Teddy Bloggie Blog Blogging

Characters for harmony and equilibrium which together stand for peace. "When there is equilibrium among humans, then nature and the heavens are balanced, and peace prevails."

This is from Brian Balta of The Hoosier Review:

I am a commander in the Republican Guard. I have my own division under my command. We have spent the last two weeks under heavy American bombardment. Many of my comrades, my friends, have been killed in their vehicles by American bombs. There is a massive American army marching towards us. They intend to kill us. They hate us. They have hated us for a decade.

They bombed us many times before. I have lived half my life listening to the sirens over Baghdad. I am their enemy. Their bombs have ruined everything. They destroyed roads, houses, homes. They killed my eldest daughter. A bomb hit near her house in the first war. They killed many in that war. Many of my friends. My family.

They killed my youngest daughter too. She was only 8. I watched her suffer and die. We couldn't feed her. There was no food. The Americans wouldn't let us have food. I watched her whither away. She lied there, looking me in the eyes, in tears. She told me how much it hurt. And then she died. It was so painful for her. The Americans made my daughter suffer so much. I hate them.

We are about to be crushed by them. Our tanks have been destroyed. All I have left is this one weapon. Saddam gave us his last weapon. He told us to use it only if there was no hope left. It will not help us win, but perhaps I can hurt the Americans. Just a little. Just a few of them. If I could only make them feel some of the hurt I've suffered. I want them to suffer so much.

On the other hand, I have this pamplet in my hand that I picked up on the ground a few days ago. It requests that I not use this weapon, because my country will suffer if I do.

Fire.

Shell shocked Israel is getting ready for their election in about a week and a half. There are many serious issues on the table: war, terrorism, corruption, economic crisis and weed.

Que? Mari--juana?

Yep, the rising Green Leaf Party in Israel might pick up between 2-12 seats. That's a lot for pushing pot politics in a country that's running scared. Between not knowing if the next bus they take will blow up and killing their neighbors with helicopter gunships, I bet they need a little hashish and marijuana just to relax. It may not be the answer to all their problems, but the problems will undoubtedly seem farther away when they're laughing uncontrollably while wrestling over the bag of Doritos. Why the hell not?

The Village Voice: Features: Letter From Israel: Keep on the Grass by Sylvana Foa

...Marijuana has been a medicine-chest staple in this area for centuries. A few years ago, Israeli scientists found cannabis residue with the skeleton of a young Jerusalem girl who evidently died in childbirth 1600 years ago.

The scientists said the marijuana was probably used by the midwife to ease the girl's pain.

Israelis are very fond of ancient lore, and of traditional medicines in particular. According to the Israeli Anti-Drug Authority, there is a market for about 25 tons of marijuana and hashish every year in Israel.

Green Leaf, which says it will pay for all those extra social welfare programs with taxes on grass, is growing by leaps and bounds thanks to the rising contempt of young voters for the existing political establishment.

The polls show the party winning between two and eight seats in the 120-seat Knesset. That may not seem like many to you, but pollsters say Sharon is unlikely to win more than 35 seats, which means he will be scrounging around for coalition partners when he tries to form a government. With eight seats, Green Leaf could write its own ticket.

Green Leaf has a modest proposal for dealing with an Iraqi nerve gas attack. Instead of injecting ourselves in the thigh with the drug atropine that comes with gas mask kits, Green Leaf suggests that citizens might simply light a joint, lie back, and enjoy the show.

Green Leaf cites research conducted by the U.S. Army and the Israel-based Pharmos Corporation. Rats were exposed to nerve gas and then injected with dexanabinol, a synthetic substitute for hashish. The army tests reportedly showed that the injection reduced brain damage by more than 70 percent.

Green Leaf says that what a synthetic will do, the real stuff can do better. It's demanding that the Israeli army consider providing the population with this natural antidote. The grass, Green Leaf says, could come from confiscated dope stored in police warehouses. And there is said to be tons of it. Just one toke should do the trick, so there'd be plenty to go around....

