Are you going to plant some gum trees, insert a few koalas and kangaroos to change the landscape of Afghanistan?
Or do you like to change their culture or religion?
Remember, the hopeless South Korean missionaries went to the war ravaged country to spread the ‘good news’ beside many zealots with their zealotry!
Ten years of genocide and destruction to export democracy and free speech (by murdering democracy and free speech) are paramount failure.
Hyper powered super power America have been fighting Israel Centric Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Palestine, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, … . Do you think the Dutch or any body else for that matte have to fight for racist and fascistIsrael and Christo-Fanatics?
THE Dutch government collapsed yesterday after members of the coalition government disagreed on a NATO request to extend the Netherlands' Afghanistan military mission.
Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende announced that the PvdA [Labour Party], the second largest party in his three-party alliance, was quitting.
He made the announcement after the cabinet held more than 16 hours of talks in The Hague in a bid to settle the dispute between the PvdA and Mr Balkenende's Christian Democratic Appeal, the senior partner in the coalition.
In the latest in a string of political rows, deputy Prime Minister Wouter Bos invoked the ire of his cabinet colleagues by stating last week that his PvdA would not support extending the Dutch deployment in Afghanistan beyond 2010.
Political analysts said early elections appeared inevitable.
Mr Balkenende said his Christian Democratic Alliance would continue in office together with the small Christian Union, and would ''make available'' Labour's cabinet seats. He did not spell out his intentions.
The head of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, had asked the Netherlands this month to take on a new training role and remain in Afghanistan until August 2011, a year later than originally planned.
Mr Bos's comments prompted Mr Balkenende to reply that the matter was still under discussion, while the Christian Union chided Mr Bos for speaking out of turn.
The public fight resulted in a snap parliamentary debate on Thursday, during which Mr Bos was accused of using the issue for political gain as polls show his party lagging in the run-up to local government elections on March 3.
The deployment of Dutch troops in Afghanistan has been an unpopular move with voters from the outset.
''As the leader of the cabinet, I came to the conclusion that there is no common road for the CDA, PvdA and the Christian Union to take into the future,'' Mr Balkenende said. ''For days we have seen that unity has been affected by statements that clash with recent cabinet decisions.''
This was Mr Balkenende's fourth government in a row in eight years. All have collapsed before their mandate expired.
About 1950 Dutch troops are deployed in Afghanistan.
Congratulations on another excellent job pulling things together under pressure.
I certainly endorse the thrust and format of the submission and am struggling to come up with any improvements. However there a couple of suggestions below:
When you wrote:
… but much more would be expect to be done… Did you mean "expected"?
When you wrote:
Seatbelts are about safety; safety as a top priority for the NSW TDA and all taxi drivers.
Did you mean "…safety IS a top…"?
When you wrote:
… And interviews with drivers it is the impression that the majority do… Would you accept something like:
Many taxi drivers do already buckle up when they feel that circumstances warrant it.
In section 6 it seems unnecessarily provocative to say that Rossco is "not a member of any driver association" Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn't but it is not for us to say. More importantly his status is irrelevant to the argument except to say that we are confident that his views do not reflect the views of his peers. To describe his submission as simplistic and incoherent is a subjective assessment that may not be the views of all. (I haven't seen his submission but ours should not be anything other than factual.)
By all means describe his as a "lone voice" but the less attention he gets the better IMHO.
In the paragraph beginning:
Finally, it is necessary to stress the strength of feeling of driver about… I know that you meant "drivers"
When you wrote:
Compulsory seatbelts in the taxi industry are a punitive approach. I reckon you meant "…is a punitive…."
Reflecting on what (little) I have been able to contribute, above, I must again commend you on a sterling effort. The balance of rational argument and cautionary threats is a delicate one which you have handled with aplomb!
GOOD LUCK!
Ernie
Below the Draft Presentation for tomorrow
It uses many of the arguments and words of Ernie (with thanks).
Any and all comments TODAY would be valued.
Thanks,
Ted
DRAFT
26 February 2009
NSW TAXIDRIVERS ASSOCIATION
PRESENTATION / SUBMISSION : -
RETENTION OF EXISTING LEGISLATION ON ;
NON - COMPULSORY SEATBELTS FOR TAXIDRIVERS
The NSW TDA is the only democratic, elected organization that represents NSW taxidrivers. It is open and transparent. It was formed during its successful campaign against the No Desto proposals in mid 2004.
