blogging it real

No Right Turn has some nice writing.

It seems the US has learnt a lot from Israels overwhelmingly successful methods against the Palestinians. At this rate they should have Iraq, whoops I mean the insurgents under it's thumb in say 25-100 years. I bet they will be dumb enough to keep wondering where the hell these insurgents keep coming from for the next few decades.

The US has used devastating force in Fallujah - artillery, aerial bombardament, automatic weapons, tanks - in an area primarily inhabited by civilians. The weapons they are using are simply indiscriminate - the kill radius of one of those 2000lb bombs they were dropping is around 100m, and white phosophorus and cluster bombs do not distinguish between those carrying weapons and those without - so indiscriminate in fact that it can called nothing less than a reckless disregard for Iraqi lives.

Those arguing that this is just how modern warfare is waged, and that "you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs", should note that it is only the US that behaves like this. The British face insurgents in their zone, but they respond with a good deal more care. More significantly, they faced a terrorist insurgency in Northern Ireland for decades - during which it was absolutely unthinkable that they would use any of the above weapons. They did not call in airstrikes on IRA safe-houses, or use tanks to shell suspected sniper positions (in fact, they did not use tanks at all). And the reason in both cases is clear: they have some regard for the lives of those they are fighting amongst. The US does not. Instead, as Crooked Timber's Chris Bertram points out, they have a "deliberate and systematic policy" of transferring the risks of combat from soldiers to civilians - because the lives of American soldiers are more valuable even than those of innocent Iraqis. But whose name is this occupation being waged in? Whose "freedom" is being fought for? Iraqis. It seems strange to treat your ultimate goal, the people you are supposedly protecting in this manner. And, as Bertram notes,

[i]t is hard to escape the thought that were co-nationals of the people dropping the bombs the ones in the bystander position, different methods would be used.
The position of those opposing the occupation has always been clear: if the US is to claim moral superiority over terrorists, then it must act like it. If it wishes to claim that the indiscriminate murder of civilians is wrong, then it must refrain from doing so itself. But an examination of US policies and actions in Fallujah, and in Iraq in general, shows a disregard for civilian lives that is indistinguishable from that of the suicide-bombers. The message for people like Sock Thief is clear: if they vigorously condemn terrorists, they must also vigorously condemn the US's indiscriminate tactics. Their refusal to do so, and their defence of US actions, marks them as nothing more than hypocrites providing moral cover for murderers.

My wife and I are babysitting our niece again. My sister in law has just given birth to her second son which means I have 3 nephews in the collection now to go with my niece. Her and her three year old cousin were around here a couple of nights ago stealing my coin stash, throwing balls at my head, peeing their pants, pulling plugs out of the modem and playing the piano on the keyboard. So there may have been some connection between that and us not having an internet connection for a while. My main concern however is with Yei-eun and Ha-min stealing all my bloody lollies!

And I see racism is alive and well in Spainish soccer. Someone should point out on the big screen at one of these games to those responsible that it's 2004 and they are still losers?! Who are the real monkeys?

I've spent a few days in Madrid and it would be fair to say that it's not the most multicultural looking city in the world. The only non Spanish that I could make out were Africans in some of the central city parks who were trying to sell things, drugs seeming to be one of their most popular items.