Liberal - not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. It's not a swear word pe
Democracy and Responsibility
Published on March 10, 2005 By AJCrowley In Politics
To Whom it May Concern (you know who you are),

I am sick of hearing praises for George W. Bush, and his wonderful crusade to spread democracy through the Middle East. Most recently is the various Bush fans claiming responsibility for Syria leaving Lebanon. The USA certainly had a hand in it, but this is something the Lebanese have been working on for over a decade, the US hardly deserves credit for being the sole precipitator of this change.

Though (so far) Bush's policy has really been truly disastrous in one country (Iraq of course), it looks like he's getting ramped up to invade anyone else who dares oppose him. It's hardly surprising that rogue states are seeking nuclear armament, they are under the very real threat of invasion by a foreign power, and the concept of mutually assured destruction kept the war between the US and the USSR cold for decades. A cold war is certainly prefereable to a hot one.

I'm also sick of seeing "for the camera" images, and romanticized and cleaned up stories appearing on all North American news agencies. The BBC, and CBC are two of the only news agencies left in the world that you can rely on for unbiased news, why? See: corporate conflicts of interest and agendas.

You know, there's something worse than living under a ruthless despot like Hussein - and that's living in chaos with a foreign invader shooting up civilians on a daily basis, and let's face it, for everyone that Hussein would have "disappeared" and tortured for no reason, the using is doing tenfold, so who's really evil here?

Part of the problem is that many Americans (always the loudest ones) have no sense of empathy at all. If your soldiers arrest and torture innocent people, well, that's just the price of war, but if someone tortures a US citizen, it's unbelievably barbaric and evil, and they should be nuked.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question based on real situations - many people in your country hate Bush, as many Iraqis hated Hussein, both are guilty of gestapo tactics, torture, and corruption - don't even bother trying to deny it, Cheney still makes a great deal of money from Halliburton, who strangely get overpriced no bid contracts. It's clearly matter of favours for favours in the Bush government. Anyway, back on point, half of your population hates Bush, so if some foreign power, say, China, decided that your people should be freed from the tyranny of George Bush, and they came to your country, destroyed the infrastructure so that you couldn't get electricity or running water any more than sporadically, even in your biggest cities. If China had bombed government and military buildings, as well as plenty of "collateral damage". Imagine that almost everyone you knew had lost family as a result of this. Imagine that they left your country covered in uranium dust, resulting in outrageous cancer and birth deformity rates. Would you be grateful for being liberated? Would people who hate Bush be grateful? This is the reality that people in Iraq have to live with every day because of the actions that were taken because of your government, who took these actions because they were your wishes, even if they had to lie to you to convince you. What this means is that any citizen of a country that invaded who supported the invasion bears partial responsibility, and cannot be taken seriously in claiming innocence. You, yes you are a murderer and a plunderer, these actions were taken in your name, and responsibility is the price of true democracy.

Maybe you'd have a little more empathy if before you go believing the bullshit from the usual suspects (well, it is cheaper to just parrot what the government tells you instead of having to do any actual journalism and investigation, and corporations that own the news have a legal obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits), you should try listening to what the actual Iraqis have to say.

There's a girl that lives in Baghdad that has one of the best blogs I've seen. There seems to be this impression in the US that people in the Middle East are barbarians, which is simply not the case, life there (when you're not getting invaded) is not tremendously different from life here or in the US, they are real people with real families, real friends, and real lives. She hated Hussein as much or more than any American, but now her life is far worse. She lives in the real fear, because their newly elected government has stated that they will incorporate Islamic law into their constitution. Their interpretation of that law means the beekeeper suits that you so love to talk about when preaching of the freedom you're spreading, or at least a head covering (no hair showing), and an ankle length skirt (no pants), and a wrist length loose top that doesn't show any shape. She used to be free to dress as she pleased in Iraq (which was exactly the same as many fashionable European and American women), and nobody could say anything about it, because for everything that was wrong about Hussein, he kept the government secular, and nobody dared challenge it. This kind of discrimination really is the will of the people in Iraq, this is the common Shia view, and the majority are Shia (remember the voting?), and believe this to be right. Can you really tell me that this is a country ready for true democracy? Where democracy doesn't mean freedom to do and express yourself as you please, but freedom to opress women? Even now, she gets many extremely rude comments about "dressing so disrespectfully", which she would have never put up with under Hussein, but now to argue the point too strongly would place her in real danger. These are the fruits of your invasion and your democracy, and I'll say it again, the fact that your democracy represents your wishes makes you wholly responsible for all of this. I highly recommend that you check out her blog, the url is http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com. Read it and understand what taking actions based on your assumptions of a situation about which you know nothing. Congratulations, freedom and democracy for all.