The motto of the NSW TDA is “A Fair Share of a Fair Fare”.
“A Fair Fare” reflecting the interests of taxi drivers in which safety is paramount.
And “a Fair Fare” which reflects its concerns for a viable, effective taxi industry and good service to the public.
Firstly, it is asked where the initiative for a review of non-compulsory seatbelts originates. And why compulsory seatbelts, as such a critical issue to the taxi industry, has not been introduced with a white paper setting out the reasons for any proposal and its pros and cons. To which informed responses could then be submitted, or discussed at a forum such as this. And what are the subsequent processes to this forum?
By unusual coincidence, this very week a letter from the Minister for Transport dated 19February 2009 was individually addressed and postal delivered to the home of every taxi driver.
It reports improvements effected as a result of the Madden Report (Taxi Industry safety and Security Taskforce) These improvements are commendable, but much more would be expect to be done resulting from the Madden Report - and from the many previous reports on the taxi industry going back as far as Keatsdale.
The Minister’s opening is that “ Taxi drivers and their families have the right to expect their safety to be a top priority … “
And on that the NSW TDA and all NSW taxi drivers and their families wholeheartedly support the Minister for Transport !
Seatbelts are about safety; safety as a top priority for the NSW TDA and all taxidrivers.
And the NSW TDA strongly supports the use of seatbelts by all drivers for their safety.
And in this regard the NSWTDA most strongly supports ongoing education campaigns for the use of seatbelts (if such education is considered warranted) and recommends that the Taxi Council and MoT should constantly encourage the use of wearing seatbelts for driving safety. But, it has to be asked, where are such campaigns, and why do they not occur? Especially when the Taxi Council derives its funding from drivers’ earnings.
And the NSW TDA would also encourage Networks seatbelt reminder messages, say monthly, on all taxi radio MDTs. Reminders that are effective and virtually cost free.
However, the NSWTDA and the taxidrivers of NSW do NOT support Compulsory seatbelts !
Compulsory seatbelts in the taxi industry are a punitive approach.
It is an approach open to petty revenue raising with devastating effects on the earnings and licences and livelihoods, and the supply, of taxi drivers.
It is an approach that is inherently unsafe for taxi drivers !
It is an approach that flies in the face of all known experience for the last 35 years of the taxi industry !
The NSW TDA unambiguously and very clearly represents the opinions of NSW drivers’ on the question of compulsory seatbelts.
The NSW TDA deliberately asked this question in its Squeaky Wheel newsletter of June 2008 last year, debated it at its August 2008 AGM and advised drivers of the outcomes in the following Squeaky Wheel issue. 4000 copies of each newsletter are always distributed to drivers. Notably, when the June newsletter first raised the issue as a question, a number of angry calls were received from drivers who had misread it as the NSW TDA advocating compulsory seatbelts. The debate at the AGM was strongly and unanimously against compulsory seatbelts.
Driver opinions are universally that seatbelts must NOT be Compulsory !
The reasons why the taxi industry is, and was originally in 1974, exempted from compulsory seatbelts is that it is a unique industry.
An industry unfortunately with unique safety problems.
The following are some of the major reasons and examples for the exemption from compulsory seatbelts.
They are strong, realistic and very practical reasons.
1.LOSS OF EARNINGS, LICENCES AND LIVELIHOODS
-Compulsory seatbelts make taxi drivers the easy targets for revenue raising. Petty infringements fines and loss of points due to the nature of taxi driving work will inevitably result. Seat belt offences carry severe licence
demerit point penalties that could rapidly strip taxi drivers of
their vital driver's licence.
-There are innumerable situations where taxis are highly vulnerable to vexatious fines and loss of points from overzealous rangers and police. The reputation of police and rangers for revenue raising bookings are unfortunately widely recognized. (The RTA No Stopping rules in direct conflict with Taxi Regulations are a notorious and devastating case in point.)
Under compulsory seatbelt legislation taxis will be easy revenue raising prey. The most obvious example of this threat to taxi drivers is the rigmarole of moving a taxi, one car space at a time, forward along a long line of ranked taxis.
It is not uncommon for a taxi driver to spend a full hour edging forward car space by car space to reach the head of a taxi rank. The taxi driver is literally a sitting target if he has not fastened his seatbelt each time that the taxi creeps forward.
Similarly a taxi will often wait and then move when the passenger comes out at the next driveway at an apartment pickup.
