Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

February 25, 2007
Annals of Press Stupidity

Report: 3 Gulf states agree to IAF overflights en route to Iran

Three Arab states in the Persian Gulf would be willing to allow the Israel Air force to enter their airspace in order to reach Iran in case of an attack on its nuclear facilities, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyasa reported on Sunday.

According to the report, a diplomat from one of the gulf states visiting Washington on Saturday said the three states, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, have told the United States that they would not object to Israel using their airspace, despite their fear of an Iranian response.

Qatar, Oman and UAE? Hmmm, yes, makes total sense, doesn’t it? Though I wonder why  Polynesia does not join those three …

Posted by b on February 25, 2007 at 15:00 UTC | Permalink
Comments

at this point, I would not be surprised if those countries offered Israel airstips for stopping over and refueling.
what are their options? just like when Michael explained how is father Don Corleone held a gun to the head of someone reluctant to go along with his plan and calmly informed him that either his signature or brains would be on the contract in front of him, these little countries have probably got an offer they simply could not refuse.
sucks to be small.

Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 25 2007 15:21 utc | 1

if the israeli jets were taking off from U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf, maybe the “permissions” would make sense, depending on where they were situated. and wasn’t such an attack a speculation last fall or so?
in any case, the idea is insanity and a crime of tremendous magnitude…sort of like invading Iraq.

Posted by: fauxreal | Feb 25 2007 15:33 utc | 2

Hi there!
The only attacks I hear of is Israel and U.S attacking Iran. Its the U.S and Israel that are the threats here. Why are U.S troops taking part in this, when will they be strong enoght to say NO?

Posted by: Nadia | Feb 25 2007 15:45 utc | 3

So they will fly south from Israel, around the arabic peninsula, cross Oman and UAE, take a little detour over Qatar and then attack Iran? Sounds practical.
Is this a way of leaning on Jordan? And do the israeli airforce give a damn wheter they are allowed to cross jordanic or syrian airspace? If I have understood correctly Israel quite dominates the region when it comes to airforce.
Is it a figleaf? The Coalition of Those Willing To Let Israel Use Their Airspace? And a figleaf to cover what? That an israeli attack on Iran is a US attack on Iran?

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Feb 25 2007 16:07 utc | 4

If Israeli planes wanted to cross their airspace, Jordan wouldn’t be able to do much more than give Israel a stern look with crossed arms and say, “I’m very disappointed in you!”

Posted by: Loveandlight | Feb 25 2007 16:52 utc | 5

just how many americans do you think actually know where uae, quatar, and oman are on a map? this will most likely be construed in the media as arab permission to attack iran. s.o.s. as saddam and al quaeda connections.

Posted by: conchita | Feb 25 2007 17:24 utc | 6

welcome nadia! you found your way here.
That an israeli attack on Iran is a US attack on Iran?
is there ever any difference?
this makes no sense whatsoever! like some bizarre game of connect the dots. another coalition of the willing. why not add sri lanka?

Posted by: annie | Feb 25 2007 18:31 utc | 7

Dan et al.,
On today’s Dateline London from Abu Dhabi (on BBC) local Arab analyists made it very clear that the Gulf States (Sunni) along with Jordan (Egypt, SA too?) would not tolerate an Iranian influenced Iraq and “would be willing to stand the pain” of any unpleasantness resulting from a US attack, which now, according to SH’s article “Redirection” will be on “Iranian supply lines”, not nuclear facilities. If CheneyCo claims the attacks are “limited to air strikes on supply lines” and the word is constantly drummed that they are “to protect our troops in Iraq”, who will stop them?
What came out of the Dateline London interviews with the locals was that the “Shia Crescent” must not be allowed to take shape – which puts the non-Shia Arabs right where we want them, “tolerating” a strike on Iran. King Abdullah of Jordan is in Egypt now and touring other states in the area, I would bet to assure them that Iran and their support of Hezbollah is in for a very big surprise. The long range plan: lots of little states (via more sectarian wars) with you know who having the most powerful military among them. But as long as the Shia Crescent is smothered in its crib …

Posted by: Hamburger | Feb 25 2007 18:40 utc | 8

So, it does make sense. Those “little” Gulf States are very very rich … and do not want a dominant Iran.

