During the discussion over the US miltiary's use of white phosphorus [WP] in the attack on Fallujah (which I addressed here), many bloggers initially referred to it as a chemical weapon. Some later corrected themselves stating that WP was an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon, though such distinctions were irrelevant to the civilian victims of this horror.
In fact, those corrections were unnecessary. White phosphorus IS a chemical weapon, according to the Pentagon.
Since the US military admitted to using WP in Fallujah and the same military considers it a chemical weapon, then one can fairly say that the US military used chemical weapons in Fallujah.
So what horrors were supposed to be brought to an end by 'regime change'?
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Rule of law applied, no sign of Armageddon
For several years since the beginning of the war on civil liberties, some have argued that suspected terrorists can not be tried via the normal judicial system. For some reason, they were convinced that if those detained for suspected involvement in terrorism had to face a judge and jury and was accorded the same due process as any other criminal suspected, Armageddon would thrash us with more fury than a Dick Cheney condemnation.
The government has FINALLY indicted suspected dirty bomber Jose Padilla. Padilla had spent three years as a kidnapee while being imprisoned without charge.
The strange thing is this. The government finally decided to get around to granting Padilla due process and applying the rule of law. Granted, it took the government three years before they granted Padilla the 'right' to defend himself and answer the serious charges against him but contrary to the predictions of the anti-freedom right, the sky has not fallen just because we decided to treat a suspected terrorist in a constitutional manner.
Update: What's even more interesting and curious is this passage from the article:
absent from the indictment were the sensational allegations made earlier by top Justice Department officials: that Padilla sought to blow up U.S. hotels and apartment buildings and planned an attack on America with a radiological "dirty bomb."
Doesn't reflect well on the Justice Department's credibility, does it?
The government has FINALLY indicted suspected dirty bomber Jose Padilla. Padilla had spent three years as a kidnapee while being imprisoned without charge.
The strange thing is this. The government finally decided to get around to granting Padilla due process and applying the rule of law. Granted, it took the government three years before they granted Padilla the 'right' to defend himself and answer the serious charges against him but contrary to the predictions of the anti-freedom right, the sky has not fallen just because we decided to treat a suspected terrorist in a constitutional manner.
Update: What's even more interesting and curious is this passage from the article:
absent from the indictment were the sensational allegations made earlier by top Justice Department officials: that Padilla sought to blow up U.S. hotels and apartment buildings and planned an attack on America with a radiological "dirty bomb."
Doesn't reflect well on the Justice Department's credibility, does it?
Monday, November 21, 2005
Iraq genocide trial opens
You have to wonder how Secretary of War Rumsfeld and other former Reagan administration officials would react to this piece of news from Radio Netherlands.
Dutchman on trial for Iraq genocide
The trial has opened in The Hague of a Dutch businessman accused of complicity in war crimes and genocide in Iraq and Iran. In 1980s Frans van Anraat allegedly supplied Saddam Hussein with chemicals which were used to manufacture the chemical weapons used by Iraq in the war against Iran and against the Kurds in northern Iraq. A poison gas attack in Halabja killed an estimated 5,000 Kurds.
Mr Van Anraat's defence lawyers claim he had no idea what the chemicals would be used for. However, several witnesses have stated that he knew exactly what the Iraqi regime would do with the chemicals.
The trial is expected to last three weeks.
Dutchman on trial for Iraq genocide
The trial has opened in The Hague of a Dutch businessman accused of complicity in war crimes and genocide in Iraq and Iran. In 1980s Frans van Anraat allegedly supplied Saddam Hussein with chemicals which were used to manufacture the chemical weapons used by Iraq in the war against Iran and against the Kurds in northern Iraq. A poison gas attack in Halabja killed an estimated 5,000 Kurds.
Mr Van Anraat's defence lawyers claim he had no idea what the chemicals would be used for. However, several witnesses have stated that he knew exactly what the Iraqi regime would do with the chemicals.
The trial is expected to last three weeks.
Burning questions about Fallujah
Here's one story that didn't make much news in the mainstream media: the US military used the incendiary weapon white phosphorus during the 2004 assault on city of Fallujah, in Iraq, to allegedly horrific consequences.
