Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: Stories: News & Views: Don't Panic!... Your war questions answered

Re: “Was Haiti's earthquake actually a man-made disaster?

global warming scam has nothing to do with it,as the tool glover states,but haarp on the other hand is guilty as sin,8 earthquakes the same day in Alaska,1 in Utah.50 min after the last one in Utah,a 7.0 in Haiti,with no tsunami to follow.again a first in history for this to happen.the haarp program is militarily run in Alaska.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Anonymous on 01/27/2010 at 10:05 AM

Re: “Was Haiti's earthquake actually a man-made disaster?

OF COURSE IT WAS,8 EARTHQUAKES IN ALASKA ON THE SAME DAY,HAARP WAS TESTING IT.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Anonymous on 01/27/2010 at 9:59 AM

Re: “Was Haiti's earthquake actually a man-made disaster?

Andisheh is well aware of the US role in Haiti's history, as evidenced by his Don't Panic column of LAST WEEK!

http://tinyurl.com/ye9z857

The humor in Don't Panic is always at the expense of those who deserve it, not the victims. Andisheh is nothing if not compassionate. As Benjy correctly points out, the humor is intended to draw the reader in and present a serious subject in a way that makes the irony and insight all the more poignant.

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Anonymous on 01/26/2010 at 8:05 PM

Re: “Was Haiti's earthquake actually a man-made disaster?

"Haiti's government was too corrupt and inept to enact, much less enforce, building codes. And Haiti's people are too poor to be picky about where or how they live."

This article is so far from funny that my stomach turns. It's also a great example of the kind of narrative about Haiti that we could stand to see much less of. Let's please not neglect that both Haiti's "corrupt," "inept" government and crushing poverty are the legacy of centuries of military and economic meddling on the part of the US and France, in retaliation for the Haitian revolution, which in addition to costing the colonizer the fruits of its human property, seriously threatened the racist power structure by which the West maintains its hold on too many parts of the world. It's really dangerous to speak about Haiti's condition so far out of context.

I agree with Miea: It's not a joke. Super, super poor taste, Don't Panic!.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Anonymous on 01/26/2010 at 5:29 PM

Re: “Was Haiti's earthquake actually a man-made disaster?

miea450, you don't seem to get the concept of a Don't Panic column. Andy here makes a funny and then delivers insight into world events that I'm not getting anywhere else in the American media. So don't comment when you don't understand.

Posted by Anonymous on 01/26/2010 at 3:00 PM

Re: “Was Haiti's earthquake actually a man-made disaster?

this is stupid people are looking for real ansewers not a joke.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Anonymous on 01/26/2010 at 12:40 PM

Re: “Will the U.S. military’s intervention help or hurt Haiti?

Wow I was gonna comment on the aristide situation but eisenhower did it perfectly. As a person who has read Nouraee for a while it will be hard from now on to take his word on things I have not researched myself the facts that were in question are pretty easy to find im shocked at how bad this article was

Posted by Anonymous on 01/25/2010 at 1:40 AM

Re: “Will the U.S. military’s intervention help or hurt Haiti?

ProudAmerican1,

I take it you are not writing from your easy chair, but rather at this very moment are working side-by-side in Haiti with the other volunteers. Very commendable.

Mr. Nouraee could have pointed out some much more critical facts about past US involvement in Haiti. Such as the fact that the reason we had to send in troops in 1994 was that the democratically elected Aristide had been deposed by a bunch of thugs sponsored by ex-chief of the CIA and then president George H. W. Bush in 1991.

He also graciously refrained from pointing out that Aristide was overthrown again in 2004, by another bunch of thugs that were financed, trained and supported by his little boy Bush II and that at the end of that coup he was straight up kidnapped at gunpoint by US Marines following orders from same and taken to Africa where he was dumped.

And there is much more, if you care to acquaint yourself with Haitian history. Haiti would be a far different and much more vibrant and productive country than it is today, if it weren't for past actions of US politicians following orders from their corporate masters.

For instance, Haiti used to be the main exporter of sugar cane to the world. But US corporations stepped in, destroyed the Haitian farmers' market structure and tariffs. Now there are practically no sugar cane farmers (or workers) and Haiti imports almost all of its sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup - the stuff that makes many if not most Americans susceptible to obesity and diabetes.

But Mr. Nouraee choose to gloss over those little items in the interest of his main point which is the question he asks as the title of the piece.

Actually, by writing commentary that is other than mindless nationalist propaganda, which apparently is the only kind you think is patriotic, and the only kind you think we should be allowed to read, Mr. Nouraee is upholding and actively exercising the very rights and freedoms guaranteed to him by the sacrifices of our fighting women and men throughout our history. They deserve no less than his best efforts, which he gives every week.

Without a free press, we would be living in a gulag. Those who question and criticize do as much as anyone else to keep freedom alive and well. I commend them all - even including you.