Posted by: Hamburger | Feb 25 2007 18:55 utc | 9

While all the talk is of xUS assault on Iran, there really is a coalition of like minded neighbors involved – extensive planning w/Turkey & other frontline Arab (sunni) states who likewise fear a dominant Iran, now that the dumb bastards have eliminated their rivals in Iraq & Afghan. Discussed here by Michel Chossudovsky

Posted by: jj | Feb 25 2007 19:09 utc | 10

I see your point Hamburger but personally don’t think it makes any difference to them whether Iran has more or less influence in the area. dealing with the US or dealing with Iran, they probably can make more money with Iran as Iran needs money, investments, refined fuels and etc.
no, I see them as being obedient and knowing full well what happens to countries who do not do as they are told.
however, from what you say it does look as the attack is back on track. apparently the reluctant countries have been wooed or coerced and all that is needed now is some pretense.
the storm clouds are approaching once again.

Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 25 2007 19:10 utc | 11

fyi seriously pro resistance blog truthaboutiraqis
had this to say last month re iran.
The US take on Iran? What planet are you morons from? It is a day made in heaven if that were to happen.

Posted by: annie | Feb 25 2007 19:22 utc | 12

Why are U.S troops taking part in this, when will they be strong enough to say NO? wrote Nadia.
US generals willl quit if Bush orders Iran attack.
Times On line feb 07
For an ‘empire’, or even just a belligerent semi-fascistic nation, the US will go down in history for its disregard for the military, for the generals, the geo-strategic planners, etc. Will and might trump old fashioned calculations. The neocons have all said it again and again, reality must be made, not dealt with. That cavalier attitude is based on strength – read nukes to make is short.
The ‘free speech’ accorded to retired high level army types or to the occasional recalcitrant, regretful, or refusnik soldier means nothing, they are there to provide figures that others can fall back on as testimony for free speech, a working democracy, the voice of the people, hope for the future, and so on.
The article presents some minor mutterings, some strand of opinion….but if the army were ever to rebel, that would be, of course, the end of the US as it is now.

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 25 2007 20:43 utc | 13

Essay from Esquire…
I Miss Iraq. I Miss My Gun. I Miss My War.
Esquire
just riffin on the soldiers now, swerving OT, but its worth a read. I need not say more.

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 25 2007 20:55 utc | 14

noirette, for this guy the power he has in war is as much as he’ll ever have. weird. where is his conscious?

Posted by: annie | Feb 25 2007 22:20 utc | 15

@annie #15:
where is his conscious?
…and conscience? (Though I’m sure you intended conscience, both are apropos.)

Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Feb 25 2007 22:32 utc | 16

It should also be kept in mind, re Noirette’s posts, that this is the first time that the “President” & his family have bought hundreds of thousands of acres of land in a country w/NO Extradition Treaty w/his own. (Paraguay) I think of that often.

Posted by: jj | Feb 25 2007 23:12 utc | 17

#14,#15,
The guy is hooked on the adrenaline of war, not so much as how you might expect it, as a panic response — but as a general and pervasive intensification of everything. This becomes the living and staying alive standard. You’re never sure (or secure) unless you’re in that space of acuity, And so now coming home the world moves in slow unpurposful motion, a dull and unfamiliar place — where the guy has forgotten his former self, and how he fit into his home world. And he may spend the rest of his life trying to find it.

Posted by: anna missed | Feb 25 2007 23:35 utc | 18

Reading posts on those other blogs that you mentioned here makes one being horrified cause it is soooo obvious that majority of Americans ( at least those who are willing to get out of their “whole” and say loudly what they think) are so PRO – WAR …in Iraq, on Iran…and elsewhere.
Americans are people totally bind by illusions about their mighty Army and that is going to cost whole world a LOT…if it even prevails. It so bloody scary. After what we have seen in Iraq one should expect much more anti war feelings amongst Americans but no. They are even more crazy then ever…End I count our (Australian) PM Howard with them. He is nothing but one petite pity “American” lurking from GW Bush’s and Chaney’s ass.
Australia is a small country (not territorially but in other sense) and we do depend on USA but still to be so frivoling is a disgrace.
You guys here on MOA are still (huge) minority on USA…unfortunately

Posted by: vbo | Feb 26 2007 4:10 utc | 19

@vbo (#19)
Yeah, well… noticing that myself. I’m hanging with a pretty international crowd these days, and all I can say in my defense is that it isn’t only the Americans. I run into a fair number of Canadians and Aussies whose answer to everything seems to be “glass parking lot” as well. They just don’t have the capacity to do more than talk about it.
Anyway, you’re right, they are out there, and it’s embarrassing. I’d like to think they aren’t a majority, but even a vocal minority of people that rabid and myopic is alarming to me.