The world is hardly safer, if al Quaeda had an advertising campaign planned, they probably withdrew it because Bush has done a great job for them, there will be no shortage of people pissed off with the USA after losing their entire families and many friends.

Anyway, I could rant all day about this, and it drives me mad how ignorant so many people (not just Americans) are about the subject, yet still seem to have such a strong opinion on the matter, which in a democracy gets acted on, there's that responsibility thing again. Anyway, despite Bush's refusal to accept liability from an international court, so that soldiers who torture innocent people can be punished instead of just a couple of them scapegoated, and then pretending that the situation was just a few bad apples, and doesn't exist any more. Despite this, Bush and Blair should be held accountable. There should be trials for war crimes, don't try and tell me that torture isn't a war crime, and it's policy, not just a few bad apples. Because yet again this is a subject on which you are no doubt blissfully ignorant, I suggest that you read Amnesty International's letter to George Bush, it's very enlightening - http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511452004.

I doubt that I'll change anyone's mind with any of this, after all, what true American would accept responsibility for the true consequences of their actions when they can be cowardly and hide behind false patriotism, believing the propagandized and sanitized stories that their governments choose to tell them, but maybe a few people who are so strongly opinionated on the subject, yet know nothing of the real facts and the real effects of this will shut the hell up.

Comments (Page 5)
5 PagesFirst 3 4 5 
on Mar 13, 2005

No you didn't read all of your link. Go to the linked page and before you scroll down to far you will see a blue pane with a picture of a vest on the left and writing on the right. In the FIRST sentence it PLAINLY states that it will stop rifle rounds and SOME AP rounds. Notice they do NOT say ALL AP rounds.


I read the entire page. And I read what you said before. You said:

Body armour will NOT stop an AP round, period.


That's not true. I will quote the manufacturer here, and highlight exactly the point I'm making:

It will defeat the following threats:
7.62 × 54mm lead core ball ammunition, Dragunov Sniper Rifle at 0 meters
7.62 × 54mm AP, Dragunov Sniper Rifle at 0 meters
7.62 × 51mm NATO ball ammunition at 0 meters
7.62 × 51mm AP M-61 at 0 meters
7.62 × 51mm Swiss Munitions AP (WC Core) at 0 meters
7.62 × 39mm mild steel core, AK-47 at 0 meters
7.62 × 63mm AP at 0 meters
5.56 × 45mm SS109/M855 at 0 meters*
5.56 × 45mm M193 ball at 0 meters
5.45 × 39mm Russian ball at 0 meters
12 gauge slug at 0 meters


The armor stops AP rounds in calibers that are most likely to be used. There aren't too many insurgents using .338 Lapua rifles with AP rounds, if there even are any. And even if armor could stop a .50 BMG round, the energy from the impact would probably kill the person wearing the it anyway. Deaths to American troops from gunfire is now quite uncommon. And it is thanks to the armor.


* Has good penetrating ability, but is not technically considered armor-piercing


Of all those quoted only TWO are considered AP, the rest are regular rifle ammo. Just an FYI...ALL AP rounds use a "steel" core which is the actual penetrator. Check the link:
Link

Without the steel core, ammunition is NOT considered AP
on Mar 13, 2005
Face it ED.... you may win on the armor question but you will not win on the ammo. My grandfather AND his brother were BOTH armourers in the army. I have probably forgotten more about ammo than you know. Plus the fact I have worked as a gunsmith for 5 years.
on Mar 13, 2005
Of all those quoted only TWO are considered AP, the rest are regular rifle ammo. Just an FYI...ALL AP rounds use a "steel" core which is the actual penetrator. Check the link:


The 7.62x54R B-30 is AP
The 7.62x51 comes in several AP cartridges, T93's and m993
The 7.62x51 WC is an AP round

My 7.62x63 M2 says it's armor-piercing, but for some reason it is not considered AP by law.


Without the steel core, ammunition is NOT considered AP


Tungsten is now being used, too.

Look Drmiler, I'm not trying to prove I know more about ammunition than you. I'm sure I don't I have a can of 400 rounds of .30-06 and about 500 each of 7.62 NATO and 7.62x39. When I buy
ammo every once in a blue moon, I look for cheap ammo. In this instance, I checked once and twice again to make sure I was arguing more point honestly and correctly. If I'm wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong. But I'm certain that I am not.

