Readers' Comments

She said about Lebanon what he should have said about Iraq -- "birth pangs" of the new Middle East, rather than "final throes of the insurgency."

Tanker man,
I support your right to have fun on the 'job', but this post reeks of a military bravado that I feel qualified to comment on.

I served two combat tours in Vietnam. I fought and was wounded during the TET Offensive of '68', we took 2000 US KIA's and 30,000 wounded in a bloody week of fighting. I remember the first man I killed in living color, I looked him in the eyes from six feet as I emptied my M-16 into his chest. I was asked some years later if I felt guilty about it. No, it was 'kill or be killed, my military training saved my life. I can tell you that I took many lives in Indochina and I wasn't proud of 'it', and it was't fun.

War is a dehumanizing process, there is no glory in it. and this one isn't any different. We saw smiling people too, built hospitals and schools, taught the ARVNS to fight, and it all fell apart because the logic of it disregarded reality of it. The current brain trust is 'reality challanged' IMHO. But lets not go there.

I thank you for putting your butt on the line and covering our 'six', and if you need help in 'coming home', there are many here that went before you, that have your 'back'.

In Brotherhood,
Dirk
'Illegitimati Non Carborundum'

I have been living abroad for almost 10 years. I
had no idea up til last month what you all put up with
when you call service reps. I tried to find out
about a cancelled order (for over $750US) at one of the few online
stores that deliver internationally, Overstock.
The service rep gave me the run around as well, put
me on hold even though she knew I was phoning from
Japan and wouldn't give any other phone numbers to
call. After about 15 minutes of getting no where,her closing line was: "How else may I help you today?" Mine was: "You haven't helped me at all, good-bye". They kept my money until I
escalated the dispute to a claim at Paypal's
resolution centre. What a hassle. Lots of stress.
I'll never shop online again. How do these
companies think they can get away with such poor
treatment of customers when we have the internet to
communicate now? I just visited the Consumerist
site and have bookmarked it to keep better informed.
Thank you for taking the time to post your
experiences. Hopefully more consumers can learn
before being taken in by such sleazy tricks.

I took zyprexa starting in 1996 the year the FDA approved it, which was ineffective for my condition and gave me diabetes.

Zyprexa is the product name for Olanzapine,it is Lilly's top selling drug.It was approved by the FDA in 1996 ,an 'atypical' antipsychotic a newer class of drugs without the motor side effects of the older Thorazine.Zyprexa has been linked to causing diabetes and pancreatitis.

Zyprexa, which is used for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, accounted for 32% of Eli Lilly's $14.6 billion revenue last year.

Did you know that Lilly made nearly $3 billion last year on diabetic meds, Actos,Humulin and Byetta?

Yes! They sell a drug that can cause diabetes and then turn a profit on the drugs that treat the condition that they may have caused in the first place!

I was prescribed Zyprexa from 1996 until 2000.
In early 2000 i was shocked to have an A1C test result of 13.9 (normal is 4-6) I have no history of diabetes in my family.

All the psychiatrist I've interviewed and the information on line presents zyprexa as a worse offender than the other Atypicals such as seroquel.My doctor has stopped prescribing zyprexa altogether.

The PDR classifies zyprexa as 'severe' for causing weight gain and diabetes and seroquel as 'moderate'.

Of course the 50 year old Thorazine didn't cause diabetes and is many times cheaper but it could cause tardive dyskinesia.

Where Eli Lilly's negligence comes in,is their KNOWING and not informing consumers (black box warning) until the FDA demanded it.

Lilly's incentive not to readily disclose is they had billion$ coming in from state medicaid scripts.
----
Daniel Haszard http://www.zyprexa-victims.com

USMarinesTanker wrote,

However, despite the increase in global terror incidents there have been NO (zip, zero, zilch, nada, none, etc.) terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.

I suppose you think repeating synonyms for zero adds rhetorical emphasis to your point, but I already acknowledged in my previous reply to you that there has not been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. My point is that terrorism worldwide has risen dramatically since the invasion of Iraq. To assume that this will not eventually blow back to U.S. soil is wishful thinking.