First, a US official insisted that US forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons."
Then, the military denied that white phosphorus was used against civilians but defended use of the munition against insurgents.
It's a bit like saying that the US did not intentionally target civilians with the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or it's like insurgents in Iraq saying that it's okay to bomb hotels because even though there will a lot of 'secondary' carnage of innocent civilians, it's not their primary target. Such crude weapons do not distinguish between civilians and insurgents, unless a scientist or military official wishes to contradict me.
The use of white phosphorus against civilians or against military opponents within concentrations of civilians was banned by a international treaty, though the US did not sign the protocol that specifically dealt with white phosophorus and other incendiary weapons. White phosphorus is normally used as a smokescreen to hide troop movements. However, the heat from the weapons can burn a person to the bone.
It is a highly flammable incendiary material which ignites when exposed to oxygen, and will burn human skin until all the oxygen is used up. A doctor from Fallujah described victims in the US siege "who had their skin melted".
Iraq's acting human rights minister has said that a team from the sovereign government would be dispatched to Fallujah to investigate whether civilians were killed, maimed or injured by white phosphorus.
First, a US official insisted that US forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons."
Then, the military denied that white phosphorus was used against civilians but defended use of the munition against insurgents.
It's a bit like saying that the US did not intentionally target civilians with the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or it's like insurgents in Iraq saying that it's okay to bomb hotels because even though there will a lot of 'secondary' carnage of innocent civilians, it's not their primary target. Such crude weapons do not distinguish between civilians and insurgents, unless a scientist or military official wishes to contradict me.
The use of white phosphorus against civilians or against military opponents within concentrations of civilians was banned by a international treaty, though the US did not sign the protocol that specifically dealt with white phosophorus and other incendiary weapons. White phosphorus is normally used as a smokescreen to hide troop movements. However, the heat from the weapons can burn a person to the bone.
It is a highly flammable incendiary material which ignites when exposed to oxygen, and will burn human skin until all the oxygen is used up. A doctor from Fallujah described victims in the US siege "who had their skin melted".
Iraq's acting human rights minister has said that a team from the sovereign government would be dispatched to Fallujah to investigate whether civilians were killed, maimed or injured by white phosphorus.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
And you thought 'Under God' was controversial
Genocide is a very powerful word, especially for one that has only been in the English language for about 60 years.
Mentioning a genocide can get you sued.
Denying one can get you arrested.
Mentioning a genocide can get you sued.
Denying one can get you arrested.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Snippets
-Children reared in a foreign country tend to be high achievers.
According to a piece in The Australian: In the 1990s, [Michigan St. Professor Ruth Hill] Useem conducted a survey of adult TCKs [kids who've lived in countries other than their own] that revealed that children reared abroad were different from their peers. Even those who had spent just a year overseas as a child were four times more likely to have earned a bachelor's degree than those who spent all their time at home. They were more likely to study foreign languages or international affairs and to seek jobs in fields that involve travelling, such as diplomacy, banking, trade and teaching. More than one-quarter had studied aboard and one-third established their own businesses.
-Canadians can distinguish between disliking President Bush and disliking America. Let's hope that intellectual honesty filters south of the border.
According to a piece in The National Post: Bush disliked by 73% in Canada. But 68% like Americans.
-The former head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was accused by the organization's inspector general of meddling in PBS programming and of othersie violating CPB's own internal rules on overt politicking.
Shock of the year!
He resigned under pressure. What lessons were learned from the Tomlinson disgrace? None, apparently. He was succeeded by a former head of the Republican National Committee, an organization whose sole job is overt politicking.
-Think you can have guns AND butter?
Think again.
Demonstrating again that the costs of the Iraq war is not measured solely in thousands of American and tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Iraqi lives, the House passed a bill cutting funding for Medicaid, student loans and food stamps. They tried to sneak in a provision to open up drilling in ANWAR in Alaska, but had to retreat when all the other provisions stirred up controversy.
-American foreign policy talk of freedom is only half right....