Condolezza Rice writes a vague and equivocal op-ed. She titles it "Why We KNOW Iraq Is Lying", but it really should be "Why We FEEL Iraq Is Lying". It seems Bush, Rice, Cheney, and Co. don't want to get bogged down in details, or rather, choose the details to confuse the public. I think it's important to look at the details left out of her piece before sending Americans into harm's way.

Condolezza compares Iraq's disarmament process with that of South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. It's a little disingenuous to think that Iraq is really comparable. Why not then compare U.S. disarmament with South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan? The U.S. hasn't disarmed, gotten rid of its nuclear stock pile, the world's largest, under UN supervision either. You're shaking your head thinking, "but that's not really a comparable situation. We're not a belligerent nation!" Hmm...

In any case, Iraq has given UN inspectors access to every palace, bunker, and home they've requested access to. Iraq has been reluctant no doubt, but they have reluctantly allowed the inspection to go ahead. Iraqis feel with just apprehension as though the world is walking over its right of sovereignty. Unlike South Africa, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, there's no carrot for them at the end of the disarmament process. There's only a suggestion that they'll get wacked by a smaller stick - no guarantees though.

Hypothetically, would the U.S. sign a non-aggression treaty with Iraq if they cooperated fully? Doubtful. Why sign a treaty with Iraq if you can force your hand?

Condolezza Rice also makes a big deal with the empty missles in a forgotten bunker and tries the scare the reader by hypothetical extension saying, "In the past, Iraq has filled this type of warhead with sarin — a deadly nerve agent used by Japanese terrorists in 1995 to kill 12 Tokyo subway passengers and sicken thousands of others. Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people." Well, whoopdy-doo. If they had a nuclear bomb they could kill millions more. Is evidence that A could lead to B proof that A will lead to B? The point is there are no VX filled warheads being found. The fact that the UN is finding forgotten small empty warheads is a sign of progress and a sign that disarming Iraq in a peaceful manner is both favorable to war and an effective means of resolving this conflict (if the conflict is solely concerned with disarmament).

The truth is, Condo and other cabinet level personnel in the Bush administration are seeing the tide turn against them, in this country, and abroad. More people are realizing that a choice confronts them; the violent path of war and the more sedate path of inspection. Perhaps some still feel that war will lead to the toppling of Saddam Hussein and Iraq will become a shining democratic, capitalistic frontier post in the Middle East, bringing that region closer in image to our own society. This view is wistful but improbable at first glance. You don't need to look far to see how the U.S. has already abandoned Afghanistan and that country's democratic future remains uncertain. Outside the capital city of Kabul, the courtry is ruled by warlords. When you examine more carefully this optimistic mirage of post war Iraq, the real image emerges. It is an image of ourselves, scared and impatient. The Middle East after all seems like a stranger. It is the unknown. It is where terrorists come from. Maybe if we bomb them, they won't bomb us. Maybe the next generation of Iraqis will watch MTV-Iraq. They will eat at McDonalds. They will be like us and learn to like us. Perhaps only then can we learn who they are and not be so scared? It's not a pretty image...and we don't have to get caught up in it.

Nor does any other country want us to conjure up images of the the world split in two; reenacting the Cold War (remember how scary the Russians were?). Nor does any other country want us to play the role of assilimators. France has come out against the war. Germany, China, Russia are following. Even our closest ally, UK, has become an advocate of giving the inspection team more time. Can we be right and the rest of the human race be wrong? Is the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes a right reserved by the world's only superpower to impose its will upon its neighbors? The impatience shown by Bush concerning Iraq stands in stark contrast to the way he's approach the problem on the Korean Penninsula. The unequal treatment of those two countries has also provided some evidence of the U.S. having ulterior motives. To fend off criticism Bush has recently declared that oil properties in Iraq willl be put into a trust for the Iraqi people. The promise hasn't put anyone at ease. Bush has oil on his hands. The oil men from Texas administration lacks credibility in these matters; they feign good-guy candor, but everyone sees their rabid impatience for war.

