I think the naked pyramid was silly.

We'll only lose this war if we chicken out.

There's a pretty large range of outcomes which can be considered 'losing' the war. Its pig-headedness of the most destructive kind to think that if we keep plugging away - with vigour - everything will sort itself out.

It's foolishness of the most destructive kind to think that we can succeed by doing anything but. Nothing ever 'sorts itself out.'

What I'm saying is that there are many, many other mistakes that can be made, and have been made, aside from chickening out that can and will be severely detrimental to the end-state in Iraq. Its this repeated assertion by Reynolds and others whenever something goes wrong that the most important thing is vigour of purpose that strikes me as thorough foolishness. I'm not advocating doing the diametric opposite to 'plugging away' - there's a lot to be said for it - but absence of rational debate over what we're doing wrong, and the demonisation of rational critics as appeasers, is thoroughly damaging and foolish in the long run.

See Republican reaction to Murtha, staunch war supporter, Democrat, for a case study in foolishness.

Actually, I believe the Arab world now has MORE respect for us, instead of less. We've now put teeth into their fears of Gitmo: "Yikes, if the Yankee infidels catch me, I'll be the dog of a female SP! The horror! I'll be less than a man!"

I agree with your assessment, Dean. In light of media speculation of our "shame." I still believe this is a just war, and I blogged about a few other things that weighed on my mind this weekend.

Max and John,

Things aren't just sorting themselves out - in all the reporting of the abuse, what has been missed is the re-emergence of Iraqi security forces working directly alongside US troops in restoring order and authority in Najaf, Fallujah and elsewhere.

We're still winning the war....

I hope they sort this thing out, in the upcoming courts martial. Although it has been blown out of proportion by the media, it represents a serious lapse of discipline on the part of a very few prison guards and their supervisors.
This prison abuse scandal is a trap for the unwary Kerry. Most military people already don't trust Kerry, but now he risks alienating both the military and anyone at all sympathetic to it.

I think Samuel Tai has provided the only commentary that makes sense about the US administered tough jails in Iraq. The Arabs respect brute force. Which means they will do everything possible to stay out of such a jail. Which means this is a policy that will win for us in the long run.

Also. You want to build equality for women in the Arab and moslem worlds? Then shame the men in the eyes of their women and children. That way, you will truly break their spirit as well as their explicit rebelliousness. Treat them as if they were animals, and their women and children will no longer trust them or follow their leadership.

If I were in charge of this Iraqi conflict, upon capturing this al-Sadr shia imam, I would parade him in humiliation in the streets of his city, hauling him in a cage towed behind an American tank or humvee. Then I would whip him in a public square. Just enough to make him bleed and to scream in agony. When finished, I would have the punishment squad untie him, and let him lie there in the gutter as our forces drive off to enjoy an evening in the local PX-affiliated whorehouse.

Then I would inform the population, in great candor, that this is the treatment we shall mete out to any Arab who organizes resistance against us.

Because we are to rule over such a people, for their good or for ours, then we must remind them from time to time of our power over them and families, and about the terrible consequences that result from bringing themselves to the negative attention of their American overlords.

If we are an empire, then let us act as empires always have conducted themselves. Remember that all the empires of history died from internal weakness rather than from external conquest.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

A parable:

Several citizens, staunch Bush supporters and a couple of, well you know...liberals, were going through the White House tour and got lost. While excitedly exploring forbidden terrority, they stumble upon an unlocked door and just have to peek.

They slowly open the door but there is furniture blocking most of the room, so the group move farther into the room and are surprised to see a member of the White House staff buggering a 13 year old boy.

Well, everyone was shocked and the buggering official was, needless to say, much chagrined. Everyone just sort of froze in place until, with a slight grin, the buggering official simply stated,

"9-11"

The Bush supporters were very relieved and exclaimed in unison, "OH!, that explains it."

The liberals were all red faced, either through embarassment or anger and sputtered but just could not seem to protest.

The Bush supporters, just patted the liberals on the back and directed them out the door.

"There, there it will be alright."

One Bush supporter says to another, "You know we should look into becoming members of NAMBLA."

Another replied, "You know your right, I am sure it would assist in the War of Terror."

Well, one of the liberals over hears these and just loses it.

"Are you people insane? You can not be serious about this."