Or often is told “thanks driver for loading that luggage, now please pick up my friend around the corner who also has a suitcase.”
Or in the Airport waiting pens ; or traveling at slow speed from the pens 300 M to the airport rank. Presently the airport is targeted for easy taxi inspections ; will the airport also be invaded by police for easy seatbelt bookings and revenue pickings ?
Compulsory taxi seatbelts do nothing for the serious purpose of seatbelts saving lives.
2.INCREASING VIOLENCE AND UNSAFE SEATBELTS.
-Compulsory taxi seatbelts are unfortunately a major safety problem for taxi drivers. Seatbelts are an unsafe restraint if a taxi driver is assaulted in the taxi. Seatbelts are a serious impediment if a driver needs to escape quickly from the taxi.
And, dreadfully, the driver can be strangled by the very seatbelt that should save his life.
And such situations occur disturbingly often.
-Violence is on the increase as officially reported; incidents at and away from hotels and elsewhere have been increasing. The Sydney Morning Herald (page 1, 21/2/09) reported there were 13,086 violent, alcohol related, incidents recorded by police in the eleven months to July 2008. Taxidrivers are expected (and indeed exhorted) to provide services to the patrons of hotels and expose themselves to this potential violence. And taxi /hotel incidents do occur very frequently, both at hotels and on the journeys away from the hotels.
Taxi drivers know these risks ; it is a major reason why unfortunately increasing numbers feel compelled to drive with their vacant lights off.
-The incidence of alcohol related violence for just 11 months is more than 33 times the number of traffic fatalities. Considering that not all alcohol related incidents are reported to police but that all road fatalities are, then it is abundantly clear that taxi drivers have far more to be concerned about than the comparatively rare event of a serious traffic accident.
-The decisions that taxi drivers have to make when carrying drunk customers include whether or not to ‘gamble’ on wearing the drivers' seatbelts. That critical decision must be left to the drivers, literally in the hot seat.
Only the taxi-driver can make that judgment depending on the circumstances.
Taxi drivers are neither foolhardy nor reckless. They are all imbued with survival strategies, not death wishes.
And the taxi driver must be able to legally make that seatbelt judgment.
3.TAXIDRIVER PRACTICES
- Given that taxidrivers already consistently wear their belts when driving their own, private, cars it is clear that their choices to not
wear belts in taxis are directly attributable to the unique aspects of taxi driving.
Usually for many very good reasons indeed, including the situations above.
-And interviews with drivers it is the impression that the majority do in fact buckle up when they are “on the road”.
To illustrate this, many passengers are surprised to learn that taxi drivers need not wear their seatbelts; presumably because their experience is that the taxi drivers usually do wear their belts.
-If such practices need improvement, then, as stated above, education and reminders are the desirable way to go.
-(12 hours of wearing seatbelts ?)
4.WHY CHANGE THE PRESENT EFFECTIVE LAWS?
-The present laws have worked well since 1974. The laws have been effective for taxis for 35 years ! For what overriding reasons should they be changed now?
-The Madden Report, it must be clearly noted, made NO recommendation to make seatbelts compulsory for taxidrivers ! At the very end of its last Chapter titled “Long Term Work” it carried a small mention only of seatbelts. It stated “It was clear to the Taskforce that this issue merited further investigations. 11.3 Recommendations: 22. Government to review the current exemption for taxi drivers in NSW from wearing seat belts under Schedule 1 of the Road Transport.” The report carried no supporting statistics of any kind. Obviously that is the primary and first intention of its recommendation.
-The Minister’s 19February 2009 letter refers to further “… implementation of the remainder of the recommendations … (of the Madden Report) “ and then details these. However, very significantly, it makes no mention whatsoever of Compulsory seatbelts !
-The question then clearly arises, at whose initiative is the present review of seatbelts legislation and what is its motivation ?
Undoubtedly, compulsory seatbelts for taxidrivers would be a revenue raising bonanza in fines, as per above. These are not valid
arguments for change. Similarly, seatbelts can be an instrument of attack or worse for taxidrivers.
-There are some 22,000 taxidrivers in NSW of which 17,000 drive in Sydney. This is a tiny percentage fragment of the NSW seatbelt population for which to change present legislation. And compared also to many more busdrivers in NSW.
