroll to 8/22-9/11):

Would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power?
(1002) Favor 57%
(673) Oppose39%
(71) No opinion4%
1746 Responses
Still a solid majority in favor of military action, but not nearly the blowout it was back in March 2001.

UPDATE - November 12, 2003: By March 2003, after Powell's UN presentation and before the invasion, the TROA [Now MOAA—Military Officers Association of America] poll numbers (scroll to 2/27-3/7) were back up to 3:1 in favor of taking military action against Iraq:

Would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power?
(960) Favor 74%
(345) Oppose26%
1305 Responses

Wednesday, September 04, 2002
"Containment" is a word used by those who refuse to discuss what it entails. I read James Webb's piece in the Washington Post, "Heading for Trouble." In it he does exactly the same thing all the naysayers on left and right seem to do: examine one or more problems that might result from "war" and conclude the alternative, containment, is the wiser choice. Of course, they don't bother to examine containment for what it really is in regard to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, they just pose it as the alternative to war and everybody is supposed to nod their heads and buy off on it.

Webb mentions containment once:

Is there an absolutely vital national interest that should lead us from containment to unilateral war and a long-term occupation of Iraq?

The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years.
Consider what containment has consisted of over the past 11 years and then ask if we as a nation are prepared to do the same for the next 30 to 50 years:
  • Bomb elements of Iraq's integrated air defense systems on a monthly or weekly schedule, that's an additional 360 to 600 months of bombing.
  • Unleash a flurry of cruise missiles once every few of years, as was done in 1996 and 1998, for the next 30 to 50 years.
  • Interdict shipping in the Persian Gulf to maintain sanctions for the next 30 to 50 years, attempting to block weapons materials flowing into Iraq and illegal oil flowing out of Iraq.
  • Give Hussein, his followers, and the idiotarian left 30 to 50 more years of propaganda material about how much the sanctions hurt Iraqi civilians.
  • Defend the sanctions every six months in the UN against the concerted efforts of Russia, China, a good portion of the EU, most of the Arab League and nearly every NGO to eliminate them.
I'm not the only one who has said as much, David Isenberg in the , Asia Times:
First, what exactly do people think the US military has been doing during the past decade? It has been conducting a war, albeit an aerial one with significant political limitations, over the northern and southern Iraqi no-fly zones.
One of the most important things Bush can make clear in his September 12 statement is that the question is not one of "containment or war" because, in the case of Iraq, the past decade has shown that "containment IS war" and the question of the moment is simply what kind of war is best suited to the effort at hand.

Somebody at USAID has a sense of humor. At the moment, this site happens to be the first two returns from a Google search for "wssd clueless."

Hostname of the server where the search originated:

Tuesday, September 03, 2002
Global Fraud Warming. One of the dances the IPCC has to go through to develop their scenarios for anthropomorphic forcing of global warming by carbon-dioxide emissions is to estimate global economic growth, then convert the dollars generated by that economic activity into carbon-dioxide, and then estimate the greenhouse effect of that amount of additional carbon-dioxide. But, according to Ian Castles, "formerly head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics" and currently "a Visiting Fellow at the ANU's National Centre for Development Studies," right at the beginning of that Conga line, even in the best-case (lowest temperature rise) scenario, the IPCC used "extremely improbable" growth rates to generate "astronomic increases" in per capita incomes in developing countries. (link via
The simulated temperature increases in the IPCC's lowest emissions scenario ranged from 1.4 to 2.5`C. Some assumptions incorporated in this scenario were conservative, but it also assumed an extraordinarily high rate of economic growth in the developing world.

Specifically, the IPCC assumed that the volume of goods and services produced per head in 2100 would be more than 70 times 1990 levels in developing countries in Asia, and nearly 30 times 1990 levels in other developing countries. Far from marking the lower bound of likely outcomes, such astronomic increases are extremely improbable.

Specifics include:
  • [The IPCC modlers used] the long-discredited method of converting incomes into a common currency using current exchange rates…
  • No significant country has ever achieved a 20-fold increase in output per head in a century, let alone the 30-fold or 70-fold increases projected by the IPCC for most of the world's population.
  • [T]he IPCC's model-builders are hostile to wealth per se. They are obsessed by the belief that growth in productivity and affluence inevitably leads to unacceptable growth in greenhouse emissions.
For example:
In Britain, the first developed economy, average carbon-dioxide emissions exceeded 2.5 tonnes of carbon per head of the population in 1880, before the motor age began.

