If Cole is right, and our primary opponent is still the Ba’ath, and the fighting in Iraq has little or nothing to do with the war against terrorism, then sooner or later — and probably sooner — it’s going to become politically impossible for the administration to continue spending $2 billion a week to keep 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
Back to Main
November 3, 2005
WB: A Visit From Juan Cole
Comments
I’m not inclined to think well of any armed faction in Iraq–the US, the resistance (or resistances, since I don’t know how many factions there are), the Iraqi government, etc… As best I can tell they’re all war criminals.
One problem I had with Juan Cole’s solution (he didn’t email me back, btw, though he has in the past) is that it presupposes that the US special forces and air force would only target terrorists. What in the history of US counterinsurgency operations would give him that idea? It’s incredibly naive.
As for who is doing most of the killing, I wonder that myself. Is there any way of determining how many civilians the US kills, or how many of the “criminal” murders are actually government death squad killings, for instance? As for the car bomb attacks on the Shiites, while one shouldn’t rule out the possibility that the perpetrators might not always be the insurgents, it seems a little silly to me to deny that they are probably doing most of it. We on the left shouldn’t be mirror images of Reagan, who used to pretend that the killings perpetrated by rightwing death squads in Central America were really the work of leftist guerillas disguised as rightwingers.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | Nov 4 2005 16:54 utc | 101
Some observers, such as political scientist Wamidh Nadhmi (Baghdad University), believe that the major division in Iraq is not along ethnic and religious divisions nor between the general population and violent groups, but between those who collaborate with the foreign occupation and those who resist it …
The widely-supported Iraq National Foundation Congress sponsors joint Sunni-Shia prayers, a key force in the 1920 revolution that ended colonial British rule. Established in July of this year, the group brings leftists, Kurds, and Christians together with pre-Saddam Ba’athists and members of powerful Sunni and Shia cleric associations. Although the Congress does not reject armed resistance, it advocates peaceful resistance instead of fundamentalist militias like Al-Sadr’s.
In an interview with The Guardian (UK), Congress spokesman Wamidh Nadhmi said the real division in Iraq is not between Arab and Kurd, Sunni and Shia, or secular and religious, but between “the pro-occupation camp and the anti-occupation camp. The pro-occupation people are either completely affiliated to the US and Britain, in effect puppets, or they saw no way to overthrow Saddam without occupation. Unfortunately, the pro-occupation people tend not to distinguish between resistance and terrorism, or between anti-occupation civil society and those who use violence.
The resistance is not limited to extremist fringes of society, as US media coverage suggests. It includes Arab nationalists, Muslim mujahideen, and Iraqis not particularly religious but “outraged to see their country’s resources robbed while they live in slums, drink water mixed with sewage and have no say in the political process,” Haifa Zangana writes in The Guardian. Thousands of people demonstrated across Iraq in support of Falluja, a city that never fully submitted to either colonial British rule or to Saddam’s regime.
“Iraqis are not focused on whether things would be better had the invasion not happened. What they want to know is how and when the manifestly unsafe world they face every day… is going to change… ”
Posted by: Outraged | Nov 4 2005 17:02 utc | 102
Another relevant film doc available on a bittorrent: Shake Hands with the Devil The journey of Romeo Dallaire.
about rwanda. Cutting and running from Iraq may be worse.
oh, the contradictions.
Posted by: slothrop | Nov 4 2005 17:26 utc | 103
Beyond Fallujah by Patrick Graham, Harpers 6/04
A good read exposing the myth of foreign fighters 17 months ago.
Caught him on a ‘best of’ Al Franken show recently (couldn’t find transcript)and sounded like he was writing a book about his experiences (not on Amazon yet). When asked about US options in Iraq, he was as flummoxed as most, but had some solid, reality based ideas as to what should be done in near term – where US troops should be, redefinitiom of mission, etc.
The Harpers article is more or less preaching to the choir for most posting here, but found it illuminating. Smart guy
Posted by: claire | Nov 4 2005 17:42 utc | 104
link to Beyond Fallujah @ harpers that claire mentions
Posted by: b real | Nov 4 2005 17:57 utc | 105
Well, we removed Saddam from power and his forces metled into the population. Standard procedure for a country that has been invaded. Foreign fighters? Hardly.