-NSW celebrated its lowest road toll since the Second World War last year (only 395). The accident rate for taxis has always been
relatively low and there is scant evidence that seatbelts for taxidrivers would have made any difference to the NSW road toll.
-The Minister’s 19February 2009 letter refers to “Improved data gathering and monitoring of taxi related crime … “. The NSW TDA fully supports the Minister’s call in this regard. There are no known Police statistics kept for taxi accidents, crimes or incidents. There are currently NO statistics on the percentage of taxi drivers currently not wearing, or wearing, seatbelts but it can be easily verified that many in fact DO routinely wear their belts. Legislative changes to seatbelts for taxi drivers must be resolved by reference to facts, not unfounded assumptions.
Accident statistics for taxis and violence incident stats must be produced for any legislative change; in view of the known increases in Police statistics on public violence !
-For these long standing laws to change, the RTA and authorities must PROVE beyond doubt that circumstances have changed to such a degree as to warrant changing legislation that has worked well for 35 years.
5.WHY TAXI DRIVERS?
-Neither train nor bus drivers nor taxi drivers are obliged to wear seat belts. To make changed regulations just for taxi drivers is inconsistent with the Government's approach to other forms of public transport.
-There are many more bus drivers than taxi drivers. Given that taxi drivers are greatly more vulnerable to assault and other incidents and problems, and greatly more vulnerable to predatory petty fines and licence point losses, why consider changing the rules for taxidrivers? This is not rational.
It would appear to many that a move to add the risk of even more penalties to the role of taxi drivers is a form of intimidation and unfair singling out of a group.
-Will review of taxidriver seatbelts lead to changes of the laws for bus drivers too?
6.TAXI INDUSTRY DOES NOT SUPPORT CHANGE.
-Any initiative for changing the laws for taxidrivers does NOT come from the taxi industry.
-( The opinion of one taxi driver, in written submission supporting Compulsory seatbelts (Mr Ross Nelson), is a lone voice in the wilderness. Mr Nelson is not a member of any driver association and does not represent any drivers. His submission centers simplistically on the (recognized) safety of wearing seatbelts but only reluctantly and incoherently tries to reconcile the unique problems of taxi drivers. )
-The taxi industry is most strongly represented by the NSWTDA and the Taxi Council Ltd (Country TDA ?).
-The views of the NSWTDA directly reflect the very strong views of the 22,000 drivers of NSW. They are set out in detail above.
-The Taxi Council does not represent drivers and it may not be in attendance today. But it draws its funds from drivers via the compulsory levies from the Networks. The NSW TDA Committee members, who are well connected and cooperative in the industry, have contacted the senior levels of several Networks which, as far as gathered, are all set against Compulsory seatbelts, primarily on the grounds of Safety !
The Taxi Council would therefore be expected to reflect the Networks views that it is completely against Compulsory seatbelts.
And as has been the Taxi Council’s public position going back at least 6 years.
-In a word, the views of the total taxi industry are totally and strongly against Compulsory seatbelts !
Finally, it is necessary to stress the strength of feeling of driver about compulsory seatbelts. The proposed No Desto issue was defeated by demonstrative driver action. The recent proposal to cancel the return Harbour Crossing toll faced the prospect of strong driver resistance. These issues pale in comparison with drivers’ feelings about compulsory seatbelts. The taxi drivers’ resolve to fight this attack on their livelihoods and safety ought not to be underestimated.
In summary, it is submitted that the existing legislation exempting taxidrivers from compulsory seatbelts is effective and appropriate.
If anything the conditions justifying the exemptions of taxis have grown far worse since 1974.
Compulsory seatbelts in the taxi industry are a punitive approach.
It is an approach open to petty revenue raising with devastating effects on the earnings and licences and livelihoods, and the supply, of taxi drivers.
It is an approach that is inherently unsafe for taxi drivers !
Vitally, the exemptions are critically important to the safety and protection of taxi drivers!
It is an approach that flies in the face of all known experience for the last 35 years of the taxi industry !
The present legislation should be retained unchanged.
The Safety and comfort of the public and drivers ought to be the top priority of the taxi industry. No one should be kowtowing to the taxi mafia because the taxi industry is a service industry and totally different from a casino or the stock exchange.
Therefore we must ignore all rumors and direct our good work based on facts and logic.
No one has to serve the taxi mafia! Howeversuccessive Ministers of Transports, Premiers and public servants of the state of NSW are doing so for a long time! Information contained in Power of the Taxi Mafiais sufficient enough to make such a supposition.