The heedless administration seems almost unstoppable in their appetite for war, as though alternatives have never been examined, and the UN inspection regime was never accepted in lieu of war but strictly as a prelude to military action. I'm left to wonder: What's the rush? Where is the evidence that this administration promised to provide us? If we KNOW that they have weapons of mass destruction, why haven't we shared such information with the inspection team? Why haven't we found them or destroyed any weapons? If they believe so strongly that Iraq has such weapons, shouldn't we get the inspectors to find and destroy the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons before endangering American troops? If we destroy such weapons do we still need to send in our troops? It makes no logical sense.

Condolezza Rice writing such fallacious op-ed pieces, telling us how we should feel instead of giving us facts, only worsens the situation. It's bad enough there's war brewing, but it's a few folds worse when the war-rallying comes from people your guts don't trust. After all, there are fine distinctions between KNOWING and FEELING.

Why We Know Iraq Is Lying

The stupidity of Bush's foreign policy in one statement: Pre-emptive strikes.

Now, North Korea is using the same principle in their saber-rattling: they're warning the U.S. that any more troop deployment to the Korean Peninsula may provoke a pre-emptive strike against U.S. soldiers stationed in South Korea. N. Korea is using U.S. rhetoric against itself.

If you look at both sides of this war of words, North Korea has a better reason for pre-emptive strikes than we do. Any U.S. buildup is aimed squarely at the North Koreans. It's the Cuban missle crisis for them and we're Cuba. Iraq after all, doesn't pose an immediate threat to us.

It seemed like a bad idea to have a policy of pre-emptive strikes when Bush first uttered those words. It seemed like a bad idea to me at the time to group N. Korea in the same "axis of evil" with Iraq and Iran.

North Korea has called the bluff and raised the ante. North Korea knows we're not interested in fighting a nuclear war with them and they're gearing up for nuclear weapons production. It'll only take a few months for them to have enough plutonium to build the bombs. With 35,000 troops in South Korea, the U.S. doesn't really want to fight an army of a million North Koreans. Sending any more soldiers may force that fight prematurely, perhaps even concurrently with a war in Iraq. That's going to be a lot of unnecessary blood stained on the hands of George W. This is what happens when you wage unilateralist war and cowboy diplomacy. This is what happens when you turn engagment policies of the Clinton administration into the confrontation policies of the Bush administration.

You know, Colin Powell was the one guy I liked on Bush's foreign policy team. Now I'm not so sure. I know he has to tow the line on this one because he's a soldier, but I'm not buying this whole "if the UN and NATO doesn't go our way, they're making themselves irrelevant." Does that actually work? Let's say they're in a classroom:

Teacher: "Hey Saddam, did you throw that spit-ball?"

Stubborn Saddam: "Uh, nope I didn't do it."

Teacher: "I saw it come from your direction... you better hand me whatever's in your hand."

McDonald: "I saw him do it. I'll go beat his damn face in cuz he's lying."

Teacher: "No McDonald, you're always so violent. Let's wait and see what Saddam has to say..."

Stubborn Saddam: "...I...uh..."

McDonald: impatiently interrupting "I'll rip his face off. I'll do it. Let me do it and take his candy."

Teacher: "Relax Big Mac, you're aways getting in trouble. You beat up Afghan yesterday and accidently gave Canada a black eye, remember?"

McDonald: "Hey, this whole instructional environment thing will be irrelevant if you don't let me beat up Saddam today. He did it. I know he did. I can't wait anymore!"

Rest of Class: "Dude, you should kick-back..."

I guess it's not exactly like that, but in a way, it is. It's the hot-heads vs. the cool heads. I see it like this: we're rushing to wage war while our staunchest allies of the past are holding things up because they believe in a diplomatic, peaceful solution.

The UN, especially, was created by us to solve problems through diplomacy. Half of diplomacy is letting hot heads cool off by taking up time. NATO, on the other hand, was an alliance for mutual defense.

Here we are going on the offensive and waging war... no wonder those institutions are becoming irrelevant. It's not because of France, Belgium or Germany. If there's one reason the UN and NATO would become irrelevant it's because they're set up as institutions for peaceful resolutions; not to be commandeered by the hot heads.