Americans must deal with justice as well, if they want to have any hope of convincing moderate Muslims to reject extremist interpretations of their religion. So argues George Perkovich in an excellent piece in Foreign Affairs..
President Bush is only half right to trumpet the spread of freedom as the main objective of U.S. foreign policy; the pursuit of justice is just as important. Broadening the focus would not only befit the United States' political tradition, but also help neutralize opposition from radical Islamists and critics of globalization. With its ringing invocation of "the force of freedom," President George W. Bush's second inaugural address exemplified and updated the long-standing American belief that liberty is an intrinsic human good and that its promotion will enhance the nation's security and prosperity. Critics who scoffed at Bush's attempt to put ethics at the heart of U.S. foreign policy were misguided, because such considerations have been a crucial part of policy debates since the country's founding. What they should have criticized instead was Bush's narrow focus on one particular principle, political freedom, in isolation from other components of the American creed. After all, the Pledge of Allegiance promises not only liberty, but justice as well. Unfortunately, the elision of the notion of justice from the president's speech matches its elision from his foreign policy, with the result that in recent years, U.S. diplomacy -- public and private -- has been limping along on one leg and stumbling.
It's a foregone conclusion that the president will ignore Perkovich's excellent advice but hopefully Bush's successor won't.
According to a piece in The Australian: In the 1990s, [Michigan St. Professor Ruth Hill] Useem conducted a survey of adult TCKs [kids who've lived in countries other than their own] that revealed that children reared abroad were different from their peers. Even those who had spent just a year overseas as a child were four times more likely to have earned a bachelor's degree than those who spent all their time at home. They were more likely to study foreign languages or international affairs and to seek jobs in fields that involve travelling, such as diplomacy, banking, trade and teaching. More than one-quarter had studied aboard and one-third established their own businesses.
-Canadians can distinguish between disliking President Bush and disliking America. Let's hope that intellectual honesty filters south of the border.
According to a piece in The National Post: Bush disliked by 73% in Canada. But 68% like Americans.
-The former head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was accused by the organization's inspector general of meddling in PBS programming and of othersie violating CPB's own internal rules on overt politicking.
Shock of the year!
He resigned under pressure. What lessons were learned from the Tomlinson disgrace? None, apparently. He was succeeded by a former head of the Republican National Committee, an organization whose sole job is overt politicking.
-Think you can have guns AND butter?
Think again.
Demonstrating again that the costs of the Iraq war is not measured solely in thousands of American and tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Iraqi lives, the House passed a bill cutting funding for Medicaid, student loans and food stamps. They tried to sneak in a provision to open up drilling in ANWAR in Alaska, but had to retreat when all the other provisions stirred up controversy.
-American foreign policy talk of freedom is only half right....
Americans must deal with justice as well, if they want to have any hope of convincing moderate Muslims to reject extremist interpretations of their religion. So argues George Perkovich in an excellent piece in Foreign Affairs..
President Bush is only half right to trumpet the spread of freedom as the main objective of U.S. foreign policy; the pursuit of justice is just as important. Broadening the focus would not only befit the United States' political tradition, but also help neutralize opposition from radical Islamists and critics of globalization. With its ringing invocation of "the force of freedom," President George W. Bush's second inaugural address exemplified and updated the long-standing American belief that liberty is an intrinsic human good and that its promotion will enhance the nation's security and prosperity. Critics who scoffed at Bush's attempt to put ethics at the heart of U.S. foreign policy were misguided, because such considerations have been a crucial part of policy debates since the country's founding. What they should have criticized instead was Bush's narrow focus on one particular principle, political freedom, in isolation from other components of the American creed. After all, the Pledge of Allegiance promises not only liberty, but justice as well. Unfortunately, the elision of the notion of justice from the president's speech matches its elision from his foreign policy, with the result that in recent years, U.S. diplomacy -- public and private -- has been limping along on one leg and stumbling.
