Israel: Alone Against Iran?!?

Global political system destabilized?!?

Insufficient political energy and determination in Washington?!?

Say it ain't so, somebody --- anybody!!

(With my usual apologies to "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball.)

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

[German media giant, Der] SPIEGEL: You said recently that Israel might have to stand alone and therefore must be ready to deal unilaterally with the Iran problem.

[Israeli Deputy Prime Minister] Lieberman: That is the worst-case scenario. The differences in opinion between Russia and Western Europe, between Europe and the U.S., between the U.S. and the United Nations have destabilized the global political system. We have to take into account that the international community may not do anything and that Israel may have to act alone.

[...] Lieberman: I am sensing on the part of the Americans an understanding for the Iranian problem, but currently I do not see in Washington enough political energy and determination for an independent step against Iran. The developments in Iraq are having a very negative effect, and nobody knows where this will end.

From a http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/">SPIEGEL ONLINE article, http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,465769,00.html">"Israel May Have to Act Alone":

SPIEGEL ONLINE - February 12, 2007, 12:46 PM [/] "Israel May Have to Act Alone"

Deputy Israeli Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman on his country's response to the Iranian nuclear program and the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

SPIEGEL: Minister Lieberman, the Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah are currently keeping themselves very occupied with their own problems. Even as their leaders negotiated a unity government in Mecca, the militias waged bloody fighting in the streets. Does the fact that they are busy with their own problems comfort you?

Lieberman: It does not comfort me, but I am happy that the number of attacks against Israel has gone down drastically. I do not expect the fighting to spill over to Judea and Samaria ...

SPIEGEL: ... you mean the Palestinian West Bank.

Lieberman: But I think that there is a danger of Hamas winning the fight in the Gaza Strip.

SPIEGEL: With their summit between Palestinian leaders Mahmoud Abbas, Ismail Haniyeh, Khaled Mashaal last week, Saudi mediators had sought to prevent exactly that.

Lieberman: I am worried that the formation of a Hamas-Fatah unity government will give Hamas the international legitimacy it doesn't have today, without having to make any real changes to its platform of the non-recognition of Israel and the continuation of terror tactics against Israel. A unity government with Fatah shouldn't be a carte blanche for Hamas; this would be a very poor reflection on the international community. This is a further test of the resolve of the international community against worldwide terror.

SPIEGEL: Will there be an Israeli ground offensive into the Gaza Strip?

Lieberman: I think that statistically it is only a matter of time before one of the hundreds of Qassam rockets fired into Israel from Gaza falls in a kindergarten or marketplace. Then public pressure will force us to launch a ground offensive into Gaza, and in such an event I believe that world opinon will understand that we have an obligation to defend our citizens.

[(] Avigdor Lieberman emigrated to Israel in 1978 from the Soviet Republic of Moldavia. There, he jobbed as a bouncer at nightclubs, studied politics, eventually joined the right- wing Likud movement, ultimately serving as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's top aid. In 1999, Lieberman founded the Israeli Russian immigrants' party Israeli Beitenu (Israel is our Home). Following the 2006 Knesset election, his party became the strongest faction in the opposition camp. And after last summer's war against Lebanon, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert invited the 48- year hardliner to join his government.[)]

SPIEGEL: You said the Israeli army should raze the Gaza Strip and apply the same methods that the Russian forces are using in Chechnya. So you have never been to Chechnya?

Lieberman: I said it does not make sense for Israel to launch an operation in Gaza as long as we do not have allies there. The Americans for example don't have allies in Iraq, and Russia only succeeded to establish order in Chechnya after it relied on the local Kadyrov clan.

SPIEGEL: A man who is anything but trustworthy.

Lieberman: That is not important. We never succeeded in the Gaza Strip by relying on those people who think rationally and have a secular orientation. The moderate people always have been on the defensive against the extremists. We will never be able to establish order there on our own.

SPIEGEL: With your 11 Knesset seats, you support prime minister Ehud Olmert who is now seeking a dialogue with Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas -- something you can't be in favor of.

Lieberman: The question is what will be the result? Abbas's most important obligation according to the "road map" is to dissolve the extremist militias and to collect the weapons. If something concrete happens in this respect, we will support it.