As for the three instances of thwarted terrorism that you listed, I'm certainly glad that the would-be perpetrators were caught, but the war in Iraq didn't play any role in helping stop them. Two of your three examples -- the one in Florida, and the one in Canada -- were cases of "home-grown" terrorism, in which the people arrested were citizens of the countries they planned to attack. How many were from Iraq? Zero. Nada. Zip. Assem Hammoud, the ringleader of the second example on your list, was Lebanese and was arrested by Lebanese authorities. (It's fortunate that they were able to apprehend him before Israel began bombing.) According to one of the officials who interrogated him, he [http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/the-new-prince-of-terrorism/2006/07/08/1152240535591.html became involved with militant Islamic websites in 2003, soon after the U.S. invaded Iraq]. "He was angry with what America was doing in Iraq, and he began spending time on these Islamic sites and chat rooms," the official said. "He became more and more deeply involved. He sank into this extremist environment." In this case, in other words, it's possible that the war in Iraq may have been what motivated him to become a terrorist. So kudos to the FBI for catching him, but I don't see how this shows the war in Iraq making us safer.

The disturbing thing to me about these plots -- none of which came close to fulfillment, fortunately -- is that two of your three examples involve people who were citizens of either the U.S. or Canada deciding to become terrorists. We're fortunate that they were so amateurish, because home-grown terrorists are going to be harder to stop than foreign citizens. And the fact that we're talking about this kind of anger from people whose nationalities and ethnic backgrounds are this diverse demonstrates my point that making the WORLD a more dangerous place also increases the danger of attacks on U.S. soil.

USMarinesTanker also wrote,

I cannot recall a single news account (paper, tv, radio) of one successful reconstruction effort. No one reports them because it doesn't sell.

For starters here, I should point out that the examples you cited of successful efforts to interdict terrorists in the United States and Canada were all taken from news accounts. You're playing a contradictory game here. On the one hand, you cite the news media as authorities when it helps make your argument. On the other hand, you dismiss them as biased when their reports don't support your argument.

It's true that journalists are more inclined to report dramatic events than non-dramatic ones, but that's a distortion whose effects are a lot more complicated than your comments suggest. In 2001, for example, approximately 100 times as many people died prematurely in the United States from tobacco-related diseases as died from terrorist attacks, but guess which threat got more coverage? Media sensationalism also helped spread the lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that got us into this war in the first place. You're presuming that the media have an anti-war agenda, but it's just as easy to make the argument that they actually have a pro-war agenda.

You write that you haven't seen any news accounts of reconstruction efforts, but I have seen some. I agree that there haven't been many, but some of the reasons for this don't support your assumptions about a "media agenda." For one thing, the situation in Iraq has gotten so dangerous for journalists that they have to take extraordinary security measures, which in turn limits their reporting. A case in point is ABC news anchor Bob Woodruff, who visited Iraq in January for the precise purpose of doing what you accuse journalists of failing to do: reporting the good news that the Bush administration complains is ignored by the news media. Woodruff spent a day chatting with friendly Iraqis on the street and eating ice cream at a Baghdad shop to show the "normal" side of life in Iraq. The following day, he and an ABC cameraman were badly wounded and nearly killed traveling in a routine military convoy. Incidentally, the war in Iraq has already been the deadliest war for journalists since World War II. So far, 99 journalists and their assistants have been killed in the war, which is more than the number killed during 20 years of war in Vietnam or the civil war in Algeria.

Finally, there is one other reason why journalists are unlikely to focus on reconstruction projects. When they do publicize them, the projects become targets for terrorist attack. You might want to read the observations of Robert J. Callahan, a former press attache at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad:

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4071

He writes,

Well, the media did run positive stories, perhaps not as many as we would have liked, but again the situation in Iraq often made it difficult, impractical or counterproductive to get coverage for the good news. For example, we stopped taking reporters to the inaugurations of many reconstruction projects because, as we quickly learned to our dismay, publicity might invite a terrorist attack. On several occasions, one involving a school, terrorists struck the site and killed innocent people the day after an article or television story appeared. We concluded that good publicity simply wasn't worth the cost in lives and damage, and we stopped advertising them. It was frustrating, to be sure, but prudent.

USMarinesTanker also wrote,

Over 80% of the fighters in Iraq are from foreign countries.

I don't know where you come up with a figure like 80%. It's the opposite of everything I've seen from every other source. The Washington Post reported last year that foreign fighters comprised between 4 to 10 percent of all insurgents:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html

I know you don't trust the news media, but if you read the article, you'll see that its information is taken from U.S. military officials whom it quotes by name. CENTCOM estimated in the summer of 2005 that 90 percent of the insurgency was Iraqi and Sunni, with a maximum of 10 percent foreigners. Who should I believe, you or CENTCOM? Moreover, these estimates are consistent with what President Bush said in November of last year in his "Plan for Victory" speech to naval cadets at Annapolis. According to Bush, "The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein. And they reject an Iraq in which they're no longer the dominant group. ... The second group that makes up the enemy in Iraq is smaller but more determined. It contains former regime loyalists who held positions of power under Saddam Hussein, people who still harbor dreams of returning to power. ... The third group is the smallest but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda."