It's a foregone conclusion that the president will ignore Perkovich's excellent advice but hopefully Bush's successor won't.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Adventures in customer (dis)service
I support the Major League Soccer club New England Revolution. For years, the Revs were infamous for being the worst club in the league as far as providing replica jerseys for sale to their fans. Only a handful were available in the stadium's pro shop, even though the pro shop sold NFL Patriots replica jerseys for the backuip punter and the third string waterboy. When I went to the stadium in 2004, they didn't even have replicas available in adult size. For years, they were the only team in the league for whom you couldn't buy a jersey online. This was probably related to the fact that the Revs seemed to have a different company providing its jerseys every year. And to the fact that they are a soccer afterthought grafted uncomfortably on to an NFL football organization. This is why MLS continues to lose money: you have fans like myself who are begging to give them $80 of my hard earned cash and they refuse to make that possible.
Before this season, the league signed a deal with Adidas, who would become the sole provider for jerseys for all of the league's teams. I was happy because I thought that hell would freeze over and I might be able to buy a Revs' jersey.
Silly me.
For much of the season, only the blue home jersey was available and only up to size XL (I require one larger).
Finally during the summer, the away white jersey became available and you could buy one in XXL.
And there was much rejoicing.
[Yay!]
I should've known better. Here's the sequence of events that followed.
Sept 3: I place an order on the MLS merchandise website MLSGear.com for a plain white XXL Revolution jersey. Cost: $80.
Sept 18: I notice the order hasn't arrived so I checked the My Account feature on MLSGear.com. It says my order hasn't shipped because it is 'awaiting customization.' I am baffled by this because I didn't order any customization, just a plain white jersey. I try calling the 800 number but am put on hold ad infinitum. So I dash off an email to MLSGear.com explaining the situation and asking what's up.
Oct 3: Exactly one month after I placed the order, nothing. Two weeks after my initial inquiry, nothing. So I dash off another email to MLSGear.com, this time more annoyed. I also send one to the MLS league office instructing them to tell the MLSGear people to either send me the dang shirt or cancel the bloody order. I am annoyed by this because though my debit card has not been billed, there is still a potential $80 debit hanging over my account. I have to make sure there is at least $81 in my account in case they decide to finally send me the shirt.
Nov 18: I FINALLY get a response, if you can call it that, to my Oct 3 email (from MLS league office, not MLSGear). It doesn't explain what the problem was. It doesn't promise to send me my shirt or to cancel my order. It reads:
Brain:
They didn't even spell my name right.
Thank you for your note and interest in MLS. We are sorry you were disappointed with your experience at MLSgear.com. Constructive criticism from fans such as you helps ensure that we continue to improve our overall product...
Six weeks for a response from MLS league regarding the ten weeks of non-response from MLSGear... and after all that, it was a non-response!
My constructive criticism: if someone orders a product, SEND THE DARN THING!
Does that qualify me for a masters in business administration?
Before this season, the league signed a deal with Adidas, who would become the sole provider for jerseys for all of the league's teams. I was happy because I thought that hell would freeze over and I might be able to buy a Revs' jersey.
Silly me.
For much of the season, only the blue home jersey was available and only up to size XL (I require one larger).
Finally during the summer, the away white jersey became available and you could buy one in XXL.
And there was much rejoicing.
[Yay!]
I should've known better. Here's the sequence of events that followed.
Sept 3: I place an order on the MLS merchandise website MLSGear.com for a plain white XXL Revolution jersey. Cost: $80.
Sept 18: I notice the order hasn't arrived so I checked the My Account feature on MLSGear.com. It says my order hasn't shipped because it is 'awaiting customization.' I am baffled by this because I didn't order any customization, just a plain white jersey. I try calling the 800 number but am put on hold ad infinitum. So I dash off an email to MLSGear.com explaining the situation and asking what's up.
Oct 3: Exactly one month after I placed the order, nothing. Two weeks after my initial inquiry, nothing. So I dash off another email to MLSGear.com, this time more annoyed. I also send one to the MLS league office instructing them to tell the MLSGear people to either send me the dang shirt or cancel the bloody order. I am annoyed by this because though my debit card has not been billed, there is still a potential $80 debit hanging over my account. I have to make sure there is at least $81 in my account in case they decide to finally send me the shirt.