SPIEGEL: Olmert says he abides by the "road map," the internationally accepted peace plan. You reject the "road map" as well as the Oslo Process.

Lieberman: Oslo happend 14 years ago. We have since reached a dead end. The "road map" was adopted in 2003, and three-and-a-half years later the results are zero. The Israelis are today interested in security, the Palestinians in economic prosperity. As long as we cannot guarantee this to both sides, we will not have progress. Fourteen years after Oslo, the Israelis enjoy much less security and the Palestinian living conditions are much worse.

SPIEGEL: Your suggested resolution to the Palestinian conflict is to make Israel Arab free. Do you really want to remove one-fifth of the Israeli society, i.e. cleanse Israel ethnically?

Lieberman: On the contrary. What is the core of the conflict? Wherever in the world there are two languages, two religions, two people, there are tensions and conflicts: in Québec in Canada, in the former Yugoslavia, in the Russian Caucasus or in Northern Ireland where the confessions have fought each other for many years. It is crystal clear: The more homogeneous a country is, the better it develops.

SPIEGEL: So you do believe there should be a separation of the ethnic groups.

Lieberman: When Ariel Sharon developed his disengagement plan for the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, I argued: On the one hand you are establishing a monolithic Palestinian state without a single Jew, while Israel maintains an Arab population of 20 percent. It cannot be that there are one and a half states for one people and only half a state for the other. The connection between the Arabs in Israel and those in a Palestinian state will destroy us for sure.

SPIEGEL: Jewish and Arab settlements lie next to each other like a patchwork quilt. How do you intend to create a homogeneous map?

Lieberman: First of all one has to agree on the basic principle. My plan is an exchange of territories and population. All people stay where they currently live. We will hand over territorries like the Wadi Ara triangle where mostly Arabs live to the Palestinian jurisdiction; territories with a large Jewish population will be transferred to us.

SPIEGEL: The chances for success are close to zero: What Israeli Arab wants to become part of Palestine?

Lieberman: Of course they do not want this. On the one hand they want to enjoy all the advantages of the modern Israel, but on the other hand they want to destroy us from the inside. During the last war in Lebanon, Arab Knesset members went to Beirut and Damascus to show their solidarity with Syria and the Hezbollah -- that is absurd. Can you imagine an American Congressman traveling to Afghanistan in order to meet with and publicly support Osama bin Laden?

SPIEGEL: You responded by demanding that Israeli-Arab members of parliament who are in contact with Hezbollah and Hamas should be executed like "Nazi collaborators"?

Lieberman: I meant Hezbollah henchmen in our country. They have to be put to trial like the Nazis in Nuremberg. When the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, kills two Arab children with his rockets in Nazareth and the father declares his children to be martyrs and Nasrallah to be his brother; when the same father says Israel is guilty and then receives financial support from our National Insurance Institute, this is absurd.

SPIEGEL: Israel feels threatened not only by Hamas and Hezbollah, but also by the regime in Tehran. Can you confirm reports that your government is preparing for a nuclear strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities?

Lieberman: No, Iran is not an Israeli problem, it is a problem for the whole free world. What we have here is a clash of "different" civilizations, and Israeli is located at the front line. Bin Laden for example is not a rational person. What do you want to offer him? Money, territories? He would not accept anything in return for ending terror. The same is true of (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad.

SPIEGEL: A scenario in which Israel undertook a military strike is not far-fetched. In 1981, under then prime minister Menachem Begin, Israel bombarded a nuclear facility -- the Osirak reactor in Iraq.

Lieberman: That was one of Begin's most important decisions. Otherwise Saddam Hussein would have found himself in a different position. Even those who criticized us at that time do acknowledge this today.

SPIEGEL: If you rule out negotiations with Iran, you are either left with sanctions or a military solution.

Lieberman: Iran has a big business community which reacts very sensitively to sanctions. The fact that Ahmadinejad lost the municipal elections shows that the business community is dissatisfied with the fact that he is isolating Tehran. A great part of Iranian exports go to Japan, the Arab Emirates and western Europe, also to Germany. If all these countries were to uphold sanctions as they have done in the case of North Korea, Iran would break apart, even if China, Russia and India didn't participate.

SPIEGEL: You said recently that Israel might have to stand alone and therefore must be ready to deal unilaterally with the Iran problem.