Finally, USMarinesTanker wrote:

May I also remind the reader that NO U.S. Troops have been charged with any war crimes other than the Abu Ghraib "torture" scandal. Our Marines in Haditha and Soldiers accused of raping and murder of a 14 y/o girl are innocent until proven guilty.

It's interesting that you feel compelled to put quote marks around the word "torture." Do you believe that torture happened at Abu Ghraib, or don't you?

Since you read milblogs, I'm sure you know that many milbloggers and supporters of the war are utterly contemptuous of the torture revelations at Abu Ghraib. It's not uncommon to see people write that the only bad thing about Abu Ghraib was the fact that the photos got published. A number of people have suggested that newspapers were guilty of treason for publishing the photos, and there has even been talk about shooting reporters for treason. (So much for the notion that this war is being fought to protect our rights back home.) Joseph Darby, the soldier who first reported the abuse at Abu Ghraib, was denounced for doing so. His home was vandalized, and he and his family received so many death threats that they had to go into protective military custody at an undisclosed location. This suggests to me a culture within the military that is not very receptive to investigating its human rights abuses.

Of course you're right that the Marines in Haditha and the soldiers accused of murdering that 14-year-old girl are entitled to a fair trial, with a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. They have the same rights as the accused terrorists you mentioned in Florida or anyone else who is accused of a crime. Everyone has that right. This doesn't mean, however, that the rest of us have to wait until after the trial before we form any opinion. I believe that the accused terrorists in Florida are guilty (even though they haven't gone to trial yet), and I also believe that the marines in Haditha and the soldiers accused of rape/murder are guilty. I believe this based on the information I've seen to date, and I'm prepared to revise my opinion if I see other information that suggests otherwise.

In the case of Haditha, I think they're guilty in part because I've watched the video of an interview with James Crossen, the marine who was badly injured by the roadside bomb in Haditha that served as a catalyst for the killings. (Another marine, Miguel Terrazas, was killed.) Crossen was removed from the scene for treatment of his injuries and did not see the killings firsthand, but he was friends with the soldiers who did the killing, and he has spoken with them after the events. The interview makes it clear that he thinks of them as "good guys" and that he is not at all sympathetic with the Iraqis who were killed, but nevertheless he believes that the marines committed a massacre. I don't think he'd be saying that if he didn't have good reason to believe it were true. Here's the video so you can watch it yourself:

http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=68258&catId=81

As for the rape/murder of the 14-year-old girl and her family, the circumstances under which this came to light (through the confession of one of the soldiers involved), combined with other known facts about the character of the instigator, Steven Green, suggest to me that the charges are probably true.

USMarinesTanker writes, "The casual observer would say you are against Operation Iraqi Freedom as part of the greater Global War on Terror."

That's correct. I don't believe that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is helping to win the war on terror. In this regard, my opinion is the same as 8 out of 10 terrorism and national security experts when they were [http://www.columbusdispatch.com/national-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/06/29/20060629-A3-00.html surveyed recently]. In the words of Michael Scheuer (formerly the CIA's top Osama Bin Laden expert), "The war in Iraq broke our back in the war on terror. It has made everything more difficult and the threat more existential."

USMarinesTanker also writes, "I must in turn ask you when the last terrorist action on U.S. soil was after 9/11?"