Posted by: Monolycus | Feb 26 2007 4:16 utc | 20

Monolycus: You know, when was the last time that the majority of mankind actually deserved to live and was worthy? Sometimes in the early stone age?
Being a leftist/progressive is one of the most thankless jobs ever. At the end of the day, you fight for scumbags and for oblivious fools who couldn’t do the right thing to save themselves and the world even when their lifes and all they hold dear are threatened with annihilation, and you never get any recoginition, congratulation or thank if you actually manage to save the day or improve things.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Feb 26 2007 9:47 utc | 21

Wow, CJ. Your comment really got my brain grinding.
I couldn’t begin to approach the question of who is “worthy” to live. Seems to me, that any criteria of “worthiness” always boils down to accidents of birth… and if I accepted that some are better off than others due to circumstances beyond their own control, I should have no compunction in believing in American privilege… or white skin privilege…or privilege of the wealthy… or any other privilege you can name. I don’t accept the psychology of entitlement, which leaves me only the options of accepting that life is, in and of itself, “worthy” or it isn’t.
This is where I jumped off the rails with Debs and a few others. Debs’ assertions, no matter how many specific instances of injustice he could cite, always came back to his hatred of Americans in favour of some trendy underprivileged group. End of the day, his scales always weighed in favour of some oppressed group or t’other, not because of any virtues they might possess, but rather because they weren’t white or American. Slothrop seems to tilt the other direction, and is always willing to excuse the specifics, on the grounds that being American is not (and should not be) in and of itself, grounds for indictment. Still others in these parts would embrace any hypocrite or sociopath as long as they hadn’t committed the sin of being born with a y-chromosome.
There’re always questions of “collective guilt” and how much this or that group might be enabling this or that set of unacceptable behaviours. The real problem with collective guilt is that it offers the expedient of collective punishment… and with that, the dilution of personal responsibility. This merely shifts the balance of one set of “privileged” to another. The history of Israel should be a textbook example of how an oppressed group naturally and inevitably become oppressors as soon as we start dabbling in the area of “collectives”. I reject the whole process of tribalism and collective identities. There are cultural adjustments that need to be made in order to make the world safer and saner, but to approach this topic retributively only leads to the same problems with shifted labels.
I can’t get bogged down in questions of “worthiness” and still believe in any human rights at all. I absolutely detest some groups of hateful people, but I have to force myself to remember that they, too, are human beings and as “worthy” to live as any other. People far more intellectual than myself have started down that road of qualifying lives, and it’s led to some pretty predicatable results. The only good that seems to come of that question being seriously pondered is the potential for them as didn’t ask to learn from the inevitable mistakes made by those who did.
I have also heard folk on the far Right make similar claims about how they are thanklessly working for a better world in spite of those “ingrates” (Liberals, academics, the French) who are just incapable of seeing what’s in everyone’s best interests. I expect the enormous conviction which accompanies the most batshit pronouncements from Freeperland have their shadow in these parts as well. Nobody thinks they are the ones wearing the black hat… the difference seems primarily to be what is getting justified and to whom.
The only way I can keep myself from falling into apathy or depression over the entire issue is to remind myself that I am not advocating anyone’s death or misery. I’m not fighting for, nor do I believe in, http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=get_connected.directory&mode=detail_org&directory_id=1204“>”justice” anymore, because I feel that is also a trap. I’m trying to make the world a better place in which lives, worthy or not, are not destroyed and in which we all have equal recourse to sensible solutions.
I’m not accusing you of anything; I’m just collating the data and trying to make sense of things for myself.