Nov 18: I FINALLY get a response, if you can call it that, to my Oct 3 email (from MLS league office, not MLSGear). It doesn't explain what the problem was. It doesn't promise to send me my shirt or to cancel my order. It reads:
Brain:
They didn't even spell my name right.
Thank you for your note and interest in MLS. We are sorry you were disappointed with your experience at MLSgear.com. Constructive criticism from fans such as you helps ensure that we continue to improve our overall product...
Six weeks for a response from MLS league regarding the ten weeks of non-response from MLSGear... and after all that, it was a non-response!
My constructive criticism: if someone orders a product, SEND THE DARN THING!
Does that qualify me for a masters in business administration?
Thursday, November 17, 2005
MLS math: #9 = #1
A grudging congratulations to Los Angeles Galaxy for winning MLS Cup 2005. On Sunday, they beat New England Revolution 1-0 in extra time to win their 2nd Major League Soccer championship. LA's other championship was also a 1-0 extra time win over New England back in 2002. New England's only other major final, in the 2001 US Open Cup (our answer to England's FA Cup), was also a one-goal extra time defeat to Los Angeles. All three of the Galaxy's trophies have come at the expense of the Revolution. It was another disappointing end for Revs fans, despite what was by far the best season in team history.
[For those more familiar with European soccer, MLS' title is decided by three rounds of playoffs following a 32 match (this year) regular season]
The championship-winning goal was scored by Pando Ramirez, who set an MLS record for offensive futility during the regular season: he took 61 shots from the run of play and he scored on 0 of them (he did score on a penalty that hit the post but rebounded in off the goalkeeper's back).
Seemingly every time he opens his mouth, US national team boss Bruce Arena gives headaches to the bureaucrats who run US Soccer. But it's precisely this direct, no-holds-barred style that endears Arena to most fans, or at least earns their respect: he often says what millions of fans think but no one inside the US soccer establishment is willing to say.
Last year, he caused a stir by saying that MLS regular season games aren't meaningful enough. Eventually, the powers that be chastised him for stirring the pot and he half-apologized. I'm glad he didn't fully apologize because he was absolutely right.
MLS plays 32 games only to eliminate the four teams out of 12. And it's not even necessarily the worst four teams. Four teams in each conference (eastern and western) make the playoffs, regardless of the overall league standings. If the eight playoff teams had been determined on a league-wide basis, Los Angeles wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the first place: they finished 9th (tied for 8th with Kansas City, but with a worse goal difference).
So this is the ultimate proof that the MLS regular season is virtually meaningless; some even argue that it's detrimental to the good teams (of the top five regular season teams, four were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs).
The 9th best team in a 12 team league is crowned "champion" and will represent American soccer in the continent-wide CONCACAF Champions Cup. That the higher seeded team has absolutely no home field advantage in the first round is another flaw MLS should fix.
I complain about LA's undeserved championship not out of sour grapes. En route to winning MLS Cup, they defeated the two best teams in the league, San Jose Earthquakes and New England, and won away to Colorado (one of the league's best teams at home). Furthermore, New England, my team, has been a beneficiary of MLS' lax playoff rules in the past. They came within a golden (sudden death) goal of being "champion" in 2002 despite losing more regular season games than they won. They came within another golden goal of playing for the championship last year, despite being tied for having the worst regular season record. Had they won either championship, I would've gladly accepted it. I don't blame LA; they won the championship under the system that was there. But it doesn't make it the right way to decide a champion.
Fixing this problem is long overdue for the league. MLS is trying desperately for credibility, both internationally and in the domestic sporting scene. When the 9th best team out of 12 wins the championship, it can't help the league's reputation. I'm realistic enough to know that MLS won't go to a European-style setup with no playoffs or to a pre-1969 baseball system where the two conference champions play each other in the final (even though either option would be sportingly fair). But the league should limit the playoffs to four teams to ensure that the title is not won by a team that accomplished little during the regular season and to ensure that regular season games are contested vigorously.