Saddam has been removed from power, imprisoned, and come back before. This is not a stupid man. They had months to prepare for this in the build up to the war.
And then there’s the whole power vacuum created and everyone has been working hard to fill it, some within the new government, some without, most both. Every force within the new Iraqi government undoubtedly also has allies fighting outside of it.
It’s called invasion by a foreign country AND civil war. Both going on simultaneously. No wonder it’s a total clusterfuck – what else could we expect?
Its just about time for a trite remark like the more things change the more they stay the same. Everywhere I look I see the same old same old that every war has.
People motivated for a zillion complex and conflicting reasons being reduced to a few words. “they’re Sunni” Soldiers arriving somewhere with their heads full of jingoistic claptrap and spouting about the grand plan, shooting some kid whose actions appeared indiscernible to the soldier in his heightened state of paranoia and confusion brought on by the dissonance between what he had been told and the reality he confronts.
When we look at the US we can see a continuous chain of invasions and occupations where the tactics of repression, murder and theft are regularly polished up.
Then we see THIS which tells us:
” IRAQ – The court martial of seven British paratroopers accused of murdering an Iraqi teenager has collapsed amid accusations and recriminations.
While the supporters of the soldiers declared the charges should not have been brought in the first place, the family of 18-year-old Nadhem Abdullah, who was beaten to death, protested against an act of “injustice”.
The hearing’s judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to continue with the prosecution.
Abdullah’s family said that they were “surprised” and “saddened” by the collapse of the case. Fadil al-Saqer, a cousin, said “We did not even know the trial has stopped. We had members of the family, neighbours, go to England because we were told that there will be justice. But this is not justice. Who can you trust?
“This is very sad. We do not know what to do now. Are they saying Nadhem was not killed?” “
The Brits recent history has quite long periods of not occupying anywhere yet as soon as it’s needed the machinery of repression can swing smoothly into place.
I used to think this was due to many military forces policy of “Blooding” ie when Australia and NZ fought in Vietnam British troops were seconded across to ANZAC units to get a bit of ‘hands on experience’. In the 60’s under the Wilson regime the UK didn’t have that many places apart from it’s old favorite The Yemen to practise murder and pillaging.
In the 70’s and 80’s Australian and NZ troops were invited to join the Brits on ‘dirty weekends’ in Armargh or South of the border in Eire to murder selected targets.
But it can’t be that simple. Firstly because obscentities such as the cover up of this kid’s killing requires more skills than just being able to beat the kid to death in the first place. So does all of the hidden machinery of repression in the military get ‘blooded’ as well?
The problem with that theory is it presupposes that just the military are involved in this extra judicial process. In fact pulling this shit off successfully requires elements of the media, the prosecutors, politicians, secret service to all swing in to action and know what to do.
The Brits obviously weren’t the best example to use because their long history of imperialism means that the culture of imperialism is likely to be retained for quite some time.
The thing is though when NZ does get caught up in this shit as they are in Afghanistan and something bad happens, they also have the machine start up and purr along as though it had never stopped.
So it’s all a bit like a ‘mystery dance’ how is this culture perpetuated? Is there a thread of knowledge about these things that dates back to the Roman Empire (and probably beyond) where the methodology is secretly passed on? Like a masonic lodge where the members actually do something apart from assisting each other’s material gain?
Or worst of all is human’s ability to wage war so skillfully, innate. There is no blooding, no secret handshakes, elements within human society always ‘know what to do’.
This isn’t an idle question incidentally. Until we thoroughly understand how it is this culture of death and destruction is perpetuated, we won’t have Buckleys chance of putting a long term end to it.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 4 2005 21:00 utc | 107
@rgiap
if I haven’t said anything about the pathetic name calling earlier it was because I suppose I hoped it would go away as quickly as possible and I trust you realise that most of us(probably Billmon included but I shouldn’t try and speak for others) recognise that sort of stuff tells us far more about the person doing the accusing than that it ever could about the one on the receiving end.
That never seems to stop any of us from doing it though.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 4 2005 21:14 utc | 108
Wars are not the same, except the maiming and utter uncontrollable randomness of death is universal. Iraq is not a people’s war. It is a religious war. A predominately Muslim Sunni revolt against Christian invaders who kicked them out of power.
