Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« You First, Fearless Leader | Main | History Repeats »

Glossary

For those who, like me, seem to be watching coverage of the Iraq situation as reported by people from a bizarro dimension, in which they speak a language very similar to English, but with subtle and confusing differences, I think that I've finally broken the code, and have thus put together a little translation guide for the rest of us.

"allies":

Nations that we either defeated or liberated six decades ago, and then paid to rebuild half a century ago, and continued to pay for their defense through the Cold War, which has been over for more than a decade, who now feel that they are thereby entitled to obstruct or dictate our foreign policy, which is driven by our own self defense, in the furtherance of the business interests of their corrupt governments and the brutal dictators that they cynically coddle.

"going it alone":

Meaning 1: Taking action in concert with numerous European and Middle-Eastern nations, and others around the globe, but without France and Germany.

Meaning 2: Using the coalition from (1) to enforce numerous UN Security Council resolutions, including one that was passed within the past three months, which was supposed to be final, without going back to the Security Council, hat in hand, to get yet another "final" resolution.

"let the inspections continue":

Allow more time for a few dozen people to literally cluelessly wander around a country hundreds of thousands of square miles in area, searching for things that the Iraqi government has no intention of letting them find, and are hidden in private homes, or mosques, or presidential "palaces" (some of which are themselves the size of typical western cities), or in caves that we don't even know exist, or that are moved just prior to the threat of an actual search in any of these areas, in order to continue to delay military action in the slim hope that some other means of delay can be found while this one continues, or that the weather will get too hot, or that W is so dumb that he will eventually forget why he's doing this, or choke on a pretzel, this time for good, all in order to put off forever the day that we actually remove Saddam Hussein from power.

"making war on the innocent Iraqi people":

Removing a malign tyrant who, along with his vile offspring, has been torturing, starving and murdering the Iraqi people for decades, often for no reason other than his own perverse pleasure, and thus thereby finally giving them peace. To fully satisfy the definition, he must be removed while we spend vast amounts of money on precision munitions to minimize collateral casualties to the Iraqi people, even to the extent of risking higher casualties to our own forces to do so.

"rush to war":

Waiting a dozen years after Saddam signed an agreement to relinquish his weapons of mass destruction; waiting almost half a decade after he threw out the arms inspection teams who were there to see that he carried out his commitment; waiting a year and a half after being attacked by Middle Eastern forces that woke us up to the possibility of our vulnerability to people who have been threatening us for years; waiting over a year after declaring Iraq one of the nations that constitute a danger to the planet; carefully crafting and passing yet another UN Security Council resolution reiterating all the previous ones, with the stated intent of being a final one; waiting two months after the submission of a declaration in response to that supposedly final resolution that was 12,000 pages of non-responsiveness, before actually taking any significant military action to see that Saddam's capability to attack his neighbors and our own nation is eliminated through military force.

"smoking gun":

The level of evidence that will justify removing Saddam Hussein by military force. This one is very precisely defined.

It is a photograph of Saddam Hussein, standing next to fifty-gallon barrels clearly labeled "Anthrax, "Tabun, "Sarin," "VX," "Phosgene," and "Smallpox Virus," along with a suitcase marked "Danger: ACME Suitcase Nuke--Stand Well Back Before Detonating," next to a geiger counter with meter pegged. One of Saddam's hands is evilly twirling his mustache a la Snidely Whiplash, and the other arm is around the shoulder of a hale and hearty Osama bin Laden, who is in turn holding up a clearly-identifiable copy of last Sunday's New York Times.

The picture must be taken by an objective, prize-winning photographer, such as Robert Fisk. No satellite imagery or CIA evidence is acceptable, since such a photo could be easily faked, and its provenance would thus be highly suspect.

I hope that this guide will help make more sense out of the speeches from politicians and commentary by clueless pundits and reporters that you'll continue to hear over the next few weeks.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 31, 2003 02:50 PM

Comments

I like your handy reference guide, but your definition of "smoking gun" is insufficient.

How can we trust Fisk (or even Pilger) not to be duped by or come under the sway of that stupid cowboy who illegally occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or his evil henchmen at NSA or CIA? After all, this is quite literally a matter of life and death.

No, the term "smoking gun" can only mean a hole in the ground in the middle of a major US city with no fewer than 100,000 dead right off the bat and at least one million at risk of cancer for twenty or thirty years from radiation poisoning. Of course, the aforesaid hole in the ground would have to be accompanied by either the photographic evidence described in your definition or the original card (delivered by the Acme Nuclear Explosives Corporation of Baghdad) with the bomb.

Next, please tell me what the "hench" is that henchmen have.

Posted by Carey Gage at January 31, 2003 03:36 PM

UNILATERAL - any U.S. military action taken without the approval of the New York Times Editorial Board.

Posted by Dave Robertson at January 31, 2003 05:17 PM

"henchman" from Middle English "hengestman" = "groom" from Old English "hengest" = "stallion" + "man"

Posted by Mary at January 31, 2003 05:20 PM

Even if we have a crater in the middle of a major US city and 100K dead, some French writers would still publish a best-selling book proving the whole thing didn't happen and it's just an eloborate hoax. But even if it had happened, we deserved it for threatening Saddam, who had warned us repeatedly that he'd use the MDW he does not possess.

Posted by Peter Lee at January 31, 2003 05:56 PM

smoking gun: a photo of saddam sitting atop a huge a-bomb ala slim pickings in dr. strangelove with a sign that says what nuclear weapons?