On a related note, I was interested to read that New England's owner Bob Kraft has expressed interest in investing in the English club and European champions Liverpool. (Ironically, New England's manager Steve Nicol was a long-time Liverpool player). Many New England fans would encourage Mr. Kraft to build a soccer-specific stadium for the Revolution so that they don't have to play in Gillette Stadium. Such a stadium doesn't have to be huge, maybe 20-25 thousand; but anything would be an improvement on Gillette, which is cavernous for MLS size crowds, atmosphere-free and has a very poor playing surface because use by the NFL New England Patriots. The Revs have long been treated as a burdenous appendage to a football machine, barely an afterthought (which explains the bizarre concurrence of decreasing attendance at Revs' games in recent years just as their fortunes on the field have started to rise). But one can dream, eh?
[For those more familiar with European soccer, MLS' title is decided by three rounds of playoffs following a 32 match (this year) regular season]
The championship-winning goal was scored by Pando Ramirez, who set an MLS record for offensive futility during the regular season: he took 61 shots from the run of play and he scored on 0 of them (he did score on a penalty that hit the post but rebounded in off the goalkeeper's back).
Seemingly every time he opens his mouth, US national team boss Bruce Arena gives headaches to the bureaucrats who run US Soccer. But it's precisely this direct, no-holds-barred style that endears Arena to most fans, or at least earns their respect: he often says what millions of fans think but no one inside the US soccer establishment is willing to say.
Last year, he caused a stir by saying that MLS regular season games aren't meaningful enough. Eventually, the powers that be chastised him for stirring the pot and he half-apologized. I'm glad he didn't fully apologize because he was absolutely right.
MLS plays 32 games only to eliminate the four teams out of 12. And it's not even necessarily the worst four teams. Four teams in each conference (eastern and western) make the playoffs, regardless of the overall league standings. If the eight playoff teams had been determined on a league-wide basis, Los Angeles wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the first place: they finished 9th (tied for 8th with Kansas City, but with a worse goal difference).
So this is the ultimate proof that the MLS regular season is virtually meaningless; some even argue that it's detrimental to the good teams (of the top five regular season teams, four were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs).
The 9th best team in a 12 team league is crowned "champion" and will represent American soccer in the continent-wide CONCACAF Champions Cup. That the higher seeded team has absolutely no home field advantage in the first round is another flaw MLS should fix.
I complain about LA's undeserved championship not out of sour grapes. En route to winning MLS Cup, they defeated the two best teams in the league, San Jose Earthquakes and New England, and won away to Colorado (one of the league's best teams at home). Furthermore, New England, my team, has been a beneficiary of MLS' lax playoff rules in the past. They came within a golden (sudden death) goal of being "champion" in 2002 despite losing more regular season games than they won. They came within another golden goal of playing for the championship last year, despite being tied for having the worst regular season record. Had they won either championship, I would've gladly accepted it. I don't blame LA; they won the championship under the system that was there. But it doesn't make it the right way to decide a champion.
Fixing this problem is long overdue for the league. MLS is trying desperately for credibility, both internationally and in the domestic sporting scene. When the 9th best team out of 12 wins the championship, it can't help the league's reputation. I'm realistic enough to know that MLS won't go to a European-style setup with no playoffs or to a pre-1969 baseball system where the two conference champions play each other in the final (even though either option would be sportingly fair). But the league should limit the playoffs to four teams to ensure that the title is not won by a team that accomplished little during the regular season and to ensure that regular season games are contested vigorously.
On a related note, I was interested to read that New England's owner Bob Kraft has expressed interest in investing in the English club and European champions Liverpool. (Ironically, New England's manager Steve Nicol was a long-time Liverpool player). Many New England fans would encourage Mr. Kraft to build a soccer-specific stadium for the Revolution so that they don't have to play in Gillette Stadium. Such a stadium doesn't have to be huge, maybe 20-25 thousand; but anything would be an improvement on Gillette, which is cavernous for MLS size crowds, atmosphere-free and has a very poor playing surface because use by the NFL New England Patriots. The Revs have long been treated as a burdenous appendage to a football machine, barely an afterthought (which explains the bizarre concurrence of decreasing attendance at Revs' games in recent years just as their fortunes on the field have started to rise). But one can dream, eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)