The Sunni revolt would end as soon as the Americans left and the Sunni regained their former power. The Shiite and Kurds would contest the Sunni Restoration until all sides decided that enough death is enough. The problem with Civil War in Iraq is the honey of all that oil that will draw in outsiders.
There are simply is not enough Americans to control Iraq and there never will be. Sooner or later the American troops will leave. Perhaps as a withdrawal settlement the US can get the UN and Arab League to set up border blocking forces, and let the Sunni, Kurds and Shiites fight out a political settlement inside Iraq all by themselves.
Posted by: Jim S | Nov 4 2005 21:35 utc | 109
Re: “…Juan Cole”… how could you have “accidentally” forgotten to mention that U.S. forces have captured or killed al-Zarqawi OVER A DOZEN TIMES so far?
I mean, it’s so far BEYOND merely “surreal” or “bizarre” that maybe we need to make “al-Zarqawi’d” a verb, meaning, “to kill or capture the same person at least quarterly, year after year.”
Posted by: William B. | Nov 4 2005 22:01 utc | 110
Creative name-calling is fine by me. We all have identities that can eventually be labeled. The more amusing, the better.
And many of us are good sports.
I am utterly amazed at the confusion around this Iraq issue? Is it really that hard to figure out? I know some people know exactly what’s going on.
Posted by: jm | Nov 4 2005 22:32 utc | 111
oh the irony.
He we have a theory about a war being fought against a strawman (Zarqawi) that everyone agrees is a useful fiction.
This war was brought about because everyone (including Saddam) agreed that it was a useful fiction to pretend that Saddam was a threat.
Posted by: p lukasiak | Nov 4 2005 22:38 utc | 112
So the the Anglo-Americans finally loose patience with economic strangling and endless bombing from the air and decide to go in, when the time is ripe and they know there is no danger.
Once the country is occupied, oh, it turns out
… the people of the country are very clannish and at war with each other in an yucky mix of religion, political alliance, territory, etc. They fight amongst themselves, go in for terrorism, and all want a slice of pie. Some are old style, some new, some want this, others want that, they all bomb around the place, and don’t work properly, and are spies and insurgents
….yah really weird people – you know, they are dirty, Muslims most of them, and we know about that; they might even have a civil war, they are so filled with hate and greed. (For the oil fields, duh!) – its like the Kurds and the Shits – they both want the oil fields, they will …
…. They will never understand democracy – never. And they can’t treat women right. Also, there are gangsters and kidnappers. Freedom, well it’s not for them… If the US left, it would be chaos. Imagine!
…Oh but some of them support the US.
Posted by: Noisette | Nov 4 2005 23:04 utc | 113
In all seriousness, jm, what is going on in Iraq? How many civilians are being killed and by whom? How many insurgent factions are there and what are their motivations? Do they all have the same motives? What exactly is the Cheney Administration up to? I can guess some of the answers, but not all, and I can’t be sure of any.
Just wanted to correct myself earlier–not everyone with a weapon in Iraq is a war criminal. That was glib. But the insurgents murder Shiite civilians (or at least some do) and the Americans level cities and torture prisoners (or some do) and the Iraqi government uses death squads. So I’m not inclined to either wave flags on the one hand or romanticize the “resistance” on the other.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | Nov 4 2005 23:19 utc | 114
That’s what gets me, Donald. Here we have a real life situation that never leaves the realm of fantasy. The facts are all there, and yet I haven’t heard anyone lay them out in a convincing way.
I agree with the romanticizing factor. Any violent conflict on this scale becomes a psychotic arena where people on all sides commit atrocities.
Posted by: jm | Nov 4 2005 23:39 utc | 115
It’s not a question of romanticising the resistance but we do need to acknowledge that a/ since Blind Freddy can see the vast majority of Iraqis want everybody else the fuck out of the place it’s only a matter of time before they get their wish; and the sooner that happens the less brutalised everyone will be.
and:
b/ whatever it is that Iraqis choose to get up to in their at least 5000 year old country is really no one else’s business unless Iraqi angst unwarrantably impinges on that other person/nation.