We also must not allow any taxi driver bashing to divert attention from the real issue i.e. mafia corruption and public officials’ crime spree. A few ill motivated and deliberate articles of the daily telegraph, recent taxi driver basing by Channel Seven and Transport and Infrastructure officials misadventures against taxi drivers must be noted with extreme care.
It appears they are not frank and honest enough in their intent. Nonetheless they also do not want to improve the industry. Furthermore they want to reward the taxi mafia by releasing many more taxi plates which is detrimental to public, taxi drivers and taxi owners’ interest. It is also clear that they do not have any yardstick to measure the demand and therefore an attempt to match the demand with proper supply. All in all it is fairly clear that the taxi mafia remains in charge.
The attitude, intention and overall direction of the Ministry and the Department of Transport and Infrastructure are very uncertain if not anti-public.
The democratic and long overdue Taxi Advisory Committee and Taxi Drivers’ Safety Committee is also outside the consideration of the Ministry of Transport.
Beyond Taxi Corruption provides a further look on how they have been committing crimes since 1984 with the assistance of the corrupt leaders of the NSW Transport Workers Union and many other public officials within the NSW Government.
The Power of the Taxi Mafia is beyond anyone’s imagination! A little taxi washer became taxi mafia and now he is the bus mafia!! It is beggar’s belief no one virtually can drive a private bus in this state without his (actually his mate’s) permission!!! He never had any interest in the bus industry. However, a few years ago the government of NSW gave one of his companies a very lucrative deal to construct buses. Most of these buses are not in a very good condition and full of problems. Yet, the mafia and his Cabcharge are making lots of money contrary to the state and public interest.
Taxi mafia used to wash taxis at Bayswater Road, Kings Cross. Taxi drivers wanted to sack him because he was not washing taxis properly. But, the mafia survived due to racism and sectarianism. However, he became owner of two taxis and a few more earthly possessions by shagging a widower. Eventually, he became the taxi mafia by adding misery and misfortune on taxi drivers, owners and passengers. Ironically, successive NSW Premiers and Ministers of Transport started to lick his balls and they threw bag full of money at him. As a result, he gained the power to sue any one, silence anyone and even destroy someone!
What a mighty man the taxi mafia is?! One must wonder what happened to other man and woman of the state of NSW?!!? Are they mouse and mice?
Taxi plates are the property of the State and public. Taxi plates must be used for the benefit of the State and the public.
The Safety and comfort of the public and drivers ought to be the top priority of the taxi industry. No one should be kowtowing to the taxi mafia because the taxi industry is a service industry and totally different from a casino or the stock exchange.
Like the old days, taxi plates should be issued to only working taxi drivers with a provision of temporary relief in case of death and disablement. In the recent past, the authorities started to hand over taxi plates to the taxi mafia and many people who should not have been allowed into the taxi industry in the first place! They also made it very difficult, if not impossible, to ensure accountability and transparency by keeping the taxi owners register secret.
The practice of handing over many types of taxi plates to a selective few appears to be a very corrupt process and contrary to public and state interest. Too many politically expedient “quick-fixes” have created a maze of convoluted structures, largely devoid of stakeholder participation. Silencing and sabotaging many reports and inquiries regarding this issue is blatant proof of the deception and fraud. Furthermore, suffocating and hoodwinking the public in its genuine efforts to win some accountability and transparency within the NSW Department of Transport, Ministry of Transport and other bodies were in the past and still are at the present very devious and intimidatory.
Time is right to come clean.
The NSW Government must:
1.Recall all Nexus Taxi Plates and other types of taxi plates given to taxi networks and companies.
2.Demand that taxi networks and companies holding "free" plates hand back the plates and the income generated by all Nexus Taxi Plates and other plates given to them by the government.
3.Open up the Taxi Register like Company Registers.
4.Issue taxi plates to working taxi drivers only. (Instead of empowering networks to intimidate taxi drivers the Government must empower taxi drivers & operators to pressure networks into providing the booking services that the traveling public wants and is entitled to).
5.Gradually remove speculative investors from owning taxi plates. Remember, they brought corruption rather than creativity.
6.Stop issuing false and misleading Media Releases like the one below. Stop past and future unnecessary harassment of taxi drivers in order to divert attention from the corruption and incompetence within the government and bureaucracy.