Powell had a tapestry copy of Pablo Picasso's famous Guernica fresco covered when he went to the U.N. Security Council. For my part in the weekend worldwide anti-war protest I think I'll post this picture because it shows the misery, death, and stupidity of war - something the administration has not been honest about. They depict the Iraqi invasion as something that will be sterile and swift. If that's not a lie, it certainly shows the wishful blindness of the Bush administration.

(click on the picture to enlarge)

The United Nations was established after WWII to create a body that would peacefully resolve international issues, issues such as environmental protection, terrorism, child labor, weapons, health, etc. It consists of many differnet organizations: UNESCO, UNDP, WHO, General Assembly, and the Security Council among others that I'm not remembering right now. It does a pretty good job facilitating debates between countries based on how fractured world opinion can be on any particular issue. What I don't understand is how the U.S. has been able to damage its importance and reputation. Conservatives in this country do not like the U.N. because it represents some form of compromise with the world community and it's too much give for them to stomach. They don't mind the alternative, although they don't really propose or have an alternative to the United Nations.

I personally think it's not only Iraq that's playing a game of shadow puppets with the U.N. but also the U.S. Ever since the last Gulf War, there has been a radical fringe group of political and commercial interests that wanted to go back and destroy Iraq. They tried to persuade Clinton to wage war. (see New American Century) They don't really care if the Security Council can get Iraq to disarm peacefully, they want to see the destruction of the current Iraqi regime nonetheless. They point out that it's a malicious regime with Saddam, the despot, at the top. They're right of course, except, there are many other similar regimes in the world that we don't care so much about. There just isn't the same political and commercial interests in going to war with other dictators, Pakistan for example (our friend in the war against terror). Sometimes Americans forget that the enemy of our enemy may still be our enemy.

"If Iraq exported Brocolli, we wouldn't be going to war" - a sign at the past weekend's demonstration in San Francisco, a sad but true statement. It's true because of the two, Iraq and North Korea, the nation that poses a larger, more immediate threat to the U.S. is North Korea. All the rationale for immediate war against Iraq are shadows on the wall. You have that irritating fact that most terrorists came from Saudi Arabia (again our friend in the war against terror). The world laughed at Colin Powell when he tried to link Al Qaeda with Iraq because everyone knows it's not true. Bin Laden likes to called the U.S. and Hussein infidels and sometimes in the same breath. G.W. Bush has recently dropped charges of nuclear weapons because there's just no evidence of Iraq in possession of nuclear weapons. Anyway, somehow that radical fringe group got control of the White House, Congress, and the rest will be history.

Back to the U.N...

Recently, the U.S. has been trying to get Iraq to agree with security council resolutions to disarm. But there's a certain amount of hypocrisy that's eluded all the news that I've been reading and watching. How is it that it's unacceptable for Iraq to disregard U.N. mandates, but it's perfectly fine for the U.S. to do so? Why is there wide acceptance that it is okay if President G.W. Bush says, "Another resolution would be nice, but it's not necessary."? While if Hussein had said, "Who cares what the U.N. thinks..." there would be outrage and disgust. Millions would march in the streets and demand that Iraq bend to the will of the international community.

Although millions marched last weekend to demand the U.S. to do the same, Bush casually brushed off the will of the international community. I'm outraged and disgusted that the only measure of "moral clarity" for this administration is whether others agree with Bush... "You're either with us or against us" says G.W. Bush.

It's okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons, it's okay for the U.S. to flaunt world opinion, it's okay for the U.S. to bribe Turkish support for $36 billion, it's okay for the U.S. to act pre-emptively, and it's okay for the U.S. to put anyone but U.S. officials on trial for war crimes (thus sabotaging the creation of the international criminal court). Why aren't more people disgusted and outraged at the blatant hypocrisy?

Anti-war food for thought:

"If Iraq exported Broccoli, We wouldn't be going to WAR!"

"If McVeigh bombed the WTC, would we bomb Michigan?"

"You need courage not to drop bombs, otherwise your war will be endless."

I'll keep updating this, but please add your favorites in the comments.

United States feels that it's just and reasonable to not sign the anti-land mine treaty, and now it's saying there shouldn't be an anti-smoking treaty (for free speach reasons).

I think the land mine ban is the more important of the two, but if developing countries want to ban cigarette advertising or give precedence to tobacco-control measures in free trade laws then let them have it, why get in the way?

Why? Because if there's ever been a government that's been bought off by big money it's got to be the Bush Administration. Phillip Morris - check, Halliburton - check, ExxonMobil - check...

Sometimes you have to call out the hypocrisy.

djwudi.com > The Long Letter > Syria's political brilliance

And while Iraq wielded the propaganda tool clumsily, Syria is proving a far better foe. It’s latest move, tactically brilliant, is to introduce a Security Council resolution calling for the elimination of all WMDs in the Middle East.

The move comes as some in the US side scream about Syria’s alleged WMDs. Thus Syria’s move is nothing short of genius. If the US is truly serious about ridding the Middle East of WMDs, it should have no problem endorsing a resolution that would compell Syria to disarm. Right?

Wrong. The resolution would have the (intentional) effect of forcing Israel to surrender its nuclear arsenal — a course of action Israel would never accept. And the US, Israel’s most loyal ally, will thus be forced to veto the resolution.

So picture this — the US vetoing a resolution calling for the banning of all WMDs from the Middle East. In one fell swoop, Syria has negated the charges of WMDs against it, exposed the US’s hypocrisy on WMDs (our allies can have them, everyone else can’t), solidified its leadership of the Arab world, and forced the US to veto a seemingly common sense resolution, after blasting France and Russia for threatening vetoes on Iraq.

(via Daily Kos)

Here's a good blog for SARS updates.
SARS Watch org by Tim Bishop

I've been thinking about how economically unbalanced the world is with the US spending much more than it earns and with China and other countries supplying the credit that the U.S. takes for granted. It's producing a lot of unsustainable and dangerous results like the housing bubble in California, New York, D.C., and overinvestment in export industries in China, for example. In addition, this imbalance will eventually show up in the political sphere. This article is a good backgrounder on the situation in China.

Does the Future Belong to China?
A new power is emerging in the East. How America should handle unprecedented new challenges, threats—and opportunities.
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek

May 9 issue - Americans admire beauty, but they are truly dazzled by bigness. Think of the Grand Canyon, the California redwoods, Grand Central Terminal, Disney World, SUVs, the American armed forces, General Electric, the Double Quarter Pounder (With Cheese) and the Venti Latte. Europeans prefer complexity and nuance, the Japanese revere minuteness and minimalism. But Americans like size, preferably supersize.

That's why China hits the American imagination so hard. It is a country whose scale dwarfs the United States—1.3 billion people, four times America's population. For more than a hundred years it was dreams of this magnitude that fascinated small groups of American missionaries and businessmen—1 billion souls to save; 2 billion armpits to deodorize—but it never amounted to anything. China was very big, but very poor. All that is changing. But now the very size and scale that seemed so alluring is beginning to look ominous. And Americans are wondering whether the "China threat" is nightmarishly real.

Every businessman these days has a dazzling statistic about China, meant to stun the listener into silence. And they are an impressive set of numbers. China is now the world's largest producer of coal, steel and cement, the second largest consumer of energy and the third largest importer of oil, which is why gas prices are soaring. China's exports to the United States have grown by 1,600 percent over the past 15 years, and U.S. exports to China have grown by 415 percent.

The most astonishing example of growth is surely Shanghai. Fifteen years ago, Pudong, in east Shanghai, was undeveloped countryside. Today it is Shanghai's financial district, eight times the size of London's new financial district, Canary Wharf, in fact only slightly smaller than the city of Chicago. And speaking of Venti Lattes, last week Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz noted on CNBC that in three years the company would probably have more cafes in China than in the United States.