This is something that hasn’t happened yet either. The war against both Iran and Kuwait could be ‘justified’ by Iraq as attempts to reclaim assets/land stolen from them. I’m not trying to excuse the Iraqi use of violence but I am saying they don’t have a reputation for either imperialism or needlessly enforcing their point of view on others.
So instead of standing around pontificating the scowcrofts, powells, reids, kerrys and their english and australian equivalents would perform a much better service to Iraq and the rest of the world if they used the efforts to try and get everyone who wasn’t Iraqi, the fuck outta the joint.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 4 2005 23:54 utc | 116
Yes, exactly.
Nothing clearer. We just need to update “Yankee Go Home” to give it a more contemporary tone :-
FUCK OFF AMERICA !
Posted by: DM | Nov 5 2005 0:23 utc | 117
“Creative name-calling is fine by me. We all have identities that can eventually be labeled. The more amusing, the better.”
Fine I’ve generally held to the “call me what you like just don’t call me late for lunch” line as well.
Thing is tho that is by no means everyone’s attitude. A lot of people aren’t that certain of the best way to handle that shit and since we have no way of tellin how anyone at the other end of this blog and halfway round the world is likely to take personal abuse I reckon that we need to accept that the person getting abused is being bullied and reject personal abuse as a means of advancing any point of view.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 5 2005 0:38 utc | 118
debs
the situation in iraq is so disastrous & has such repercussions for our future – it would be strange if we did not get hot under the collar
the point is that we are not trying to seek consesus like the social democrat of blairs ilk – nor trying to live out communality of need – but a tructuring of a community- that serves within & without. that concentraes he when we speak & males our other life & our practice more conscient
these times are at once so deadly & so full of a madness since the 2000 elections that weren’t elections – that i feel sometimes it is hard work to keep our feet on the ground
a good stoush as you might say advances the cause too
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 5 2005 0:45 utc | 119
I think people know how to take it. And can tell the difference between over the line cruelty and and normal bickering.
Theoretically, personal epithets should not be hurled, but that’s not realistic, and at least they can be funny.
Our victim in this case seemed to see the humor in it too.
Posted by: jm | Nov 5 2005 0:52 utc | 120
“A pansy-ass Pinko Commie” for example would be a less gentlemanly way of putting it than “A Stalinist Friutcake.” A Marxist Madman” might be less caustic but not as ticklish.
Posted by: jm | Nov 5 2005 0:58 utc | 121
I see it differently: Billmon/Juan are put on the defensive in Billmon’s mind, and he reflex’ly responded. So many opportunists to find fault, yet they posts as opportunists.
Billmon and Juan look into the future and take the hits! I read so many of youse with worser records! lol
Posted by: Soandso | Nov 5 2005 1:07 utc | 122
Debs said:
“It occurs to me that the disappointment of Fitzmas is showing. Not very pretty but I’m sure we can move past it.”
Actually more is happening, and faster, than I expected.
Posted by: cc | Nov 5 2005 1:07 utc | 123
lol is right!
I’m steppin out to see how this newly legalized cannibinoid town is feeling. Catch you all later and thanks for the chuckles.
Iraq will work it out. Don’t underestimate them.
Posted by: jm | Nov 5 2005 1:24 utc | 125
JM, good to see the good humor- that was my intent!
I do have a procedural question for anyone who may know: I have posted here less than 10 times, some of my posts could have been characterized as being less than “touting the company line”. What I’m saying is that I did offer comments the may be characterized as chellenging (very mildly), or I’ve noticed some folks described as “trolls” and they weren’t welcome. Given that background, this evening I posted an rather supportive thought, BUT I recieved a “formatted response” that suggested that I should “wait” some peeriod of time befor I contribute???? I’m not familiar with that repsonse and would appreciate anyone who could amplify!
Thanks,
Posted by: Soandso | Nov 5 2005 2:07 utc | 126
… A “Stalinist Fruitcake” T-shirt would travel through society unnoticed and unappreciated. The humor missed… By and large.
Got mine in time to go clubbing tonite!