The Bush supporters all turn as one, peering at the mouthy liberal. They all blink their eyes in concert, their mouths drop open and snap shut. A look of disgust comes all their faces and as one they say,

"You seditious bastard, how dare you question the U.S. government, particularly in war time."

After having properly rebuked the obviously confused and possibly mentally disturbed liberals, the Bush supporters make their way to the next room, muttering to themselves, "I wonder what we will find in the next room."

Wow, j swift, the depth of your moral equivalence depravity astounds me (or maybe you're projecting your personal fantasies as to how you'd abuse the power of the White House). As I recall, its the Democrats who are willing to let actual crimes slide (Clintons perjury, Kerry's self-admitted "war crimes", etc), and Republicans police their own remarkably well (Trent Lott springs immediately to mind).

You're a Ted Rall fan, aren't you?

j Swift. Well, add to the many down-sides of the internet the ease with which one can assume the identity, if not the talent of a literary giant. I think we will see much more of this grotesque posturing in the near term as the Left has no arguments that will survive close scrutiny. Some are probably surprised that a champion of a Leftist cause would resort, instantly, to such degraded gay-baiting as we see here but you may pick your jaw up off the floor. Look around at the Leftist websites with heavy traffic. No slur is out of bounds; sexist, racist, homophobic or just plain nuts. This is your Left. (shudder) (wretch, shudder)

I am dismayed that the United States and some of its citizens are attempting to justify what we did in Iraq by saying, "Well, at least we aren't as bad as [insert brutal regime]."

Our standards are not defined by what brutal regime we *aren't*. Our standards are defined by what kind of country we want to be.

Shiite extremists are not Ba'athists. Wahabiists are not Shiites. Saudi Arabian terrorists who hijack planes and run them into buildings are not Al Jazeera reporters who are held without charges and subjected to torture.

We started out this war with a deficit of support from the world community. That was clear from the outset. In order to maintain our credibility on the international scene, we had to pull this off as perfectly as possible. We aren't.

You can justify what you want. You can turn off the news if you believe wars are won according to civilian morale. You can mish-mash various Islamic and arab groups together to rationalize why we treat them the way we treat them.

But none of that will change the fact that we have tortured prisoners of war, and anyone with a shred of human decency should be dismayed.

John,

You of all people bleat to the rest of us about public opinion, in this case about some "world community"?

If it were up to most of this "world community", in village squares everywhere, they would still be tying homosexuals together on raised platforms, and burning you at the stake while the village children laughed, sang and danced around your roasted corpses.

As for the United States fighting a war against crazed religious fanatics in accordance with standards of "the kind of country we want to be", I can only tell you what kind of country I want this to be.

I want this to be the kind of country that never ever again permits its troops to be sent into combat without utterly destroying the enemy forces, their government, the country, their very civilization. I don't give a damn if we have to burn half the world in the process. I want no more Koreas. I want no more Viet Nams. If it were my sons being sent to fight this ugly war against those ugly rats in that ugly desert, and some politicians here decided to sabotage the war effort in which their lives were being put at hazard, then I would advise them to turn their guns against those same politicians who caused their defeat.

Don't even think for a minute that most Americans would draw back from humiliating or even torturing prisoners of war in this dirty struggle, if those planning the effort could make a case that such ill-treatment of the enemy would bring a successful end to the conflict. Because in war there is no crime except defeat, and that is the ultimate war crime.

So you are damned right I am proud of our troops, regardless of whether a small unit of jailhouse MPs stripped down some Iraqi prisoners, made some of them suck each others cocks, caused them to create a pile of naked human bodies, threatened some with faked electrocution, and made a few others pose as puppy dogs complete with leashes around their necks, to be paraded around by yet another American soldier girl from a small West Virginia town.

(You think that was accidental? No way. There could be nothing more humiliating to one of these folks than to be lorded over in a life-and-death situation by an armed young American girl, while they crawl around on the concrete floor like cockroaches. The purpose of this treatment was to break them. I'm sure they were.)

My sole standard of conduct in time of war is whether it helps achieve the military purposes of our own country. That is the way our greatest generation fought World War II. That is the Abe Lincoln's armies fought the American civil war.