The 9/11 terrorist attack was the single largest terrorist attack ever on U.S. or any other soil. It took years of planning and probably at least a million dollars to carry out. The fact that an unprecedented attack on that scale has not happened again in the five years since really tells us very little about whether the terrorist threat has increased or decreased. However, we do have other indicators which tell us that the terrorist threat has increased. Every year since 1985, the U.S. Department of State has been required to publish an annual report, titled Patterns of Global Terrorism, which tracks countries and groups involved in international terrorism. The 2004 edition of Patterns of Global Terrorism tallied attacks for 2003 (the first year of the war in Iraq). It turns out that 2003 saw 175 significant terrorist attacks (defined as attacks in which lives are lost or there is injury and property damage of more than $10,000) -- the largest number of significant terrorist attacks since 1982. The following year, the numbers were even worse -- 651 significant terrorist attacks, nearly four times the amount of the previous year’s embarrassment, with 1,907 people killed and 9,300 wounded -- roughly a tripling of the previous year’s casualty toll. Iraq alone saw 198 attacks that year -- nearly the worldwide total for 2003 -- but even if all of those attacks were omitted, the number of terrorist attacks in the rest of the world were still more than double the all-time record. The numbers were so bad that the Bush administration decided not to publish Patterns of Global Terrorism at all in 2005. In its place, the State Department created a new report, Country Reports on Terrorism, which omitted the statistical information provided in the previous reports. And it should be noted that the 651 terrorist attacks tallied for 2004 did not include attacks on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, or even attacks on Iraqi civilians by other Iraqis. The long-standing US definition of international terrorism, used by "Patterns of Global Terrorism," defined it as violent acts against non-combatants, and it has to involve the territory or citizens of more than one country. (Timothy McVeigh’s 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City would also not fit this definition of terrorism.) The National Counterterrorism Center, a government agency created by President Bush in 2004, has compiled a separate report that does include other incidents not previously classed as terrorism (although attacks on soldiers are still excluded). Using this more inclusive definition, the number of terrorist incidents in 2004 would be 3,192.

The National Counterterrorism Center’s new database on terrorism was announced publicly in July 2005. That same month, a series of coordinated bombings hit London’s subways and a bus during rush hour, killing 56 people and injuring 700 -- the deadliest single act of terrorism in the United Kingdom since the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The terrorists, claiming affiliation with Al Qaeda, released a statement calling the attack "revenge against the British Zionist crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan." It was the second act of Al Qaeda violence against a European nation providing military support to the war in Iraq. The previous attack, a series of coordinated bombings against commuter trains in Madrid, killed 192 people and wounded 2,050 and triggered the electoral defeat of Spain’s ruling party.

The fact that these attacks happened in Europe suggests that Al Qaeda's focus for now is on peeling away the last vestiges of international support for the U.S. war. Once they've accomplished that goal, I expect that they'll attack again in the United States. In other words, they have a strategy, and it seems to be working. What you have, on the other hand, is bravado.

USMarinesTanker also writes:

I must also ask if you have personally seen the lives of Iraqis being bettered through U.S. construction, engineering, medical care, fiscal policy, and private donations? Have you personally heard dozens of Iraqi citizens tell you that they thank Allah for the United States and what we are doing for them? Have you even heard stories of such happenings from friends/the drive by media? Winning the hearts and minds indeed.

No, I haven't seen those things. I see them mentioned in vague general terms by supporters of the war like yourself, but even supporters of the war rarely give specific examples. I do spend quite a bit of time reading weblogs written by both Iraqis and by U.S. military personnel, and the main thing I find striking about the milblogs written by people stationed in Iraq is how rarely they mention any of the good news you describe, or for that matter how rarely they describe any meaningful interactions at all with Iraqi nationals. The most common interaction I see described in milblogs consists of handing out candy to children (although that seems to happen less and less now), or else overt statements of hostility written by soldiers who don't know the difference between friendlies and enemies. I know there have been efforts to rebuild schools and so forth, but the impression I get (based on multiple sources of information) is that those efforts pale compared to the suffering and chaos that the war has unleashed.

When I read Iraqi weblogs, moreover, the trend is really disturbing. I've been tracking them for awhile, so I have some idea how things are trending. Here, for example, is the URL to a short list of English-language Iraqi weblogs that someone put together two years ago:

http://www.rc3.org/2004/04/entry_6169.php

Iraqis (like any group) have diverse opinions, and in the immediate aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall, quite a few of them actually did welcome the U.S. invasion and occupation. There's no question that Saddam was a brutal monster and that plenty of people welcomed his fall. The Iraqi blogs on the list above include a range of opinions: from people who opposed the occupation from the outset, to people who welcomed it and even thought the U.S. needed to be more aggressive. If you visit those weblogs now, however, you'll find that even the ones that were supportive of the occupation two years ago have soured on it now. Take, for example, "Hammorabi," who was passionately pro-occupation to years ago. (He was probably the most pro-occupation blogger on the entire list.) If you visit his site today, you'll find a posting complaining that "[http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/2006/07/american-soldiers-committed-terrorist.html American soldiers committed terrorist action and crime]" and stating, "The one thing which has to be said at this moment is that the occupation of Iraq should end sooner rather than latter. [sic] The last 3 years converted Iraq into the most dangerous place in the world and made it the country of death, blood, killing, destruction, assassinations, rapes, and every possible crime. Crimes from the kind mentioned here will turn all the Iraqis into the resistance against the occupation especially with the failures achieved over the last three years."