Lieberman: That is the worst-case scenario. The differences in opinion between Russia and Western Europe, between Europe and the U.S., between the U.S. and the United Nations have destabilized the global political system. We have to take into account that the international community may not do anything and that Israel may have to act alone.

SPIEGEL: Your meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice didn't make you more optimistic?

Lieberman: I am sensing on the part of the Americans an understanding for the Iranian problem, but currently I do not see in Washington enough political energy and determination for an independent step against Iran. The developments in Iraq are having a very negative effect, and nobody knows where this will end.

Interview conducted by Christian Neef and Christoph Schult. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Life In the Fast Lane?!?

It is helpful to learn the basic facts about people deemed newsworthy by our media.

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From an AccessNorthGa.com article, Anna Nicole Smith Timeline:

Key dates in the life of Anna Nicole Smith:

-Nov. 28, 1967: Born Vickie Lynn Hogan in Houston.

-1983: Quits high school, works as a waitress, cook.

-April 1985: Marries 16-year-old Billy Wayne Smith, another fry cook at the restaurant where she worked; they have a son, Daniel Smith VIII.

-Mid-1986: Leaves her husband, taking her son and returning to Houston. For the next several years, she supports herself and Daniel by working at a Wal-Mart and a restaurant, and dancing topless at strip clubs.

-October 1991: Meets Texas oil billionaire J. Howard Marshall II while dancing at a Houston club.

-February 1992: Files for divorce from Billy Smith.

-March 1992: Debuts on the cover of Playboy.

-May 1992: Featured in Playboy as the centerfold.

-November 1992: Signs a three-year contract to be the new model for Guess jeans, also coining her new name, "Anna Nicole."

-May 1993: Appears again in Playboy and is later named Playmate of the Year.

-Feb. 12, 1994: Is hospitalized for three days after mixing prescription drugs and alcohol, then collapsing at a Beverly Hills hotel.

-June 27, 1994: Marries oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall II. She is 26; he is 89.

-January 1995: Marshall falls seriously ill, and his son E. Pierce Marshall moves to be appointed his father's legal guardian. Legal fight between Smith and Pierce ensues when he cuts off her spousal support of $50,000 a month.

-Aug. 4, 1995: J. Howard Marshall dies of pneumonia at age 90, leaving spousal support fight unresolved.

-November 1995: Smith hospitalized for six days following what her spokesman calls an adverse reaction to prescription medication.

-February 1996: Files for bankruptcy in California.

-Sept. 27, 2000: A California judge issues a $450 million ruling for Smith against Pierce Marshall, later upped to $474 million.

-March 7, 2001: A Houston jury rules that Smith is not entitled to half the estate of her late husband, and that his sole heir is his son.

-May 24, 2001: A U.S. district judge in Los Angeles throws out the $474 million judgment previously awarded from the estate of her late husband.

-March 2002: The U.S. District Court judge awards Smith $88 million of J. Howard Marshall's oil fortune, concluding that Smith deserves half the investment income Marshall earned during their marriage, plus $44 million in punitive damages resulting from the younger Marshall's attempts to cut her off.

-Aug. 4, 2002: Premiere of "The Anna Nicole Show," the E! reality series in which a camera follows her through her everyday routine.

-October 2003: Becomes spokeswoman for TrimSpa diet pills.

-Dec. 30, 2004: A federal appeals court in San Francisco overturns Smith's $88.5 million inheritance award.

-Feb. 28, 2006: Attends her hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court demurely dressed in black and avoiding making any statement.

-May 1, 2006: The Supreme Court rules unanimously that Smith can pursue her late husband's fortune, overruling the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which had ruled that federal courts could not handle Smith's case.

-Sept. 7, 2006: Gives birth to baby girl named Dannielynn in the Bahamas.

-Sept. 10, 2006: Smith's 20-year-old son, Daniel Smith, dies in his mother's hospital room in the Bahamas.

-Sept. 26, 2006: Lawyer Howard K. Stern claims he is the father of Dannielynn. The following day, an ex-boyfriend, photographer Larry Birkhead, says he is the real father. Subsequent lawsuits filed.