If all this is too horrifying to your liberal sensabilities, then think about confining yourself to using your relatively-amazing American liberties to promoting homosexual marriage in Madison; leave war and peace to the reservist MPs in Baghdad. I'm sure they know more about its day to day realities than you or I do.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold,

War is cruelty, and you cannot gild it; and, at all events, its the intent of the act which makes it moral or immoral. If the intent of this so-called abuse was to get prisoners to talk, thus winning the War on Terrorism for us, then it was morally correct to do...if it was done for other reasons, then its an abomination and needs to be investigated and punished; balance of evidence, so far, is that it wasn't for getting info that these events occured - so we're putting some troops up to courts martial.

The intent of our enemies, in all they do, is to impose horrific tyranny on people - even when a bin Laden builds a school or stocks a health clinic, his intent is to impose tyranny, so his actions are immoral...on the other hand, if we torture a man to get information out of him about where terrorists are planning to strike, thats moral...much more moral than a bin Laden building a school.

Mark:

Yeah, stacking naked men in a human pyramid would really make them talk. Where's the morality in this act?

Arnold:

"When finished, I would have the punishment squad untie him, and let him lie there in the gutter as our forces drive off to enjoy an evening in the local PX-affiliated whorehouse.

Then I would inform the population, in great candor, that this is the treatment we shall mete out to any Arab who organizes resistance against us."

If I believed in reincarnation, I would say for sure that you were once a Roman general named Maximus. I can picture you riding triumphantly into Rome in a chariot pulled by conquered barbarian generals. I see behind your chariot the cage containing the naked and humiliated conquered tribal chieftains.

Wow, man, you just blow my socks off. I'm not sure I'd want you in the American armed forces but your rhetoric is absolutely stunningly ruthless and richly amusing in its descriptive arrogance. I've never enjoyed any of your comments more than the first above. Your wit is superb. More please.

Arnold Harris writes:

"I want this to be the kind of country that never ever again permits its troops to be sent into combat without utterly destroying the enemy forces, their government, the country, their very civilization. I don't give a damn if we have to burn half the world in the process."

You'll forgive me, Arnold, if I stopped reading your post at this point. Your point was adequately made at that point; anything else is patriotic window-dressing for what is -- and I'm sorry, but I can't sugar-coat this fro you -- barbarism. The America you propose is no more worth saving than the most brutal dictatorship, because while you *say* your goals are based on principles (Freedom? Liberty?), you conveniently discard such principles when it comes to ruthlessly crushing your opposition -- even when they had nothing to do with the event you claim you are trying to prevent.

I can only conclude that your main goal is not only survival, but the utter humiliation and destruction of any rival, at any cost. Survival without human values, however, makes us rational animals who have abandoned reason. There's no way you'll sell me on that.

Terrorism bad. Torturing and humiliating prisoners of war, many of whom were actually civilians, also bad. You cannot allow someone else's stupidity to excuse your own.

Arnold, your way of war is an anachronism. Luckily it seems that the Bush crowd know this. Hearts and Minds may seem an unprofitable sentiment but it is actually a recognition of modern realities wherein small groups of dedicated operatives with minimal support can wreak great harm on any static target. This is a moral project above all not (necessarily) from some woolly-headed buy-the-world-a-Coke vibe but for hard-headed necessities. Get your anger under control and get with the program.

I agree with you, megapotamus, that winning 'hearts and minds' is a far more desirable and American solution. My concern is the longer the divide in the U.S. grows over conducting the war at all, the more likely it becomes that another attack escalating from 9-11 (such as a dirty bomb or other NBC attack) will result in America's willingness to take the long road turn into pure rage.

And, unfortunately, we CAN burn half the world without anyone capable of stopping us. The problems we face in Iraq are ones of restraint, not of power. There is no force of nations capable of standing against the singular might of the United States. What holds us back is not world opinion, nor fear of retaliation, but the simple American desire to just get along. If that changes. . .

Marko,

You're intentionally not paying attention to what I'm saying.

John, Megapotamus...

We face today what is possibly the most difficult national enemy in American history, and that is islam and the Arab culture from which that faith, philosophy and way of life sprang into being and began threatening the world some 14 centuries ago. To be sure, we are officially at war only with islamic terrorism and wish to be on friendly terms with non-terrorist islamic fundamentalism. At least, according to our somewhat-confused national leadership. I say confused, because I am thoroughly convinced that the age we live in is characterized by what has been described as a "clash of civilizations", of which the most virulent and dangerous is the civilization of islam.