7.Re-establish the Taxi Advisory Council and Taxi Drivers' Safety Task Force as per the principles laid down by Justice Edwards and Beattie as well as Sir Asher Joel’s recommendation.
8.Allow and nurture the Taxi Advisory Council and Taxi Drivers' Safety Task Force without them being infiltrated by taxi mafia, stooges and Labor Party thugs.
9.Have a Taxi Royal Commission with widest possible Terms of Reference.
In the Australian media and parliament no body bothered to have a debate about this important issue! Alan Gold (author) is Zionist spin doctor and Rupert Murdoch's "The Australian" failed to disclose his vested interests. Yet he went on to instruct Prime Minister Kevin Rudd not to attend the conference and he wrote “Smith should avoid racist conference”. Would you believe Australian Culture and Australian Values of the Lucky Country are consistent here!
'Iraq was Invaded to Secure Israel,' says Senator Hollings, and 'Everybody Knows It.' By Mark WeberJuly 16, 2004
When a prominent American political figure speaks boldly about Jewish-Zionist power, that's news. So the recent remarks by South Carolina's senior Senator that Iraq was invaded "to secure Israel," and that "everybody" in Washington knows it, are indeed remarkable.
Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, a Democrat who has represented his state in the US Senate since 1966, is now serving his final term in Washington. That fact may also help explain why he's now willing to defy the pro-Israel lobby and speak candidly about its power. It began with an essay about the Iraq war that appeared in the May 6 issue of the daily Post and Courier of Charleston.
"With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country?," he wrote. "The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by [Paul] Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there had been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area."
Several Zionist organizations, as well as some prominent Jewish political figures, quickly chastised Hollings, and his remarks were denounced as anti-Semitic. But he didn't back down. Instead, he rose in the Senate on May 20 to defend and explain his essay.
"I don't apologize for this column," he said. "I want them to apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism." President Bush went to war in Iraq "to secure our friend, Israel" and "everybody knows it," Hollings declared.
Referring to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues openly to acknowledge this reality, he said that "nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on." With few exceptions, members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies due to "the pressures that we get politically," he said. The pro-Israel lobby knows "how to make you tuck tail and run." But "not the Senator from South Carolina," he added, referring to himself. To emphasize the seriousness of his remarks, Hollings said: "I have thought this out as thoroughly as I know how, and it worries me that here we are..."
Bush's motive in going to war for Israeli interests, Hollings charged, was to get Jewish support in election campaigns. "President Bush came to office imbued with one thought: reelection. I say that advisedly. I have been up here with eight Presidents. We have had support of all eight Presidents. Yes, I supported the President on this Iraq resolution, but I was misled. There weren't any weapons, or any terrorism, or al-Qaida. This is the reason we went to war. He had one thought in mind, and that was reelection...
"That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy. I didn't like to keep it a secret, maybe; but I can tell you now, I will challenge any one of the other 99 Senators to tell us why we are in Iraq, other than what this policy is here. It is an adopted policy, a domino theory of The [Zionist] Project For The New American Century. Everybody knows it [is] because we want to secure our friend, Israel...
"Let's realize we are in real trouble. Saudi Arabia is in trouble. Israel is in trouble. The United States is in trouble. I am going to state what I believe to be the fact. In fact, I believe it very strongly. They just are whistling by on account of the pressures that we get politically. Nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on."
Hollings cited the role of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most important pro-Israel lobby group in Washington, in determining US policy in the Middle East. "You can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here. I have followed them mostly in the main, but I have also resisted signing certain letters from time to time, to give the poor President a chance.
"I can tell you no President takes office -- I don't care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat — that all of a sudden AIPAC will tell him exactly what the policy is, and Senators and members of Congress ought to sign letters. I read those carefully and I have joined in most of them. On some I have held back. I have my own idea and my own policy..."
The Iraq war has been "a bad mistake," said Hollings. "Getting rid of Saddam was not worth almost 800 dead GIs and over 3,500 maimed for life..." This war is "a mistake like Vietnam," he added. "We got misled with the [1964] Gulf of Tonkin [incident]. We got misled here, and we are in that quagmire...
"The entire thing is a mess. Don't give me 'support the troops, support the troops.' I have been with troops, about three years in combat, so don't tell me about troops. I have always supported the troops."
Source: Remarks by Ernest F. Hollings, May 20, 2004. Congressional Record - Senate, May 20, 2004, pages S5921-S5925.