Posted by: Monolycus | Feb 26 2007 15:15 utc | 22

M@22
I feel it, I feel the mystery of life. Some centuries ago someone asked why it rained equally over the just and the wicked. There is no anwer though I confess I find serenity in the Gospels. If one doesn’t find it there, it is useless to read Marx or Voltaire or Montesquieu or all the others. I know that many many that quote the gospels commit atrocities and there one is baffled. The two libidos overwhelm us, the one of dominandi and the one of possidendi, and I leave out sex. There is no exit except through patience. I sound religious and I am but I am done with progressivism and all isms. I rely on the “pari de Pascal”. It may be nonsense for someone but let that one find sense elsewhere. The poor are not necessarily unhappy, they may find support in richly socially endowed societies. In a society where people like hyenas fight for the possession of a corpse and all those people being rich it is difficult to feel that wealth and power bring about any sort of happiness. I am done I don’t want to preach. At the door of my house there is a sign “NO PREACHING, NO SOLICITING, NO DISTRIBUTING”

Posted by: jlcg | Feb 26 2007 16:00 utc | 23

I know that one of the biggest problems in the world is the fence around my own property but I don’t know what else to do. If I took down the fence it wouldn’t be long before I would be overwhelmed and nobody would end up with anything. I guess that makes me a right winger. It’s really hard to be a socia-list.
At least that’s how I feel.

Posted by: pb | Feb 26 2007 16:49 utc | 24

Typepad won’t take the word so’cia-lis’t without the hyphen because it contains a brand name word.

Posted by: pb | Feb 26 2007 16:53 utc | 25

Reading posts on those other blogs….it is soooo obvious that majority of Americans ( at least those who are willing to get out of their “whole” and say loudly what they think) are so PRO – WAR ..
i do not believe this vbo. what is very clear to me is that many many of the posters on ‘moderate’ sites are pro right because those sites are moderated. there are armies of paid trolls out there w/designs of leaving the impression the extreme far right outlook is predominant and it isn’t. they may dominate the media and the discourse but they do not dominate the mindset. maybe if you plopped someone down in the dakotas where the population of the entire state is smaller than that of the city i live in.
Americans are people totally bind by illusions about their mighty Army and that is going to cost whole world a LOT…if it even prevails. It so bloody scary.
y’know there are people who lust for power. they can gain a strangle hold on a nation and squeeze is bloody dry using the blood to impose evil on the outside world. that does not mean all the people are blind. it takes a huge concerted effort to gain enough momentum to extinguish unleashed evil. to think that lust for power represents the average person is foolhearty. what is bloody scary is madmen like cheney or the neocons firming their grip but i see this unraveling, at least any illusion as to what is happening.
i think it is true we just don’t know how to stop it, for many there is a disconnect between knowing something is terribly wrong and fully grasping the degree to the potential for evil that has gained a foothold inside the highest institutions of power. but to say “americans are a people so totally blind”, well, this is crazy. millions apon millions of people are not totally blind.
Brian Mockenhaupt, the soldier who misses his gun, is also a writer who has been quoted extensively in other articles, writes about war, and is is writing a book about the military. while he may represent a lust that drives some soldiers it is his job to glamorize war.
don’t drink too much kool aide. i wouldn’t imagine there is a whole country of blind people following a pied neocon piper into the abyss ready to swallow up the world. most of us are not stuck in total illusion, tho we may not know how to stop the beast.

Posted by: annie | Feb 26 2007 17:09 utc | 26

“what are their options? just like when Michael explained how is father Don Corleone held a gun to the head of someone reluctant to go along with his plan and calmly informed him that either his signature or brains would be on the contract in front of him, these little countries have probably got an offer they simply could not refuse.”
Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 25, 2007 10:21:21 AM | 1
**********
Three really bad things happened in America during the mid 70’s that killed the age of aquarias and changed peoples thinking at all levels of society:
“The Godfather”
“Rocky”
“Star Wars”

Posted by: pb | Feb 26 2007 17:15 utc | 27

monolycus @42

Debs’ assertions, no matter how many specific instances of injustice he could cite, always came back to his hatred of Americans in favour of some trendy underprivileged group.