If this is so, and my standards and judgements are based on the assumption that this is indeed so, then we are in a protracted conflict from which we can neither withdraw nor afford to lose.

There are at least two ways we can approach this war, and they are mutually contradictory.

One way is to pull away from contact with the Arabs and other islamic cultures affected by wahhabism. This means no Americans in the middle east, Pakistan, Indonesia or the islamic maghreb of north Africa.

With that, it means expelling or putting under permanent close police surveillance any Arabs or other moslems previously allowed into this country, and putting up a solid wall against entry of any others.

Why so stringent a control over the coming and going of moslems in this country, most of whom probably are innocent of any connection with the hardcore organized terrorists?

Because it is precisely from the moslem community -- and especially the Arabs among them -- that this country faces the greatest risk of some form of future terrorism, such as smuggled nuclear or biological weapons of mass destruction, that could utterly destroy any large American city, including our national capitol and the federal government that holds all this together.

If anything approaching this were to happen, there is no form of retaliation that could restore what was destroyed. Our national defense planners, considering this outcome, would inevitably arrive at the one form of massive retaliation that might cause those who control the wahhabist engine of jihad to reconsider their permanent aim of destroying us. That retaliation could have only one primary target -- the permanent destruction of Mecca, the focus of the islamic religion itself -- along with the similarly permanent destruction of one or more large islamic key cities.

But would any United States government have the cold-blooded sagacity to order the mass murder of scores of millions -- perhaps hundreds of millions of Arabs, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Iranians, regardless of the military justification? I am not certain Americans of the social, political, military and governmental admistrative classes from whom our leadership cadres are selected, have the ruthlessness and singleness of purpose to initiate such a program. And in order for this kind of threat to have its ultimate effect, the enemy must know -- deep down in the depths of their being -- that we are not only capable of committing the greatest genocide in history, targeted specifically at them, but that they can count on its certainty if they carry out mass destruction against the United States on our own soil.

That leaves option #2, which means that we must pursue a serious, sustained and even permanent effort to eradicate Arab terrorism in their own homelands, using a combination of military force and civil administrative measures to radically modify and modernize their societies, sufficient to cause the Arabs to initiate and carry out a reformation of their own culture and religion.

That means a serious and committed effort to sustain a long epoch of American imperialism, in which we will use a combination of military muscle, money, cultural inducements, bribery, subversion and whatever else it takes to make certain the American raj shall not wind down until after it has accomplished its purpose.

The humiliation of Arab prisoners and detainees may or may not play more than a minor role in such a carefully planned conquest. If these tactics prove self-defeating, then obviously they ought not to be used. On the other hand, terror of the type that strikes revulsion and fear into the human psyche is sometimes an effective mechanism for defeating or neutralizing enemies, both military and civilian. If so, we should definitely consider their use.

Remember and never allow yourselves to forget that we are engaged in a permanent conflict with a mass movement that is in the process of taking over entire countries, whose practitioners have no qualms of killing themselves if this can help them achieve their goal of terrorizing our people and our leadership. This is not at all like some international tennis match, played out before politely-clapping spectators. Any tactic that functions well in this kind of struggle, is justified.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

"Any tactic that functions well in this kind of struggle, is justified."
Is it time already to say that the program of winning over locals to our cause is not functioning well? The thing about your solutions is they can be applied at any time. Our shot at transforming the region is a finite window. Hey, I may yet be on the scorched earth bandwagon but I'll have to see some pretty compelling necessity first.
John, certainly the future is unknowable and the US could indeed evolve into a negative force, on net. Is that happening? I think the Abu Ghraib disclosures would have been met quite differently in public opinion if we were in any way (yet) inclined to the irresponsibility you foresee. For the instant case, the Iraq war, the administration is following much the course I would under the circumstances as we know them. We'll know before the year is out how efficacious it has been but on current evidence Bush is well walking the tightrope between escalation and accomodation.

My Senator, James "this election [1994 first Senate race] is about God, gays and guns" Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, says he is outraged by those who are outraged by the abuse. My own perspective is closer to that of Sen. McCain, who did a good job of nicely putting Inhofe in his place.