You're telling me that your experience suggests otherwise, and that I should defer to your judgment because you've been there and I haven't. But "Hammorabi" has been in Iraq a lot longer than you were, so he has more experience than you do. Moreover, he actually speaks the language and knows the Iraqi street. I'm more inclined to think he knows what he's talking about than I am to think that you do.

Phillips Exeter and Stanford grad, airborne-certified Army officer and troop trainer, Pentagon dweller, high profile drug impressario who somehow managed to never ran afoul of the law, SRI employee, friend and colleague to countless spooks and on and on... It`s hard to imagine naivete on Brand`s part.

So what was the point of the Rendon exercise?

To sell the story that what is going on in Iraq (and the US) is the result of a poorly thought-out series of knee-jerk reactions, not the part of a deliberate strategy.

In other words, an exercise in misdirection.

Brand`s track record in this regard:

* When there was a strong and growing wide scale peace movement, Brand showed up in the Bay Area with barrels full of LSD and `drop out` advice.

* When the online world emerged explosively from the realm of hobbyists and academics into a medium used daily by masses of people, Brand & friends put themselves in place to shape the media`s discussion of what was a potentially explosive social phenomenon.

In its early days, Wired Magazine was THE source of `reporting` on Internet culture and in this niche functioned in much the same way Fox News does today... the steady propagation of free-market-uber-alles politics and no real reporting (They didn`t even feature Marc Andreessen and Netscape until 1995!)

* Now the US is engaged in massive, systemic civil rights violations at home and a no-win war abroad that is draining our treasury, blackening our reputation, and snuffing out the lives of thousands of our young people - and what does Brand do?

He takes active steps to help sell the fairy tale that it`s all the result of clueless bumbling made possible by divisive politics in Washington.

Preposterous, especially coming from a military man.

FACT: The concept of Homeland Security and the regulations found in the Patriot Act were already in print and ready to go long before 911 occured.

FACT: During the 1990s, the US military invested considerable time and resources in extensive training exercises involving street-to-street urban warfare on a scale never before seen in US history.

FACT: The US military spent the entire 1990s methodically destroying Iraq`s infrastructure, indirectly killing tens of thousands of civilians and reducing the country to poverty and institutional defenselessness.

FACT: In violation of basic military doctrine, not to mention common sense, when the US invaded Iraq, Iraqi weapons depots were left unsecured for weeks and in some cases months permitting insurgents to help themselves to one of the biggest stockpiles of conventional weapons on earth.

FACT: Rather than employ former Iraqi military after the invasion, a process we are thoroughly familiar with (to the extreme of moving thousands of ex-Nazis to the US and hiring the entire biowarefare staff of the Japanese military after WWII), Iraqi military personnel were rendered unemployed and even actively persecuted.

Before the invasion, I predicted that an attempt to occupy Iraq would result in `1,000 Belfasts.` This outcome had to be at least one of the possible scenarios considered by the Pentagon.

Yet, for whatever reason, the US military acted in such a way that virtually insured that a large, well trained, well armed and strongly motivated insurgency came into being during the occupation.

Why?

Blundering? Political devisiveness in Washington?

I doubt it.

The current state of affairs in Iraq is a huge money maker for the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about, the same group that 'blundered' us into the Vietnam War.

Comparing Brand's early career - former gung ho Cold War military man showing up in the Bay Area with containers loads of free LSD for the masses - with his his most recent project, indicates to me that there is tremendous consistency in his career path.

Give him credit. He`s good at what he does.

A few random points:

* The idea that the Army would have moved an airborne-certified officer and troop trainer to the Pentagon to work as a photojournalist is remarkable.

* The US Army and CIA had been testing LSD and other substances for over a decade before the Trips Festival. They could have reasonably predicted the effect of unleashing container loads of acid on the Bay Area.

LSD had a massively disrupting effect on the Bay Area's anti-war movement. It also helped discredit the young as drug freaks.

The Trips Festival was the 'product launch' for LSD to the American consumer. The 'coincidence' that this festival was planned and promoted by a former US military officer is remarkable.

* And finally, this odd bit of trivia: Brand and John Negroponte were classmates at Phillips Exeter.

Obviously "USMarinesTanker" doesn't know the meaning of the word "hypocrite." A hypocrite is someone who advocates one course of action and does the opposite. This soldier is imagining that a hypocrite is someone who "judges a situation if you've never been exposed to it." By that standard, everyone in the world is a hypocrite: if you judge a terrorist without having actually been one, you're a hypocrite; if you judge Ken Lay without having been the CEO of Enron, you're a hypocrite, etc., etc. That's nonsense.