If you want to discuss this further, I'll be happy to create an article so we can stop giving the clown that wrote this article, who thinks the BBC and CBC constitute unbiased journalism, more points for more attention.
on Mar 14, 2005
Of all those quoted only TWO are considered AP, the rest are regular rifle ammo. Just an FYI...ALL AP rounds use a "steel" core which is the actual penetrator. Check the link:


The 7.62x54R B-30 is AP
The 7.62x51 comes in several AP cartridges, T93's and m993
The 7.62x51 WC is an AP round

My 7.62x63 M2 says it's armor-piercing, but for some reason it is not considered AP by law.


Without the steel core, ammunition is NOT considered AP


One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty. You personaly do not have any AP rounds unless you lifted some from an armoury. They are illegal to own or sell in the US. The closest thing you can get is if you have some "Wolf" brand 7.62x39 ammo which has a mild steel core but is NOT an actual AP Round. Your right about another thing. If your going to answer this maybe you should start a seperate blog. I'd rather you get the points than AJ.
on Mar 18, 2005
Hey Koop, thanks for responding. Of course, while it's very easy to point out the faults of someone else's actions, it's somewhat less easy to come up with your own. First of all, I would probably have started by not supporting and arming Hussein, simply because it was convenient at the time back in the Iran / Iraq war. I could keep listing off past mistakes that I would have avoided, but of course, any US president now would not have the luxury of avoiding past mistakes, so it's not necessarily fair to judge on that basis alone. Given the reality of the situation, what would I have done? Well, Hussein was undeniably a brutal tyrant who killed a great many people (some with a helping hand from our governments), but the ultimate question of what is an acceptable price to pay for freedom from this ultimately should be answered by the Iraqis, not Westerners who know nothing of the situation other than what their governments choose to tell them (rape rooms? Please, the Americans had rape rooms at Abu Ghraib, also the story about pulling Kuwaiti babies out of incubators is known to be a complete fabrication). If we cannot get an honest picture of what is truly going on, it's harder to be able to make such a call. By now we all know of the double standards (depose a tyrant here, support a possibly even more brutal one there), so there's not really a great deal of point in going on about that. Let's leave aside the moral question of whether Iraq was the right place at the right time to go to war. The part that I have the biggest problem with is the way that this war has been carried out from its inception. First of all, the war was "sold" to you on lies. A war shouldn't have to be "sold", and I think that someone would have to be extremely naive to believe that Bush and his cronies didn't knowingly lie in at least a few points (such as the Niger uranium issue, which had been reported false in an investigation long before Bush stated it as fact in a speech). I have a huge problem with that. The lying didn't stop there though, it's continued every step of the way, and every step more and more people seem to buy it. We were told that the war was over by Bush, declaring victory before the real war even began. We are told that the Iraqis are all so happy, and love their newly elected leaders (composed primarily of criminals, exiles and conmen). We are told that the US doesn't have a policy of torture, even though there's plenty of documentation to suggest otherwise, which Bush refuses to categorically deny. Lies really piss me off, and it offends me that the leaders of our society feel the need to fabricate and keep the truth from us. There's also been the screwups every step of the way, allowing the cultural heritage of the country to be all but destroyed while protecting an oil ministry building, refusing aid workers access to both civilians and prisoners in need of help etc. Ultimately for me, the question isn't whether the US should have gone to war in Iraq, it's all about how they went to war in Iraq - they sold it as something that it's clearly not, and then simply changed their story every step of the way to what was convenient for them. I believe that the Iraqi people, if they were living under the level of tyranny that they seem to have been, are completely deserving of any assistance that we can offer them. That doesn't include leaving them for two years without reliable water or power. That doesn't include the torture of innocent (or guilty for that matter) people. That doesn't include the vast corruption that is being carried out over there. The "liberation" also feels to many a lot more like an invasion and occupation, which is why you have resistance, there may have been a better way to go about things, though you obviously cannot simply depose a government and then disappear, leaving a power vacuum. So, what should have been done differently? Honesty, planning, execution, rebuilding of infrastructure. If those things had been performed competently, I would have had no problem with any of this. Instead we are inundated with double standards, misinformation and disinformation, incompetence and chaos. I'd love to stay and write about this all day, but I am out of time. Just on an ending note, the right wing's standard response to this (with one or two exceptions) is all so predictable - simple denounce everything as fiction without offering any logical reasoning, and then try to attack me personally to "prove me wrong". It may work for the republican party, but it doesn't work for you, trust me. AJC
5 PagesFirst 3 4 5