I have three concerns. 1) That we get to the bottom of the issue and make needed changes. 2) That we keep the perspective that most U.S. service people are honorable and professional. 3) That enlisted folks not be the scapegoats for something that clearly went up the command. But if history is a guide, the enlisted folks will serve time and the officers will simply be retired.

in hindsight, it would have been better to make sure nothing like the abuse of iraqi prisoners happened for the sake of america's cause. i'm sure somebody in the military had thought of that but maybe it was someone who no one heard. democracy, huh?

i'm still getting used to the idea of "bringing democracy to Iraq". what kind of democracy? the kind that puts the interests of the elite, right or left, upper classes business interests first and everything, including health care and education somewhere down the line. just like how the US made sure the oll fields were protected but did nothing to save the precious museums when they were looted. remember that? i simply question the motives of this war now. what was it for anyways?

Also important to remember is the birth and development of the terrorist groups we are fighting. our gov't (mind you i love my country just question our leaders) has played a key role in training these groups from the onset. now we have to go in and kill the monsters we helped to create, during the Iran/ Iraq war and during the Afgani / soviet war. for future reference, we better be careful who we train and sell arms to. lucky for us, latino guerillas are not terrorirsts on the scale of some arab groups otherwise we'd be fighting this fight from various angles.

Arnold Harris writes:

"We face today what is possibly the most difficult national enemy in American history, and that is islam and the Arab culture from which that faith, philosophy and way of life sprang into being and began threatening the world some 14 centuries ago."

Again, Arnold, I can't read past such a misinformed and xenophobic sentence. This whole time, while we've been bombing Iraq, killing some of the bad guys, killing plenty of civilians as well, and creating what I think is an untenable situation, I've been actually reading Arab history and the history of Islam. If you look at the early 20th Century alone, you'll understand that European countries like Britain and France, along with commercial interests in the United States, have done more than their share of threatening Islam and the sovereignty of Arab peoples.

Why am I able to acknowledge the bad things they do *and* the bad things we do, and you are not?

Read a book.

Apples and oranges, Kusch. We have more than made recompense to the Middle East, especially in 50 cold war years of keeping it free of the Soviet Union. They are attacking us *now*.

Good thing you started with the early twentieth century there, John. Otherwise, we might have had to acknowledge such inconvenient players as the Ottomans and Moguls.

John,

I was reading books of all types long before you were born. And having lived in the middle east (Jerusalem, mostly) for 18 months some 30 years ago, I am quite certain I know than you do about Arabs in particular and islam in general than you do. And unless you have a PhD, you are not better educated than I am with my bachelor's in journalism and communications and my master's in urban planning.

But I suspect you don't comment in Dean's World in order to match educational credentials or life experiences with people who disagree with you.

Let me put this Arab and islam business to you in a way that would be most meaningful to an American homosexual. From your writings, I understand that is your basic self-identification.

Here in this society, homosexuals and homosexuality gradually are winning public acceptance of their demands for equality of rights and treatment in regard to tax breaks for couples, the right to serve honorably and usefully in the United States armed forces, and much more.

But if this society were to be islamized, you and people like you would be treated as nothing more than walking toilet bowls. Homosexuality is widely practiced among Arab males. But homosexuals (the catchers, not the pitchers as I think you would call them) are accorded no respect whatsoever. In fact, they would treat you with far less respect than the Bedawi treat their camels.

Now to get back to the main subject. You are probably correct about one thing. Torture at best is a futile way to induce someone to give you information. Anyone can be frightened into telling elaborate but plausible lies. And I do not necessarily think we will make much headway with them if that jail in Baghdad is indicative of the way we run their country. But I am not certain that jail is in fact indicative of the overall picture.

But I would feel sorry for the victims, if I were you. If you want to judge these people in correct perspective, think about the treatment they meted out to Daniel Pearl last year, to Nick Berg just one day ago, to the roasted bodies of the Americans draped over the bridge at Falluja while the local Arabs sang and danced around them, to the Hamas operatives who stole the body parts of the Israel soldiers whose vehicle they blew up in Gaza a couple of days ago, and on and on.

These are people who you can sit down with over a cup of coffee, and if they grow to like you, can be true friends. For someone like you, perhaps, true lovers. But if you say or do anything that gets under their skin, the mask of civilization and friendship comes off, and the true barbarism of their native culture and the religion from which it sprang, stand out in the red and black colors of an off-screen nightmare.