As for the notion that soldiers are "risking their necks to keep us safe," I don't believe that. Soldiers may believe that's what they're doing, but the evidence tells us otherwise. The number of terrorist attacks worldwide has risen dramatically and exponentially since the war in Iraq began. The entire Middle East is in flames, and it's only a matter of time before this blows back to American shores. It's certainly true that soldiers are "risking their lives" (and sometimes losing them), but soldiers of every nationality risk and lose their lives. During the Iran-Iraq war, hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both sides risked and lost their lives, but rather than making anyone safer, they impoverished and brutalized both countries. That's what the current war in Iraq is doing, also. It's making us less safe, not more so.

For the record, I don't think that soldiers are primarily to blame for the evils of war. The politicians who start wars are the people who deserve the lion's share of blame. I even agree that soldiers have the right to make morbid jokes, given the horrors that they experience. However, I don't believe that soldiers should be bigots, and "Hadji Girl" is a song that reflects cultural ignorance and bigotry against Arabs and Muslims. Supporters of the war seem blind to this fact, and that's part of the reason the war is going so badly. If you can't understand or appreciate the culture of the country where you're fighting, how can you hope to win hearts and minds, or even to understand your enemy?

Hi there.
As my user name and subject line imply, that used to be my job. Sometimes when you take a life it is funny. Watching a human body instantly become lifeless and tumble awkwardly in the heat of battle is a stress reliever; knowing that you eliminated the enemy (before he elimiated you) and watch him disgracefully land head over heels. Killing is what we as the US military are trained to do, whether you like it or not - that's just the facts. Why else have a military?

That's the culture we as free individuals were impressed by, voluntarily joined, and maintain in order to keep you safe at home so you can freely express however you feel about absolutely any subject in the world. Like it or lump it, it's just the way it is.

Now don't get me wrong, taking a humnan life is a hard thing to do - especially your first time. There is something unnatural about it. But, when you have to do it over and over again, and you are trained to seek it out and do it instantly, and rarely get a chance to engage the enemy in a face-to-face fight because he resorts to IED's you become apathetic to it; and indeed it can be quite motivating and hillarious to mow a line of terrorists down as they run from house to house across an alley way. Watching them just get caught up in a stream full of hot lead and dropping like flies - man, I miss it in a way.

But, like I said, it's part of our military culture that we FREELY joined and enjoy, approve of, and love. I cannot expect you to understand the "why's"; but I do expect you to hear our side and accept that it is the way it is and that you can't change it. Remember, we're risking OUR necks to keep you safe so they don't come here and commit another 9/11. And I'm fine with that. The military isn't for everyone. I don't ask for special thanks. I volunteered. All I ask is for you to allow us our rights as Americans to joke around and be who we are amongst ourselves.

I think it's a bit hypocritical to judge a situation if you've never been exposed to it. But feel free to be a hypocrite because we've got your back and will die for your right to be one.

I will be pleased to draw your attention to the following homepage developed by biologist Kåre Fog,Denmark:

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

This homepage documents the many erros in Bjørn Lomborgs book.

Number of flaws and errors listed in the error catalogue

Number of ERRORS: 110. Number of FLAWS: 204. Total number: 314.
Last updated: 2006-Jan-14.

How many flaws and errors are deliberate ?

On 31st December 2005, a total of 312 flaws and errors had been listed.
These were approximately distributed as follows:
- 16 accidental/involuntary errors
- 214 errors of the most common type that may or may not reflect deliberate bias
- 33 errors that were probably deliberate or were due to gross negligence
- 49 errors that were evidently deliberate

Joe Conason has a [http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/07/14/melanie_morgan/index.html column in Salon.com] that gives further details about Melanie Morgan, who has now apparently revised her opinion on killing Bill Keller. Instead of the gas chamber, she is now recommending electrocution:

At that point one of her co-hosts cheerfully interjects, "You originally called for the gas chamber ... but we kind of like Ole Sparky," meaning the electric chair. To shrieks of laughter from Morgan, he launched into a gruesome description of execution by electrocution: "Their hair would go up and everything, smoke, electrical jets shooting out of their eyeballs ... We'd take Bill Keller, put him in the electric chair -- after a trial -- and then fire it up." He then launched into a series of oral sound effects -- buzzing, screeching, hissing and blubbering sounds meant to simulate the high-voltage end of the Times editor.