Posted by: Lish Lash | Nov 5 2005 2:11 utc | 127
lish lash
i’m coming with you to storm the winter palaces of late capitlism
my little central committe of one
my pretty politbureau
i’ll caress you with my comintern
if you’ll caress me wih yours
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 5 2005 2:18 utc | 128
so & so
no, i think what little i know of the internet – it is not personal – – it is simply the site’s protection against spam & just requires a petit ause in posting
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 5 2005 2:20 utc | 129
@Soandso
It’s certainly not personal … a transient typepad error re lousy AI/rulesets to prevent comment spamming … if it occurs again, wait a few minutes and try again … if it chronically persists you could try emailing Bernhard and he may register your IP address (if it’s static) in a spamming exclusion list, IIRC …
@Lish Lash
Got mine in time to go clubbing tonite!
LOL, *gasping for air*, LOL, RAOTFLMAO, *gasp* ! 🙂
Posted by: Outraged | Nov 5 2005 3:18 utc | 130
lish lash,
Oh! so thats what this was all about, I was thinking I could send one to my mother for Christmas, I dont think shes ever had a red one. Oh well.
Posted by: anna missed | Nov 5 2005 3:27 utc | 131
lish lash
i am already planning our premier five year plan
& i know that the harvest will be good
& all production quotas will be met
we will wander the steppes & tundras in our tractors forever singing socialist songs at the top of our voices
giving praise to our beloved leaders & their guidance
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 5 2005 4:11 utc | 133
Does Billmon ever come back to these threads, or is it a one time thing? I find the name-calling, chest-pounding macho routine extremely boring, though I’ve done a little of it myself from time to time. But Billmon did have a good point which got buried by his insult–the “resistance” in Iraq is hard to categorize as a people’s resistance since much of it is aimed at innocent Shiite civilians, not just collaborators.
And I had a point of my own–I can understand Juan Cole’s concern that Iraq might end up in a full scale civil war with a million dead and he thinks that leaving US special forces along with some air squadrons will prevent this, by working with the Iraqi government against Sunni Baathist terrorist types. But where does Juan Cole get the idea you could trust either the US government or the current Iraqi government to only target genuine, honest-to-goodness terrorists? In what parallel universe does the US have a record of fighting clean counterinsurgency conflicts? Wouldn’t we just be part of one faction in a civil war, and furthermore, if our presence is so necessary for the continued existence of the Iraqi government, then who is really sovereign in Iraq?
Posted by: Donald Johnson | Nov 5 2005 4:21 utc | 134
Since I just criticized Billmon, I’ll add that I’m a big admirer, as I suspect most people are around here. I just get tired of the ad hominem attacks and putdowns that are so much a part of some blog comment sections, though again I’ve done it myself from time to time.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | Nov 5 2005 4:51 utc | 135
Does Billmon ever come back to these threads?
yes, it’s not a one time thing
Posted by: annie | Nov 5 2005 5:00 utc | 136
christ r’giap. you start off the thread getting a proper ribbing from the man himself, and you end up w/ a new sexy cyber mate. sounds like you scored. i bet fruitcake never tasted so good.
Posted by: annie | Nov 5 2005 5:15 utc | 137
Stalinist Fruitcake would be a great name for a rock band. Steppe it up!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Flew in from Miami Beach BOAC
Didn’t get to bed last night
On the way the paper bag was on my knee
Man I had a dreadful flight
I’m back in the U.S.S.R.
You don’t know how lucky you are boy
Back in the U.S.S.R.
Been away so long I hardly knew the place
Gee it’s good to be back home
Leave it till tomorrow to unpack my case
Honey disconnect the phone
I’m back in the U.S.S.R.
You don’t know how lucky you are boy
Back in the U.S.S.R.
Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
They leave the West behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
That Georgia’s always on my my my my my my my mind.
I’m back in the U.S.S.R.
You don’t know how lucky you are boys
Back in the U.S.S.R.
Show me round your snow peaked mountains way down south
Take me to your daddy’s farm
Let me hear your balalaika’s ringing out
Come and keep your comrade warm.
I’m back in the U.S.S.R.
You don’t know how lucky you are boys
Back in the U.S.S.R.
OMG!!!!!! OMG!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m in heaven. I love you all so much!
Lish Lash, that T-shirt is Fantastic!!!!!!
I’m not worried about any lack of action. Praise be!
I thought I might be the only one who resonated with such force to the Stalinist Fruitcake moniker, but I am glowing with the realization that I am with other warped and crazy minds.
Thank you so much, LL.