Now Britain produces at least five times the volume of goods and services per head as in 1880, but per capita emissions of carbon dioxide have not increased at all.

Monday, September 02, 2002
Tim Blair nails Harper's idiotarian editor, Lewis Lapham, as a war profiteer.
The Harper's editor and thoroughbred idiot tells the Melbourne Age that sales of his magazine have grown 33% since the terrorist attacks of last year. Soon he's releasing a collection of his droning anti-war essays.

The release date? September 11.

Not that Lapham is trying to cash in … oh, no, no, no, no, no. That would be vulgar, and Lapham despises vulgarity. In his Age interview (not available online) Lewis "laments the spectacle that will occur in New York on September 11."

Bin Laden is alive because "it is un-Islamic not to declare his death if he's dead." At least, that's what Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of Al-Quds, the London-based Arabic language daily newspaper, told ABC's "This Week." According to CNN:
Atwan told ABC he believes bin Laden is alive because "it is un-Islamic not to declare his death if he's dead."

And, Atwan said, al Qaeda has issued lists of its members who have been killed and the lists have not included bin Laden.

Which kind of begs the question: Does al Qaeda do other "un-Islamic" things, or is crashing passenger planes into skyscrapers a perfectly fine, "Islamic" thing to do?

ABC apparently didn't bother to ask.

The ACLU should be looking for a German translator. Seems that there is possibly a foreign nominee for the Kitty Genovese Award for Outstanding Examples of Non-Vigilantism in the running with Johnelle Bryant for recognition of their outstanding performance in 2000.
Cell member Marwan Al-Shehhi, who investigators believe piloted the second airliner that struck the trade center, had a conversation in April or May 2000 with a female librarian in which he mentioned the trade center as a target, Nehm said.

"There will be thousands of dead," Al-Shehhi, originally from the United Arab Emirates, told the librarian, according to Nehm. "You will all think of me." The librarian later came forward as a witness, according to the federal prosecutor's office, which declined to identify her or say when she provided the information.

Official qualification for the award depends upon whether this unnamed Hamburg librarian came forward before or after September 11, 2001; but the Vegas line is running 10,000:1 for after.

Meanwhile, Bill Quick, linking to the AP version, says,

"What a loud-mouthed, loose-lipped, hapless fool. The amazing thing is that feckless bozos like this one managed to accomplish anything, let alone a murderous spectacular like the 9/11 massacres. The more one learns, the more one begins to wonder whether the only reason they succeeded was in spite of their own stupidity, and because of the stupidity of those agencies charged with protecting us. I sometimes wonder: Even if one of these idiot savages had sent a letter to the FBI and CIA detailing all their plans, with times and dates, would those bumblers have been able to stop the attacks?"
As if this Hamburg librarian was a snitch and acted just like a Stasi agent, ratting out Al-Shehhi to the authorities. Besides, if she really was a snooping informant and had reported that before September 11th, 2001, the German authorities might have tried to commit one of the most heinous acts possible in a free society and asked her what books Al-Shehhi had checked out.

Reuters: all the news that's fit to distort. LGF points to this Hassan Hafidh trash pumped out by Reuters concerning the pronouncements of ultra-idiotarian Ramsey Clark (imagine Chomsky with Alzheimer's) in Baghdad. Besides the lede of "Ex-U.S. Attorney General Warns Against Iraq Strike," how does Hafidh describe Clark:
Clark, who said earlier that a strike against Iraq would be a "massive crime against all international law," served as attorney general under President Lyndon Johnson at the height of the Vietnam War.

…Clark has been a vocal opponent of U.S. policy on Iraq and the U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. He arrived in Baghdad earlier this week "out of concern" over a possible attack.

Former attorney general is true enough, but "vocal opponent" is such an understatement that it almost qualifies as a bald-faced lie. Ramsey Clark and his International Action Center (often considered just another front organization for the Workers World Party) held their own post-Gulf War International War Crimes Tribunal in 1991, finding "…President George H. W. Bush, Vice President J. Danforth Quayle, Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Commander of the Allied Forces in the Persian Gulf, and others" 'guilty' of "…nineteen separate crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity…"

Of course, Clark isn't just a "vocal opponent of U.S. policy on Iraq," he and the IAC have also held their kangaroo courts on NATO War Crimes in Yugoslavia, June 2000, and on US War Crimes in Korea, in June 2001. Meanwhile, when he's not holding his own war crimes trials, Clark provides incompetent defense to actual war criminals like Radovan Karadzic.

Original content copyright © 2002-2005 Lynxx Pherrett. All rights reserved.