I believe one underlying point to this article is that soldiers are trained to be soldiers, not police. Just as we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan now and are soon to be doing in Somalia, Iran and who knows where else, sending in soldiers trained for war to wage peace is a fool's errand. Not surprising since we had a fool and his minions running the country for the past 8 years - and the current fool doesn't seem to have the balls to make a quick end to the foolishness.

I'm pretty sure that everyone writing and reading here has done as much to help the Haitian people as they are physically and financially capable of doing, so kindly think twice before you pass any more judgement about who is actually qualified to speak.

From another proud American who has made some serious sacrifices.

Cheers!

Posted by Anonymous on 01/22/2010 at 11:37 AM

Re: “Will the U.S. military’s intervention help or hurt Haiti?

Typical of a soft liberal complainer, easy to put-down others in an article and live in the past. Why not tear yourself away from your easy life behind your laptop, and get you ass down to Haiti and work side-by-side with our Military service men and women actually doing something to help.
Glad you have your liberty (thanks to the U.S. Military sacrifices)to write such waste of time babble about what administrations in the distant past may have done, instead of working to improve things.
It's our tireless Military that makes this country a better place, and the world better off when disaster hits those unable to take care of their own in times of crisis. I'm sure nothing will make you proud of the efforts the U.S., it's military, and donations from those who care since it's never enough for liberals who complain rather than do!

Posted by Anonymous on 01/20/2010 at 4:38 PM

Re: “What are Obama’s top foreign policy objectives for 2010?

Good article/summation of places where Obama COULD make a difference…but...Consequences? What consequences? By continuing the majority of objectionable Bush policies, Obama has proven from illegal wiretaps, to extraordinary rendition, to no windfall profits tax, to no rollback of tax cuts for the super rich, to no right of habeas corpus, to lip-service to Glass-Steagle, to signing statements, to making Monsanto lawyer and lobbyist food safety czar, to banning CSPAN from health care reconciliation that he has no intention of creating consequences, especially for corporate interests.

For progressives like me, Obama's approval rating has not plunged because of the economy. After all, Bush, Cheney et al left this country in shambles and Obama merely continued the TARP bailout that Bush started. It looks like Obama is going to make the same mistake in 2010 that Roosevelt did in 1937 - assume the country is on the mend and steer towards austerity - the very thing he should not do. But that's really beside the point.

That's not the reason progressives that I know are loosing faith in him and the Democratic party. The reason for that would be duplicity. I have a list of 15 specific campaign promises he has broken, but to me the worst of these has been a lack of any leadership in the health care reform and specifically throwing single-payer and the public option under the bus when politically expedient. Second worst is his support for the murderous military coup-regime in Honduras - talk about human rights issues - my God what is he thinking. Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon would be proud.

I used to think that he just made a bad choice in people such as Rahm Emanuel, but the more I watch the more it becomes obvious that he chose these people specifically because he supports their type of political deal making and money grubbing. He totally believes Nancy Pelosi when she LOLs at progressives because she thinks they will accept whatever crumbs the Democrats throw their way and still expects their votes because as she says, "They have no place else to go."

Personally I think that so-called progressives who continue to vote Democratic are not progressives at all. They are just plain yellow-dog Democrats. At this point my definition of a wasted vote is progressives who still vote Democratic.

I, and a lot of progressive that I know, are going to vote for some progressive third party - and it really doesn't matter which one.

Remember it only took about 6% of people switching their vote from Republican to Libertarian to completely turn the Republican party into a de-facto Libertarian party. Progressives can do the same thing to the Democratic party by voting for a progressive third party.

As much as I hate to say it - and believe me this really hurts - Ralph Nader was exactly right. And no one in the world is doing more to prove him correct right now than Barak Obama.

Posted by Anonymous on 01/12/2010 at 12:40 PM

Re: “What happened to the U.S.-brokered political deal in Honduras?

Since this column was written the human rights abuses of the coup government have multiplied.

Members of the resistance movement have routinely been taken from there homes by uniformed members of the National Directorate of Criminal Investigation (DGIC), beaten in front of neighbors and then turn up dead a few days later.

The really pathetic slice of this to me is that most 'evangelical' missions in Honduras, as well as the Catholic church, are spreading propaganda in favor of the military junta. The reason? Simply because the duly elected president, Zelaya, had a record of supporting family planning services for women.

Conclusion: Missionaries, no matter how they may use the pictures of smiling children on their web sites, are willing to condone the torture and cold blooded murder of hundreds of citizens guilty of nothing more than being in favor of actual democracy, just so they can prevent women from having control over their own bodies and families.

To think that Obama has allied himself with this evil gang simply shows just how far he is willing to go to both remain in power and to stab the constituency - such as myself - that got him elected in the back. No one in the world is doing a better job of proving just how correct Ralph Nadar was in 2000.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/honduras

http://www.quixote.org/

http://hondurasresists.blogspot.com/

http://www.witnessforpeace.org/downloads/Honduras_Delegation_Report_09.pdf

Posted by Anonymous on 12/23/2009 at 8:46 AM

Re: “Is Obama's escalation of the Afghanistan war going to succeed?