Posted by: jm | Nov 5 2005 6:46 utc | 140
I am glowing with the realization that I am with other warped and crazy minds.
we love you too jm!!
Posted by: annie | Nov 5 2005 6:51 utc | 141
We need a drink to go with the shirt whilst clubbing:
“A Commiekazi.
Pour another round barkeep!
Posted by: jm | Nov 5 2005 6:53 utc | 142
Annie, don’t get too drunk. We have an administration to bring down.
Posted by: jm | Nov 5 2005 6:56 utc | 143
actually i am not drunk tonight. maybe a shot about now would be just the thing. i was thinking of sic today. and amir. wish i had their take on the iraq scene. the iraqi ladies i had for dinner never spoke of the threat of terrorists and they didn’t believe zarqawi existed. they also said the sunni’s and shites lived mostly in harmony before all this. they implied all the young were part of the resistance. it’s too late for me to think rationally, but the no brainer is we should get the hell out of there. zzzz, a nightcap please..
Posted by: annie | Nov 5 2005 7:29 utc | 144
Juan Cole clearly doesn’t believe in the possibility of an unjust war as such, meaning a war that is unjust in principle. He excludes such a possibility from his thinking. But he doesbelieve in unjust parties, such as the Ba’ath, against whom it is an act of justice to fight on behalf of oppressed parties, such as the Shia and the Kurds. He also believes, in principle, that the US has the means and the responsibility to intervene on behalf of the oppressed. And who can say that he’s wrong about this? It’s just that I have a problem with this kind of thinking in its strictest sincerity and good faith: it presumes too much wisdom on the part of the United States, or more precisely, on the part of those Americans who think they are “truly” wise; it’s the logic that got us into Viet Nam, for example. With no irony at all, and with no disrespect, I call it “CIA logic”, because it presumes to know, through the rigors of intelligence-gathering and academic research, more than in fact it can ever actually know (the labile swelling and sinking of nationalist sentiment being the most obvious of these). For what it’s worth, an old CIA hand from the Middle East–on the white side of the CIA, to be sure!–a person I know, trust and respect–advised me some time ago that Juan Cole has worked for the CIA, and may even continue to do so down to the present time. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if he’s right about this, and it’s hardly an occasion for disdain: working for the CIA, in my view, can an honorable exercise, and well carried out in the relative privacy of the Agency’s discrete procedures (something well known to at least 90% of the academics working in the strategic studies and foreign area programs in the universities of the United States). But it’s still a partisan exercise; it’s partisan to an attitude–the attitude of a moralizing Calvinism, finally, instilled in the CIA by their founders, among them the Dulles brothers and their co-religionists. And it’s a party to a bad idea–the idea that superior knowledge can be a guarantee of superior wisdom. This war is wrong, not because it supports the oppressed in their struggle against the oppressors, but because it can only couch the event of the war in those terms. And those are obviously not the terms that govern the insurgency. This view cannot but ignore the immeasurable, subterranean shifts of nationalist sentiment. And let’s make no mistake about this: whatever else Saddam Hussein may have done, he did indeed forge a nation-state out of parties that have never agreed among themselves. And he’s left a legacy that won’t go away: Shia, and Sunni alike have learned to think of themselves as Iraqis, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the same were true for the Kurds. The fact of this nationalism was apparently overlooked (or undervalued) both by the neo-cons and their opponents in the CIA. It will continue to be overlooked until the day the USA is driven out of the country, exactly as it was in Viet Nam.
Posted by: alabama | Nov 6 2005 13:27 utc | 146
Recent post (Nov 5) from Juan Cole says that it was Bliar who persuaded Dubya to bomb the shit out of Afghanistan first, rather than target Iraq straightaway, which was Dubya’s preferred option – incredible!
Posted by: Dismal Science | Nov 6 2005 19:37 utc | 147
@alabama
A cogent comment.
I can’t think of any time (beyond Hollywood mythology) when America has intervened ‘on behalf of the oppressed’.
A short time ago I was listening to a number of Americans on a BBC Radio world ‘talkback’ broadcast. Seems that the mindset of intrinsic American ‘goodness’ and ‘righteousness’ is so firmly implanted in the national psyche, that there will not be any end to this until they are driven out of the country.
Posted by: DM | Nov 6 2005 21:43 utc | 148