i question whether this is a fair characterization of debs. i don’t recall debs focusing on trendy underprivileged groups. if anything, i remember that vitriolic as some of his writings were, they were well-tempered by a generosity of spirit. he took the time and made the effort to step away from the computer and out of his home to work to improve the sitaution of the indigenous of new zealand. i don’t recall a hatred of americans, but rather a disgust with u.s. policies and practices. imho, that does not translate into a hatred of americans or white dominated cultures. it is interesting to note that both he and r’giap have a common geographic vantage point and some similar opinions. i once wondered if my late bf, also a new zealander, was writing at moon under debs’ moniker because their opinions about u.s. politics were strikingly similar. having lived in new york for a few years, he had a less critical opinion of this country in general, but, like debs and r’giap,he did have the benefit of the distance in forming his perspective of our inbred two party system. since debs has stopped posting here it is probably silly to speak up about this, but this characterization of him has bothered me since reading it earlier today. truth is, i may not have agreed with all of his screeds, but i felt there was substance there, substance backed up by experience in the community, and that is what compels me to address this.

Posted by: conchita | Feb 26 2007 22:07 utc | 28

well said conchita, i bristled when i read the characterization myself thinking it was too harsh, tho i admit debs was quite outspoken in his distain. i try not to generalize too much about ‘americans’ as opposed to american policies although certain aspects, like our version of exceptionalism, are hard to avoid.

Posted by: annie | Feb 26 2007 23:00 utc | 29

i too
i always found that debs would back up anything her said, never retreated & never reduced it to binaries
however, while the specificities are so clear – i cannot retreat from the claim that the u s empire is the greatest threat to humanity & remains so
i miss debs fury

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 26 2007 23:18 utc | 30

I have read this:
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/2/23/94245/6236
And few more places that I can’t find now and that made me write those things. I hope I am wrong and you are right…
Quote:
Most of us are not stuck in total illusion, though we may not know how to stop the beast.
Vbo: It may be just mine impression but I do see a very thin “elite” in USA being anti-war and hips of average people being proud of USA might and being actually certain that this might is used for good purpose all the time
Quote:
And look at America’s consistent record of helping people all over the world. Yes, I know all the horrible human rights abuses that you left wing America haters love to recount (Vietnam, Iraq, Hiroshima etc, etc, etc) but when you HONESTLY compare our record of protecting human rights against virtually any other nation in history it’s very clear who comes out on top. What has your little country done compared to us, Mark?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

Posted by: vbo | Feb 27 2007 4:18 utc | 31

@conchita et al,
There is no such thing as a “fair characterization”. All characterizations are reductive and objectionable to someone. There are many who say that I “unfairly characterize” personages like Bush the Younger, Rumsfeld, Kissinger et cetera, et cetera when I refer to them as scheming and cartoonishly evil or stupid figures… and they are correct to say that. Those figures aren’t my mates, and neither was Debs, and I have no reason to get to know them any better than I presently do.
I never said that Deb’s screeds, nor anyone else’s, were entirely without substance… quite the contrary, really. However, I also stated my perception of his underlying bias and barring his own contribution here to refute it, I have no reason to amend that conclusion.
I knew when I wrote his name that there were those here who would feel compelled to defend him… I had fondly hoped that other things I might have said would have generated some response as well so as to avoid the appearance that this is a coterie or an echo chamber.
The Debs that exists in my mind is not the same as the Debs who exists in R’Giap’s mind… nor the same again as the Debs who exists in any individual’s mind. And that individual is certainly not the same as the Debs who might or might not still be walking around in New Zealand. My “unfair characterization” of Debs was used as an illustration. Substitute another name if it’s easier or ignore it entirely. Take it as you will.
At any rate, this is starting to resemble a threadjack to me and I’m not invested in it. I spoke my piece… anyone want to pursue it can email me or lambast me here, but I won’t be adding any public fuel to it.

Posted by: Monolycus | Feb 27 2007 4:29 utc | 32

vbo, i read and commented in both of jerome’s diaries on dkos this weekend (actually spent way more time there than i should have but was in awe of some of what i was reading). after participating i understand your concerns. i read the first few paragraphs of hunter’s diary and was so upset by his justification of disproportionate force that i couldn’t continue. i chose not to comment and become involved in a flame war and was very grateful to jerome for posting his diary the following day. that like minds argued jerome’s points and more in the comments is solace, but i was upset to read so-called leftists defending an extreme militaristic response when diplomacy and intelligent investigation would have been more just and appropriate. i was amazed at how some people could not see past a vengeful response; there was only one way for them. yes, i was dismayed at some of those who wrote to criticize and even moreso at those who espoused american exceptionalism combined with violence. and i was surprised at the silence of others. i encounter some similar points of view within my own family and remember arguing with my brother about a militaristic response to 9/11 back in 2001 (the same brother who just bought an suv – how can someone so intelligent make such enormous mistakes in judgment?). anyway, all of this is to say that i understand your words and i wish i could tell you differently. i don’t think we all or even most of us think this way about war or a right to american hegemony, but there is a good percentage of people out there who do.

Posted by: conchita | Feb 27 2007 4:57 utc | 33

i cannot retreat from the claim that the u s empire is the greatest threat to humanity & remains so
R’Giap, methinks you over-simplify. Suppose we said the apocalyptic hysteria of Western Elites. (don’t forget Euro-elites, German Bankers, etc. are in bed w/these sewer rats). I doubt we would have such warlust on steroids, if elites were not contemplating the Complete Collapse of Western Industrial Civilization, due to having devoured the entire planet. In other words for arguably the first time in history we are contemplating our true finitude. We’ve used up most everything everywhere for all time (in human terms) on earth. Supposing you were an elite planner contemplating that? Damn Scary, the mind & heart recoil, no?

Posted by: jj | Feb 27 2007 5:30 utc | 34

Oops, tail of my last post bit the typepad.
So, in that light how irrational is it to make one last desperate grasp for whatever you can grab? Stranger responses have been seen, and can certainly be imagined.

Posted by: jj | Feb 27 2007 5:33 utc | 35

Now this.
Gulf countires: No air space for Israel.

Posted by: beq | Feb 28 2007 0:14 utc | 36

nice beq

Posted by: annie | Feb 28 2007 0:52 utc | 37

@beq, that could just be cover for secret off-the-books approval that someone leaked.

Posted by: jj | Feb 28 2007 2:29 utc | 38

If Israel sets up a temp airbase in Somalia, which has a convenient chaos, then the Israelis could fly down the Red Sea, refuel, and fly to attack Iran. Having the OK from Oman, UAE, ETC will cut hundreds of miles off. Of course, a bit of Saudia Arabia ( it ain’t called the Empty Quarter for nothing). They (SA) can claim it didn’t happen.
The Israelis can’t fly over Iraq, since we are obligated by INT’L law (HAW!) to not allow that. Iraq wouldn’t allow it, and we can’t. Turkey won’t.
This is bigger than you think.

Posted by: Richard W. Crews | Feb 28 2007 9:21 utc | 39

Beautiful Tehran:
peacetrain
“Dear Mr. President…”

Posted by: beq | Feb 28 2007 14:03 utc | 40

I miss Debs, his posts were always interesting, informative, thought out, solid and personal.
Reading posts on those other blogs….it is soooo obvious that majority of Americans ( at least those who are willing to get out of their “whole” and say loudly what they think) are so PRO – WAR ..
Following on from Annie, of course some are blind, in the sense that they simply believe that Americans are inherently good, actions abroad are for the ultimate well being of others, etc. – a world view that is both idealistic and despairing. And some are pro-war, as they feel power must manifest itself to maintain itself, and its implementation passes thru a show of superiority and strength attested to mainly by killing inferiors.
What of all the others, certainly a majority – who are anti-war in various ways?
Their problem is submission to authority and mainstream opinion. A society that is ‘liberal’ (in its oldest sense), ‘individualistic’, fractioned, is peculiarly vulnerable to this kind of group pressure or group think, as the political / societal structure does not afford diverse expression. Civil society groups have little impact, most ppl have no venues for dissent on any topic at all, they can only vote for ‘leaders’ (not representatives) who are part of the dominant group or are hoping to join it. They understand the high cost of individual opposition or recalcitrance; realise that the publiscised protests, eg. Cindy Sheehan, are absolutely useless; know that their ‘freedom’ or ‘free speech rights’ are limited in the extreme -even ‘progressive’ sites like Dkos practise very stiff, nasty, censorship. No need for Big Brother, Little Brother is your neighbor.
That may be somewhat exaggerated. But the quality of submissiveness and fatalism that I have seen in my yearly trips to the US is astonishing. (Personal pov obviously.) Does that cover up other sins? vbo, yes and no!

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 28 2007 15:07 utc | 41

Back to Main