Wow.

"But did the surge "win" the Iraq war? Hardly. A much bigger factor was the successful ethnic cleansing of Iraq."

The word "successful" and the phrase "ethnic cleansing" should never be used in the same sentence.

Then you follow up in the very next paragraph with:

"Can the U.S. re-create the same conditions in Afghanistan? I don't believe so."

Surely you're not suggesting that it would be good to re-create the conditions for ethnic cleansing! Let's see what you say next...

"Another big difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is the ethnic mix. In Iraq, the U.S. backed an ascendant majority, Shi'ites Arabs. In Afghanistan, we're backing security forces dominated by ethnic minority Tajiks and Uzbeks. With or without our help, they're never going to crush the ethnic Pashtun-dominated Taliban movement."

You should fired, you genocide supporting sociopath!

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Anonymous on 12/13/2009 at 11:00 AM

Re: “Is Obama's escalation of the Afghanistan war going to succeed?

Love yer column bc you always shine into some insight I've never heard before--or at least not in the ms media. Like the ethnic cleansing--makes total sense why it contributed to Iraq's fragile "peace." thanks man.

Posted by Anonymous on 12/07/2009 at 12:15 PM

Re: “Is Nigeria finally cleaning up its crooked ways?

if you do get approached with a 419 scheme through a posting on craigslist, kijiji, etc please report the email address of the fraudster to suspectedscammers.com. submissions are free and anonymous. we have created a list for the internet community to share and reference back to in order to help prevent fraud.

Posted by Anonymous on 11/18/2009 at 7:16 AM

Re: “What the heck’s going in Honduras?

I think it is clearly dangerous to accept the coup as a viable solution to put limits on Zelaya's abuses. Although he did push many constitutional limits, still the precedence of a coup as a channel to 'solve' things has many negative implications for Latin America, a region characterized by military coups that ended in years of dictatorial regimes (many of them backed and endorsed by the US).

Posted by Anonymous on 11/14/2009 at 9:50 PM

Re: “What is al-Shabab?

I didn't know anything about this. Thanks for this column and I will keep this topic on my radar. It's annoying how cable news etc focuses on one or two things and we keep hearing the same things over and over and over again....

Posted by Anonymous on 11/08/2009 at 4:31 PM

Re: “Who won Afghanistan's election?

We need to get OUT of Afghanistan. We have already lost whatever we merely thought we might gain by going there and bombing wedding parties. Where is a Tet offensive when you need one?

Posted by Anonymous on 11/01/2009 at 6:57 AM

Re: “What is al-Shabab?

I'm glad you keep your readers updated on the world's politics and political groups, because honestly I don't know where else I would learn anything about such things. I thank you for continuing my education on world affairs and politics. Carolyn E.

Posted by Anonymous on 10/18/2009 at 4:19 PM

Re: “Should Americans fear Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez?

When will people ever learn?

By the fact of US corporate support for murderous, dictatorial, imperialist regimes going back over 100 years - right along with the blossoming of the industrial revolution and its need for vast quantities of natural resources - since before we deposed democratically elected Guzman in Guatemala, and continuing up through Reagan's Contra Wars that murdered and disappeared thousands of innocent peasants and even up to this day in Honduras, we create the preconditions for the election of a wing-nut like Chavez.

The result of all this is duly elected leaders like Zelaya in Honduras and Chavez in Venezuela that overstep their bounds in the direction of nationalizing production and delivery systems set up by the imperialist murderers. The American press then dutifully responds (with the exception of CL of course ;-) with propaganda vilifying these leaders and calling for their ouster in the name of 'Democracy,' and starting yet another turn of the wheel.

In other words, the corporatists in America inadvertently created the situations that resulted in the democratic election of Zelaya and Chavez, just as George Bush's unprecedented eight-year efforts to concentrate power exclusively in the executive branch directly resulted in the election of the most powerful liberal black man in the nation's history.

When will people ever learn?

Posted by Anonymous on 10/04/2009 at 1:11 PM

Re: “Should Americans fear Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez?

He is more of a threat than anyone in the USA could even begin to imagine.

His Bolivarian Revolution is nothing more than an excuse to destroy the true democracy that the Venezuelan people had enjoyed, until his election.

He's nothing more than a communist leader similar to his idol, Fidel Castro. But he has, or had, lots of money derived from petroleum.
Money, I might add, that belongs to the Venezuelan people. Money that he and his goons have stolen to fund his "lame revolution."

There was no revolution, simply a government takeover of everything, and a silencing of all opposition to his insanity.

Now that he's teamed up with the rogue thug who calls himself the President of Iran, every move he makes calls for intense scrutiny by the United States and all other freedom loving countries.

This is a very dangerous situation.

These two thugs are up to no good.

Posted by Anonymous on 09/30/2009 at 9:37 PM

© 2016 Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation