You call this a military?

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Thursday, March 29. 2007

You call this a military?

I still cannot believe that a�military�Brit prisoner�would speak these words:

"Obviously we trespassed into their waters," Turney said. "They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested. There was no harm, no aggression."

Meanwhile, incomprehensibly, Pelosi refuses to support the Brits.

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 16:53 | Comments (46) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

"Meanwhile, incomprehensibly, Pelosi refuses to support the Brits." Bird Dog

Of course, it's incomprehesible and a portent of worse to come. For those here with strong stomachs, consider Pelosi and Clinton together if Rodham wins the White House in 2008 and the Democrats maintain control of the House.

I have no idea of who or what yet could unite majority this country into some semblance of self-preservation and attempt at stabilizing the looming world madness. It should be apparent that the polarities that exist now in the United States cannot be reconciled, and that the threat of some kind of civil unrest is there should we experience a severe recession.

However, if there ever was a deliberate diversion from pressing domestic and foreign matters, it is the Al Gore & Friends Climate Show.

#1 John Hetman on 2007-03-29 17:39 (Reply)

Whatever happened to with your shield or on it? Easy for me to say, I know, a middle aged matron living in safety. But if my kid caved after a week, I'd be pretty disappointed...

Aren't they trained what to do if captured? Am I a naive fool to think that all they have to say is name, rank and serial number?

Well, I'll never know what they threatened her with (perhaps the lives of her fellow captives?), but it's not how her predecessors behaved. The people who defied Hitler would never have made nice like this...

#2 retriever on 2007-03-29 19:32 (Reply)

The most unflattering headgear known to woman:

http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2007/03/whats_in_a_hat_.html

#3 Sissy Willis (Link) on 2007-03-29 20:06 (Reply)

Read the rest of the note. It wasn't written or phrased by a native English speaker; if she wrote it at all, it was from a prepared text and with a gun to her head, metaphorically or literally.

#4 Charlie (Colorado) (Link) on 2007-03-29 20:40 (Reply)

C,You're right. Disgusted with the propaganda. Obviously sorry for them. Perhaps our governments should issue a blanket statement that "We will disbelieve all flattering things you say about our enemies if you are captured, since they will be obviously fabricated by your captors, or drawn from you under duress." If that were the policy, then it would be pointless for scum like the Iranians to parade their kidnapping victims.

Enough of my armchair nonsense. Wish we had the means and the will to rescue them and bomb their captors into the Stone Age. Yup, tact and diplomacy, that's me...

#5 retriever on 2007-03-29 20:50 (Reply)

I am with you Retriever. But, what the h___is with the cigarette? Did, or did not, her captors see that as unusual? It certainly does not go with the headgear. It is discordant. Was she sending a signal like:I am blowing smoke up their a__? Or, perhaps: "this is all smoke and no fire".

GD___it when are you folks gonna hear me? What they did to put Gregoire in the Governor's mansion; what they did to put Jefferts-Schori in the leadership of the Episcopal church is what they are planning to do in the elections of 2008. If we do not pursue and enforce corruption of election laws then we can be absolutely certain they will put Clinton in in 2008. These people are on a roll. They have a formula and so far that formula of corruption has worked perfectly for them. If, we cannot get Republican attorneys to pursue these people, then who will? John McKay is one of the 8 US attorneys fired by the president. He had it coming, but nobody yet, not one single newspaper has reported his background, and his refusal to investigate the 2004 election for governor in WA. I will post this site one more time and hope that it will get put up for your readers. Go here to see one of the US attorneys circa 1999.

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2973861&date=19990726&query=John+Mckay

#6 apple pie on 2007-03-29 21:04 (Reply)

Your view is just common sense R., as I see it. But those folks on the other side have worked their ways over the last 50 or more years, and 'force' is less of an option than it has ever been. The enabler's have control of the dialog and twist it at their whelm. All to our detriment.

ap, you should be vociferous more often :-) I think you are correct, and I have read your link. I lived in WA state for 12 years, though post 911, or post reality if one prefers. But it is a well oiled machine, and Seattle rules all. I am prone too overstatement, but I do think 08' will be pivotal to the survival of this country, at least in any sense of how we here view it.

#7 Luther McLeod on 2007-03-29 21:42 (Reply)

AP, I noticed on the film clip of their immidate kidnapping--they were in the rubber boats still, she was smoking a cig--so she's a smoker, and no doubt nervous as hell. She obviously has a very dear-to-her family--one of the psych tortures the mullahs used on the US emabassy folks was to have lower echelon guards tell them that they could expect to receive their children's toes and fingers in the mail, unless they cooperated. One of the ex-captives just repeated this, on tv, Hannity show, just now. So who knows how the little beasts got her statement.

#8 buddy larsen on 2007-03-29 21:57 (Reply)

as chock-full of fuzzy-wuzzies as England is, she's may well be trying to protect her family back home.

What a crappy situation we are in.

Nov 07, 2006, a day which could live in infamy, if we hold together well enough to maintain the right to think it that way.

#9 buddy larsen on 2007-03-29 22:05 (Reply)

AP, I agree, the governorship of WA was stolen, clearly by thug tactics, and hardly a word has been said against it.

Just imagine the semi-corrupt party trying that against the fully-corrupt party!

Sen Schumer would've declared war.

#10 buddy larsen on 2007-03-29 22:09 (Reply)

It helps to live outside Seattle. Most of the rest of the state is actually pretty normal.

#11 Skookumchuk (Link) on 2007-03-29 22:14 (Reply)

it does seem like the nutjob vs normal demarcation is also pretty much the urban vs everyone else--

#12 buddy larsen on 2007-03-29 22:19 (Reply)

Yeats described it better than my frustrated snarls ever could:

The Second Coming

TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

#13 retriever on 2007-03-29 22:25 (Reply)

Please change my 'post' in the above to 'pre,' I don't know if I'm coming or going :-(

Thus my point about Seattle Skook.

BL, I think C. had the best advice. Ignore anything they propagate. All manipulated to the 'n degree before release.

07Nov06, the day on which the final filaments were cut.

Good by Yeats R.

I'm depressed. Not an unusual event nowadays.

#14 Luther McLeod on 2007-03-29 22:35 (Reply)

always darkest before the light, LM--

#15 buddy larsen on 2007-03-29 22:45 (Reply)

i guess Yeats must've been feeling the second Great War coming on before the noise of the first one--the "war to end all wars"--had even died down. Those lines are just incredible--to us it has to seem as if there's always the same set of conditions before a major shitstorm.

#16 buddy larsen on 2007-03-29 22:51 (Reply)

Thanks Bl. I mean it.

And what the hell was that Sphinx all about anyway?

I look for "passionate intensity" and find little among those who would protect this country. Except for those who place their lives on the line, everyday, over there. I am disgusted by those who look at them as pawn's in their politics.

#17 Luther McLeod on 2007-03-29 23:07 (Reply)

There is a distinct possibilty, however, that the Democrats may have achieved a Pyrrhic Victory and that their own near treasonous defeatism, utter partisanship, and events yet to come may doom them by November 2008. I only wish that there were more conservative Republicans with spine--so many Republicans are on the M end of S/M behavior.

#18 John Hetman on 2007-03-29 23:18 (Reply)

Ha--the M end of S&M, or just "better manners" ?

I dunno, LM--the sphinx thing doesn't fit, tho. I had the same thought when first read it.

#19 buddy larsen on 2007-03-29 23:37 (Reply)

R. might enlighten us if she chose too. Though the East Coast is asleep now. Hope is in the morrow. Sleep well BL.

#20 anon on 2007-03-29 23:54 (Reply)

Shit. The last was me.

#21 Luther McLeod on 2007-03-29 23:56 (Reply)

If providence is with us, Hetman will be right about the left overshooting its power.

I'd say the odds are 50/50 as it stands today.

The bad thing is that the American left knows it has to totally bumf**k the war, in order to be sure the voters will want a clean sweep in 08.

So they're doing ALL they CAN do, as we speak, to coax the enemy in hanging in there just a little longer, just long enough to get Bush out--then they can have the Mid East, free & clear.

The Sauds are already adjusting to Nov 07, calling us, for the first time just a day or two ago, a "foreign occupier". The dream is coming true, for the Dems.

It just blows my mind, totally blows my mind, that the great lesson of the last half of the 20th century--that we screwed the free world so badly giving the Vietnam war over to the American Left, did not, after all, get learned.

#22 buddy larsen on 2007-03-30 00:26 (Reply)

�The Second Coming� W.B. Yeats

By the year 1920, Yeats saw the old order of the world flying apart. The horrors of World War I were just past, and now Ireland seemed moving toward anarchy, as squads of assassins from the revolutionary Sinn Fein independence movement and the official Royal Irish Constabulary murdered innocent citizens in opposing terrorist campaigns. �We are,� he wrote, �but weasels fighting in a hole.� The end of everything he valued seemed at hand, and it made Yeats think of the Second Coming.

In the Gospels, Jesus warns his disciples that he will be crucified, but assures them that he will return again, after an uncertain length of time. Cataclysmic violence will precede this Second Coming, warning everyone that the end of the world is at hand.

Yeats intends his readers to recall this Christian tradition, clearly alluding to the destruction which foreshadows Christ�s return in lines 4 to 8 and to his first coming in the reference to Bethlehem, line 22.

But Yeats was no Christian, and he alters the traditional story in a particular way to make it fit his own theory of history. In his version it is not Jesus who returns, but rather some other divinity, too alien to be fully comprehended. The poet�s knowledge of this new god comes from a vision he has had, a vision which rises out of the shared unconscious mind in which all human beings participate and to which Yeats refers by its Latin name, the Spiritus Mundi, the �soul of the world.� The vision this creates in the poet�s mind is vague but menacing - the poet tries to describe it in lines 13-18, but soon loses it, and �darkness drops again�. He is still so unsure if its meaning that he ends his poem with a question.

What he does understand is that during the past two thousand years this new beast-god has been in stony sleep, waiting to be born, and angered by the more gentle god of Christianity, symbolized by the �rocking cradle� of the infant Jesus. Now this �rough beast� is moving toward its own birth, its own, ominous Bethlehem.

(From notes on Yeats.)

#23 Anonymous on 2007-03-30 00:43 (Reply)

Well, that's SURE to cheer-up LM when he rolls out tomorrow!
:-D

#24 buddy larsen on 2007-03-30 00:54 (Reply)

"Now this �rough beast� is moving toward its own birth, its own, ominous Bethlehem."

Given the events in and just after Yeats wrote his classic poem, the "rough beast" that he mentions was born in the gas chambers and crematoria of Nazi Europe, the gulags of the Soviet Union and, farther afield, the mind-numbing numbers of official murders by Mao and his comrades.

These three "nightmares" alone probably account for more than the total of heinous official murders within all of recorded human history--yet they occurred within only a couple of decades of the most progressive century ever.

#25 John Hetman on 2007-03-30 00:56 (Reply)

We are very familiar with this piece in our house. However, I have always been of the opinion that Yeats was talking about the collapse of Christianity. An event which had been discussed in the hallowed halls of science for about 120 years by the time that Yeats wrote this piece. The center not being able to hold, I believe, is a reference to the Christian ethic/tradition. The beast is something that will fill the void.

#26 apple pie on 2007-03-30 01:11 (Reply)

And yet--we always have the choice, we could, with an act of will or leap of faith, yet snap our fingers and make the premonitions, the dreaded inevitables, disappear like a nightmare dream. But we individuals are just parts of that Spiritus Mundi that must wake up.

#27 buddy larsen on 2007-03-30 01:33 (Reply)

Just an aside, but I have noticed a tendency here for folks too not venture into old threads, seemingly measured in hours. So this may not be read. None the less.

First off, Buddy, this is a major if not the entire reason I am depressed, from you;

"It just blows my mind, totally blows my mind, that the great lesson of the last half of the 20th century--that we screwed the free world so badly giving the Vietnam war over to the American Left, did not, after all, get learned."

I could, perhaps, be clinically classified as suffering from PTSD. Though I have never felt that way myself. The scars of war never heal completely. But I have always approached it as just as a slice of my being that is to be remembered and thought of, but not as a part of my everyday existence.

But I admit too a stressful condition nowadays. The stress of my generation losing two wars. Both brought about by the manipulations of one of our political parties. I could, if I tried very hard, come up with excuses for the first time. After all, I was a part of that. Guilt too my dying day. But, for the life of me, I can find no excuses for losing this one.

All I can say is that we did indeed lose the "cold war." Though the USSR is not around to enjoy its victory. But it is the rot that they introduced into this country so many years ago which has led to our end. I may sound as a kook, but too me the evidence surrounds and engulfs us. Pick a sphere of influence, media, education, politics, health care even our very Religions. All have been damaged by Marxist thought. I am unsure if the tide can be turned. That is the source of my depression. Forgive me ladies. But the USA has put its dick into the freezer, whether it can ever be defrosted and placed into service again is the question.

I see the Yeats quotes, as explained, more Lovecraftian than anything else, many different takes on good and evil. Great beasts are always stalking the world, Mr. Hetman's examples are to the point. The real world often overtakes and overcomes the fantastical.

Good last point BL. We are not yet there though.

#28 Luther McLeod on 2007-03-30 21:56 (Reply)

"...the shared unconscious mind in which all human beings participate and to which Yeats refers by its Latin name, the Spiritus Mundi, the �soul of the world.�

The "soul of the world" is not Christian. It is not any religion.

#29 Anon on 2007-03-30 22:43 (Reply)

Perhaps you're right anon. But yet it exists. No matter the 'word' you attach, or refuse to, it. We all taste, few can slake.

#30 Luther McLeod on 2007-03-30 23:07 (Reply)

OK, now, #29 is not the usual "anon", just to be clear, nor that "anon" who, on another thread, had a lovely remembrance of a tryst with a girl years ago.

Too many anons and anonymice!

#31 commenter formerly known as anon on 2007-03-30 23:37 (Reply)

correction: ... just to be clear, nor is the "anon" who, on another thread...

(It's difficult for me "to be clear" around midnight. The mind tries to trick me into going to bed by free-associating and garbling syntax. But I win out b/c I don't really mind---)

#32 commenter formerly known as anon on 2007-03-31 00:08 (Reply)

What does it say about a blog that commenters are afraid to use their own names or parts of them?

Hats off to you, Buddy. I'm sure you know the answer.

#33 suomynona on 2007-03-31 12:21 (Reply)

Suomyona,

How many women here use their own names or parts of them? I can't think of many. Sissy Willis has her own blog, but what other commenters self-identify by real name who may comment from time to time on personal situations? Are you making a point about this blog, about all women who participate here, or just about one particular person?

Some men have jobs that preclude them from using their names in certain discussions and some of us women have family members who have asked that we not be identifiable in political discussions, anymore, at any blog, on account of their work. Some of us have had the experience of friendly but unwanted stalker emailers who have followed our comments. Some of us have tried from time to time to use our names or "part of them", but then people get too personal in rude ways, and so we try to break the cycle of negativity by not offering ourselves up as such identifiable targets.

The Internet is a great and terrible forum, given the exchange of info, ideas, concerns and fun on the one hand and the infliction of incivility, insult and so forth made too easy by cyber distance, on the other.

You didn't sign your name-- for a reason? :) Maybe you have a better answer than I. Feel free---!

#34 commenter formerly known as anon on 2007-03-31 12:43 (Reply)

I think this is one of the greatest blogs on the Internet despite some of its commenters' propensity to eviscerate free-thinkers.

I'm not suggesting people use their real names - just a name that is the same each time and gives an indicator of sex.

Thanks for the lecture. You demonstrated why some of us prefer remaining anonymous. Or not commenting at all.

I will continue to read. Am constantly saddened that I dare not comment. I'm happy for you that you have found a place to wail and yawp your miserable life for the world to note. I notice you used the imperial 'we'. Are you one of the owners of this blog? If so, feel free to ban me.

#35 Suomyona on 2007-03-31 21:27 (Reply)

Wow! Are we reading the same comment? What royal "we"? All I offered were reasons why some people (including me) don't feel free to use their real names *as you asked about*. You posed a fairly passive-aggressive question and someone tried to answer without rancor- there was absolutely nothing rude in my response. Read it again when you're in a normal mood.

I had a long answer to your hostile assertions, to your attack out the blue, but think it best not to play the game you're trying to start. I know why, too, and it's a poor reflection upon certain others here that you think they'd approve.

#36 cfkaa FEMALE on 2007-04-01 00:26 (Reply)

Btw, in the past you've used several names on this blog and at least a couple of them weren't gender specific, even though you're now making a weird issue of it for the rest of us. One other woman has used a number of names and another posts as "anonymous" from time to time in addition to her regular tag- on account of her or her husband's work, I gather.

You've also commented as "anonymous", especially after bloodily crossing swords with another here (not me). I used to use my name here until someone else started weirdly dogging...

#37 cfkaa FEMALE on 2007-04-01 00:52 (Reply)

S,
re:#35

"yawp your miserable life" was unkind and uncalled for. I have no clue why a balanced and civil response like #34 drew such rancor, but it is completely inappropriate. #37 is right.

Plenty of people on this blog disagree, banter, even battle. But generallly without personal attacks. We all feel strongly, but as one of us likes to intone "if we acted on all of our feelings, we'd be in jail!"

I say plenty of asinine things here and people let me know when they disagree, but they are considerate. Catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

#38 retriever on 2007-04-01 07:46 (Reply)

Thanks, Retriever. You're a good egg! I remember this person suddenly saying similar things to you in the past and my being horrified. This morn you're teaching me a good Sunday School lesson-- even though I wasn't commenting at the time for reason, I still should have registered a strong objection to the unwarranted attacks.

Btw, I rarely talk about my life, much less complain about it, but, for the record, it's a pretty good one in every way except one- and that's being addressed. If you ever wish to be bored by one of those horrible end of the year Christmas cards "It was a good year- Dave was made CEO of GE, Dave Jr. just finished up his doctorate at MIT and will now be working for Boeing at a starting salary of 350,000, beautiful daughter Suzy was married to European royalty in a lavish ceremony at Versailles and I just published my fourth best seller on the Manatees of ancient America- a history of their adiposity and body self-image before 1000 AD", feel free to ask. Actually, my card will be more along the lines of This year I was thrilled to fill my freezer with fruits and veggies from the garden and to hit the bullseye at the range despite my needing glasses now, etc., but you get the idea.

Hope you still feel free to post about your life- the ups and downs and all arounds, b/c we all take away useful insight from your observations and stories.

#39 cfkaa FEMALE on 2007-04-01 09:55 (Reply)

This is why using 'anonymous' is a serious problem.

Until my explanation of Yeats' poem,I have not commented on this blog since 2/11/07. I was attacked after making an innocuous statement with: "My, I didn't see you in church this morning." A very strange, long comment followed that, but it drew first blood.

Retriever, I have not spoken to you since 2/04/07. Have you ever disguised yourself on this blog? Why?

You have me mixed up with someone else. I have never used 'anonymous' until the Yeats comment.

What a very sad thing this is for a great blog.

Paranoia strikes deep.....

.

#40 Suomyona on 2007-04-01 21:51 (Reply)

#34, - I thought you were Retriever.

It is telling that we prefer being anonymous. Are you Abigail?

#41 Suomyona on 2007-04-01 22:08 (Reply)

No paranoia, Suomyona. Simply don't like your bullying someone. I don't think anybody but you uses this blog to insult others. I pity you. You displace a lot of rage onto a bunch of bright, friendly, curious people who would otherwise be interested in your views and your issues.

#42 retriever on 2007-04-01 22:14 (Reply)

Gee, Suomyona, you really are paranoid. Talk about pot calling the kettle black! I most definitely am not #34. I never post as anonymous. Nope. You just clawed somebody else. Does that make you feel better now?

#43 Abigail on 2007-04-01 22:17 (Reply)

Would everyone just comment under one damn nic. I care not your sex, nor your persuasion, nor your politics. I care about thoughts and facts. I just need to know who too address consistently, or at the least, which particular ego is writing. Stand up for your fucking views. I'm not smart enough too figure it out otherwise, and it wastes all our time.

#44 Luther McLeod on 2007-04-01 22:52 (Reply)

Well, well... Abigail appears in person for the first time since February 11. Nice to see you. Perhaps you were using another name?

I don't know who is who now, but I do know Retriever did not answer my question about using a fake name. I asked cfkaaFEMALE if she is 'Abigail'. No answer. Just attacks.

Who's paranoid here? How many women are in this tete a tete?

Retriever, your pattern of strike and withdraw is consistent and fake. You tell me I'm a bully but you'd like to hear my views? I tell my views and someone tells me I need to go to church. I talk about Thomas Jefferson - to no one in particular, and I get ambushed.

The fake name business is ridiculous. It was well in force the six weeks I read the blog before I first commented, so don't dump it in my lap.

"...but think it best not to play the game you're trying to start. I know why, too, and it's a poor reflection upon certain others here that you think they'd approve." Who wrote this? And what in the world does it mean? It doesn't make sense.

There - once again I stood up for myself. Can't wait to hear what a 'bully' I am and how 'paranoid' I am. Go for it, girls.
.

#45 Phoenix on 2007-04-02 01:07 (Reply)

I do not mind noms de plume at all, but we'd prefer if people would just stick to one. Best of all, of course, is to use one's real name - as in letters to an editor - but the Maggie's Farm team prefers to be anonymous, so we're in no position to preach on that subject.

All we want is a degree of kindness and civility. Plus facts, if possible!

#46 Bird Dog on 2007-04-02 06:58 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, March 29. 2007

You call this a military?