-Nov. 7, 2006: Smith is discharged from a week-long stay in a Bahamas hospital where she received treatment for pneumonia and a collapsed lung.

-Dec. 21, 2006: The Los Angeles Superior Court rules that Smith must bring Dannielynn to California for a paternity test. That ruling was temporarily blocked and the question was pending.

-Feb. 8, 2007: Smith dies in Florida at age 39. [[Drug overdose suspected.]]

Limitations of Innate Immortality

From a forum thread:

{{___ Where does the Bible teach innate immortality?}}

You are correct. The Bible does not teach "innate immortality".

Immortality, eternal life, is a free gift to the born again on the basis of unmerited favor and through the instrument of supernatural faith in the Resurrection and in one's own eternal salvation through the blood sacrifice of the Son.

On the other hand, some persistence of the remains of the individual who decides (generally, through culpable neglect, perhaps) to spend eternity without God is indicated in scripture. The texts are familiar.

I follow C. S. Lewis on the notion that what remains of the lost individual in eternity is miniscule and is totally evil. All in the present existence is supported and maintained by the presence of God.

Acts 17:28 KJV For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

The lake of fire would seem to be a place where all the good that God ordinarily provides to His creatures is not present.

It is not unreasonable to think that Jesus was spiritually in the lake of fire when on the Cross:

Matthew 27:46 KJV And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

One can even go further and consider that the lake of fire was created at this time. It was necessary that there be a creation without the normal presence of God. Jesus had become sin and a curse. And yet His spiritual fellowship with the other Persons could not be broken without the creation of a special place.

{{___ Why seek for immortality if one already has it?}}

Psalms 62:12 LITV Also mercy belongs to You, O Lord, for You reward a man according to his work.

Romans 2:6-10 LITV He "will give to each according to his works:" LXX-Psa. 61:13; MT-Psa. 62:12 (7) everlasting life truly to those who with patience in good work [are] seeking glory and honor and incorruptibility; (8) but to the ones truly disobeying the truth out of self-interest, and obeying unrighteousness, will be anger and wrath, (9) trouble and pain on every soul of man that works out evil, both of Jew first, and of Greek. (10) But glory and honor and peace will be to everyone working out good, both to the Jew first, and to the Greek.

Rightly translated and interpreted this passage has much to say about the present evidence of right and wrong behavior, and of present evidence of eternal blessing. Seeking to minimize the effects of mortality, that is the weakness and corruption of the flesh is a worthwhile endeavor.

We must interpret this passage in terms of others which plainly show that the seeking of glory and honor and incorruptibility through endurance of good works is a mark of the born again and of the already irrevocably given eternal life.

Global Warming: A Hoax?!?

Another big government, big science, big media, big education, self-serving, extravaganza?!?

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From a Canada Free Press article, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?:

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide [/] Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? [/] By Timothy Ball [/] Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com [My ellipses and emphasis]

Like the U.S. in 1861, Iraq Chooses Civil War

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

We have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But when Arabs kill Arabs and Shiites kill Shiites and Sunnis kill all in a spasm of violence that is blind and furious and has roots in hatreds born long before America was even a republic, to place the blame on the one player, the one country, the one military that has done more than any other to try to separate the combatants and bring conciliation is simply perverse.

It infantilizes Arabs. It demonizes Americans. It willfully overlooks the plainest of facts: Iraq is their country. We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war.

From a Washington Post article, Who's to Blame for The Killing, more follows:

Who's to Blame for The Killing [/] By Charles Krauthammer [/] Friday, February 2, 2007; A15

This week the internecine warfare in Iraq, already bewildering -- Sunni vs. Shiite, Kurd vs. Arab, jihadist vs. infidel, with various Iranians, Syrians and assorted freelancers thrown into the maelstrom -- went bizarre. In one of the biggest battles of the war, Iraqi troops reinforced by Americans wiped out a heavily armed, well-entrenched millenarian Shiite sect preparing to take over Najaf, kill the moderate Shiite clergy (including Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani) and proclaim its leader the returned messiah.

The battle was a success -- 263 extremists killed, 502 captured. But the sight of the United States caught within a Shiite-Shiite fight within the larger Shiite-Sunni civil war can lead only to further discouragement of Americans, who are already deeply dismayed at the notion of being caught in the middle of endless civil strife.

There are, of course, many reasons for these schisms. Some, like the fundamental division between Sunni and Shiite, are ancient. Some of the wounds are more contemporary, most notably the social devastation and political ruin brought upon the country by 30 years of Saddamist totalitarianism and its particularly sadistic persecution of Shiites and Kurds.

America comes and liberates them from the tyrant who kept everyone living in fear, and the ancient animosities and more recent resentments begin to play themselves out to deadly effect. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, the overwhelming majority of them killed by Sunni insurgents, Baathist dead-enders and their al-Qaeda allies who carry on the Saddamist pogroms.

Much of their killing -- the murder of innocent Shiites in their mosques and markets -- is bereft of politics. It is meant to satisfy instead an atavistic hatred of the Shiite heresy. The late al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was even chided by headquarters in Afghanistan for his relish in killing Shiites for the sport of it.

Iraqis were given their freedom, and yet many have chosen civil war. Among all these religious prejudices, ancient wounds, social resentments and tribal antagonisms, who gets the blame for the rivers of blood? You can always count on some to find the blame in America. "We did not give them a republic," insists Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. "We gave them a civil war."

Of all the accounts of the current situation, this is by far the most stupid. And the most pernicious. Did Britain "give" India the Hindu-Muslim war of 1947-48 that killed a million souls and ethnically cleansed 12 million more? The Jewish-Arab wars in Palestine? The tribal wars of post-colonial Uganda?

We gave them a civil war? Why? Because we failed to prevent it? Do the police in America have on their hands the blood of the 16,000 murders they failed to prevent last year?

Thousands of brave American soldiers have died trying to counter, put down and prevent civil strife. They fight Sunni insurgents in Fallujah, Ramadi and Baghdad, trying to keep them from sending yet one more suicide bomber into a crowded Shiite market. They hunt Shiite death squads in Baghdad to keep them from rounding up random Sunnis and torturing them to death. Just this week, we lost two helicopter pilots who were supporting the troops on the ground fighting the "Soldiers of Heaven" outside Najaf to prevent the slaughter of innocents in a Shiite-Shiite war within a war.

Our entire strategy has been to fight one side and then the other to try to prevent sectarian violence -- a policy that has been one of the leading reasons Americans are ready to quit and walk away. They can understand one-front wars, but they can't understand two-, three- and four-front wars, with Americans fighting any and all in sequence and sometimes in combination.

And at the political level, we've been doing everything we can to bring reconciliation. We got the Sunnis to participate in elections and then in parliament. Who is pushing the Shiite-Kurdish coalition for a law that would distribute oil revenue to the Sunnis? Who is pushing for a more broadly based government to exclude Moqtada al-Sadr and his sectarian Mahdi Army?

We have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But when Arabs kill Arabs and Shiites kill Shiites and Sunnis kill all in a spasm of violence that is blind and furious and has roots in hatreds born long before America was even a republic, to place the blame on the one player, the one country, the one military that has done more than any other to try to separate the combatants and bring conciliation is simply perverse.

It infantilizes Arabs. It demonizes Americans. It willfully overlooks the plainest of facts: Iraq is their country. We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war. [/] letters@charleskrauthammer.com [My ellipses and emphasis]

HIV Existence On Trial In Australia

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From a Delphi VirusMyth thread, Court Test: Does HIV Exist?!?, post .6:

Thanks for keeping us all up to date.

{{___ RPH executive director Philip Montgomery said: "Royal Perth Hospital does not support The Perth Group's views on HIV, and group members have been instructed that they will not use any hospital resources for work related to their private research.
{{___ "Furthermore, the staff have also been instructed that their private research should not be linked in any way to Royal Perth Hospital."}}

With apologies to Matt Casey, Randy Shilts, and, most of all, deepest apologies to all girls with red hair. In waltz time:

The establishment waltzed with the fabulous bug,
And the band played on.
They reveled in the wealth from the myth that they loved,
And the band played on.
Their lies are so loaded,
Patient health is exploded,
The whole world looks on with alarm,
But they've married the myth of the fabulous bug,
And the band plays on.

The foolishness of those who seem to believe that there is no God and no Judgment brings laughter as well as tears. Particularly when they resemble "children [playing] in the marketplace".