I do not think we can ever have peace with them, their culture or their religion. It is possible we can induce them to change their culture over time. Probably not. It is possible we can permanently exclude them, their culture and their religion from the free shores of America. Probably not. But we are in fact at war with them. With all of them. Even if most Americans choose to ignore the evidence of what we are fighting against.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

To various historians above:

If you're going to justify our *modern* attitude toward Islam based on the actions of the Ottoman Turks, then why aren't we in a war with the Roman Catholic Church, whose very existence is based on a far more successful empire of aggression and acquisition? Come on, now. The historical perspective of the Arab world is far longer than ours, but are we really saying here that we're at war with *all* Arabs and *all* of Islam because back in the day, an Islamic empire expanded because it *could*?

If we're truly at war with *all* Arabs and *all* of Islam, then we need internment camps. And we need to carpet bomb Saudia Arabia, which nobody here, as far as I can tell, has ever been a proponent of.

If Arnold Harris is right -- and I'm quite sure he isn't -- then we're being pretty damn selective about *which* Islamic states we're willing to invade, even in the language of our foreign policy.

We aren't at war with a religion. There are people here, in America, who are Muslims, who are against terrorism and everything anti-American happening in the Middle East. This country isn't a religion. I can't believe I'm actually having this argument.

John, when you wrote, "If you look at the early 20th Century alone, you'll understand that...," it sure sounded to me as if that "alone" implied that you could look at the rest of history and see similar things. That would be misleading, though I'm not discounting the importance of either the Crusades or the Tulip Period. I was just pointing that out. If I misinterpreted you, I'm sorry.

And speaking of misinterpretations, where did I (I think I'm the only person who mentioned the Ottoman Empire, but maybe you were taking a break from "actually" reading to be snide at another unlettered "historian" here) say that hundred-year-old events justify our modern attitude toward Islam? They do not. But they do help to show how it got where it is.

They're also a useful basis for evaluating what Muslims value about their own heritage. There are plenty of horrible people in the West. But for the most part, the parts of our history we idealize are the democracy of Athens, the republic in Rome, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution. Those eras weren't perfect, but they introduced elements of Western civilization that we value. On the other hand, when people in the West advocate things that seem repressive and regressive, you can bet that a thousand other voices will be heard calling them "medieval" or "puritannical" or likening them to the Great Inquisition. I know moderate Muslims, too. But I have to wonder, when some mullah announces at Friday services that the world needs to return to the way it was a thousand-odd years ago, where are these moderates to publicly and loudly advocate reincorporating a spirit of inquiry into Islam, the one that made possible Avicenna and Averroes? How meaningful is being a moderate if you don't come up with a thought-through way of going about it?

I am appllied by the silence of the International Community regarding the United State's torture and abuse of the prisoners in Iraq. This is a double standard and hypocrisy at their best. I do not consider the US a legitimate big brother. Americans have looted the whole world. They are the last people to tell us about human rights and freedom. US foreign policy is the most rotten in the world. It never respects other countries'economic policies. Especially if they are T! hird World Countries. There are two types of human violation. The US is violating Human Rights in countries it has declared its enemies because they don't want to practice capitalism. The US then hand-picked some puppets,armed them and made them fight the Goverment of the day. In the process another human violation takes place,then US comes around and cries Foul....Foul.....Foul.!!!!!!!!!! Americans left a trail of blood and tears in Vietnam,Guatemala,N/Korea,Iraq, Afganistan and many other countries. The only crime of those countries was they were pro-socialism. They have a trademark of causing pain,sorrow,poverty,starvation and misery in countries that do not see capitalism as viable economic policy. They toppled the goverment of Jacob Arbenz of Gautemala. They tried every thing in their power to maintain Batista's repressive goverment of Cuba. The reason was obvious. They were allegedly stealing minerals and other resources from Cuba. Those ,who think America! ns do not have a hand in the sufferings and loss of limbs in Angola,Burundi,Congo(Zaire) must think again. The world has not forgetten that Americans stalked former socailist Congolese Leader Patrice Lumumba in the turbulent 1950s and 1960s. This is the same nation which dropped an atomic bomb that annihilated and maimed the children of Hiroshima. Who kept Mobuto Sese Seko of the former Zaire in Power for so many years? Of course the very Americans. We need to stand up and stop this monster called America fighting against "Terror" before it destroys us all.

DEATH TO DEATH, ASHES TO ASHES,

TRUTHFUL SAM