Baghdad, 21 Apr 07: Six days ago, I was in an armed convoy driving through the McCain-safe streets of Baghdad when a non-existent rocket, made right here and not in Tehran, blasted into a truck carrying fifteen GIs.
We had to stop, could not turn around because there were vehicles behind us, frantically trying to flee in all directions, and so I saw what were the shredded remains of all fifteen soldiers littering the street and smoldering.
Not the sort of thing to look at, or smell, after breakfast or before lunch. There was not a word of this in our media at home and the official casualty lists, posted on the net didn¡¯t mention any of them.
There are fifteen that never got reported. Fellow in the next building from me does the casualty reports for transmitting back to the States and he says they publish the names of one in ten. This has been a very bad month with over 300 known dead! That doesn't cover those with faces missing or legs up on a local roof, feeding the birds.
This place has become a living hell, what with occasional snipers shooting our men inside the really safe Green Zone, setting off bombs in the heavily guarded Iraqi government compound and blowing up the hand puppet legislators at lunch, mortar rounds from the defeated insurgents slamming down at all times of the day and night, and so on.
This crazy Bush surge is not working because we have had to withdraw all our troops from outlying provinces and they have been replaced with local religious crazies who shoot anything that moves.
The insurgents have virtually destroyed the power grids so Baghdad gets electric power a few hours a day (at the very best); the water supply has been interfered with so the locals get shit-infested water from the river but we, who are Bringing Bush Democracy to the benighted heathens have our own generators and our own water, carefully filtered of shit and body parts, so we can cheerfully, and proudly, show the world how better the locals are off with our brand of vicious tyranny as opposed to Saddam's.
They ought to bring Bush and Cheney over here, strip them buck naked and use them as decoys and then we'd see a rapid withdrawal for certaion! And hear loud cheers as the GIs would be struggling with the locals to pick up presidential and vice presidential body parts as souvenirs.
Birth of the Christian Soldier: How Evangelicals Infiltrated the American Military
April 21, 2007 by Michael L. Weinstein and David Seay, Thomas Dunne Books.
It took decades for evangelicals to infiltrate the military, but eventually fundamentalist theology adapted as its entry points the culture of authority, duty, and sacrifice in the armed forces http://www.alternet.org/rights/50696/?page=1
The following is an excerpt from With God On Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military by Michael L. Weinstein and Davin Seay (Thomas Dunne, 2007).
Despite the church-state scandals that have plagued the US military in recent years, religious practice in the armed forces is hardly a new phenomenon. In the 1846 Mexican War, Roman Catholics were incorporated into the hitherto all-Protestant chaplaincy for the first time, as much to blunt implications of a sectarian war with Catholic Mexico as for any effort to address the actual religious demographics of the fighting force.
In 1862, President Lincoln, at the request of the Board of Delegates of American Israelites, struck the word Christian from all regulations relating to the chaplaincy appointments, and during World War II, Greek Orthodox chaplains were allowed to minister to their flock in uniform for the first time. The Buddhist Churches of America were registered as an official endorsing agency for the first time in 1987, and six years later the Army saw its first Muslim chaplain.
These earnest attempts at pluralism were often contrasted with unsanctioned attempts to bring sanctity to the armed forces, from the revivalist fervor that swept both Union and Confederate camps during the Civil War, to various hectoring attempts to stiffen the moral fiber of troops during and immediately after World War II. GIs were returning from combat, according to a 1946 report from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, "physical, mental, moral and social wrecks, having been infected with venereal disease" and "coddled by a complacent service attitude which encourages promiscuity."
The situation was subsequently exacerbated at the dawn of the Cold War when, in 1945, President Truman proposed a one-year program of universal military training for all males over eighteen, a move vigorously resisted by evangelical churches. "We began to wonder what might happen to our youth removed from home and church influences," fretted the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), "and subjected to the temptations for which military training camps are notorious."
The proliferating paranoia of the Red Scare, however, radically altered such attitudes by the early fifties, when the world, according to literature distributed by the Nazarene Service Men's Commission, was neatly divided between "the Communist dictatorships and the Christian democracies." The Nazarenes concluded, "The stricken nations are looking to the free world ... we are our 'brother's keeper.'"
Aside from being a bulwark against godless communism, the military was perceived as a target-rich environment for missionary outreach. In 1959, the NAE asserted, "Fifty percent of all who pass through the military service have no religious