Posted by robert nagle at January 31, 2003 06:47 PM

What about Pakistan, the staunch 'frontline' ally in the fight against terrorism?
How does your describtion of 'allies' fit for Pakistan?

Remember Pakistan, the greatest Islamic Nation of all times, Mother of Taliban, Father in law of Osama bin Laden, and brother of all Islamic terrorists world-wide..

Pakistanis were in Kenya, traced in Bali, arrested in Naples, executed to death for killing American CIA agents in US, beheaded Pearl, blasted french engineers in Karachi, lobbed grenades into a church full of people, kill common people in Kashmir, throw acid on young women's faces for makeup in Srinagar, protest legal requirements like registrations in US, prolifirate nuclear technology to N.Korea, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, send rocket launchers to Chechnya, operate thousands of madarasas to indoctrinate an army of Allah, never know what democracy is, legally execute people for blasphemy... phew.. Nice ally there are!

Posted by Jagan Mohan at January 31, 2003 07:14 PM

It's amazing how people who are against this action keep using the "no smoking gun" line as one of the reasons. Fair enough. When I ask them what "smoking gun" would satisty them, they fall silent.

Posted by Steve at January 31, 2003 07:18 PM

Ditto to all...

Peace to all...

Stop the madness...

History DOES repeat itself...

It's November 1941 once again...

Except this time, we are fighting AGAINST facism, rather than ignoring it.

Support the war. By doing so, you may avoid war, because our enemies may take us serious. To do otherwise (ignore the threat) is to invite 9/11 "the sequel".

Posted by Braun at January 31, 2003 07:29 PM

In your glossary you forgot an item: it's
all about oil and Bush wanting to reward his
oil buddies for their support in his quest
for the presidency. The slogans of the peaceniks
are getting old and tiresome...it might be more
interesting if they could come up with some
new stuff. I get the giggles when I read about
Redford getting snowballs tossed at him at his
own festival when he spouts Marxist garbage.

Posted by Abdul the Bulbul Ameer at January 31, 2003 07:40 PM

So suppose you're living in a not very nice country with just one resource that is coveted by your very rich, fat, ignorant, unpredictable and often vicious neighbour. One day they decide it's time to take your resource, so they amass a huge army, bomb everything that moves and a lot that doesn't, kill thousands of people and leave the country without any power, water, hospitals,or other infrastructure to speak of. Are you going to welcome them in with open arms?

The rest of the world is disgusted with the USAs blatant bullying oil grab. If you think it's a good idea to massacre a civilian population to steal the only thing that makes life bearable in that country, then for once in your miserable existence, be honest and say so. Otherwise, stand up against the morally corrupt shysters that have hijacked the US government. If the US goes ahead with this evil, then nobody, and I mean NOBODY will like them anymore.

Posted by Chris Grealy at January 31, 2003 10:04 PM

Chris, you're joking, right?

This is like a parody of the most idiotic arguments against taking down Saddam, right?

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 31, 2003 10:32 PM

Sadly, Rand, I have the sinking feeling Chris is a true idiotarian. One day, we just decided "it's time to take your resource!" so we bombed hell out of peaceful Iraq without asking anyone's permission, killed kindly old Sadaam Hussein, and gave oil rights to Dick Cheney.

That's what they're saying on Chris' home planet, anyway.

Posted by Donna V. at January 31, 2003 11:00 PM

Chris, this is getting old. Visit LGF, we've more than capably dealt with the whole oil thing. And by the way, the US has already gone to great lengths to minimize Iraqi military casualties by dropping leaflets that say if you stay in your positions we won't kill you, if you move for a counter attack you're toast. No, killing civilians is a bad idea. Sort of like launching Scud missiles toward Israel during Gulf War I. Or maybe using chemical weapons against Iranian villages and the Kurds. Or torturing and killing children in front of their parents. I have an idea, Chris...go to Iraq and speak out very loudly and vocally against Saddam...but without any western media, press, etc. (i.e. protection) and see just exactly how you do. Bye.

Posted by m12edit at January 31, 2003 11:37 PM

Chris that sounded like what Saddam did to Kuwait. It does not sound like what America is going to do to Iraq. One of the reasons for the long wait since Afghanistan was to rebuild the stock of precision weapons to reduce the possibilities of civilian casualties. And if we wanted Iraqi oil we'd just make a cynical deal with Saddam, one that he has been dangling in front of us for a long time, and let him be. Sort of a French-style policy.

If we were the sort of country you pretend to believe we are Iraq would not be the target of our forces, Alberta would be. closer to home, weaker army, culturally similar so as to reduce the problems of incorparating the populace into our expanding empire. Only the looniest anti-Americans would belive that we would do that.

Posted by Michael Lonie at February 1, 2003 01:55 AM

Regime Change

According to Hague ICC judge Bruno Simma, even "the idea is a mortal sin against international law" (Süddeutsche Zeitung daily Feb 1, 2003, p. 11). Strictly opposed as a "creepy scenario" (Reichstag deputy Stroebele) by Old Europe, as it could result in America getting hold of the poison gas bills in the Baghdad archives. Anti-Regime-Change positions usually market themselves as "Give Peace a Chance" attitudes.

Posted by Leo Bauer at February 1, 2003 05:31 AM

I disagree that the nuking of an American city would provide just cause for declaring war on Iraq, for the following reasons:

1. This was a predictable response to the unjust and genocidal American foreign policy of unwavering support for Israel and having military bases in the middle east. When people are desperate and have no hope, they have no recourse but to annhilate civilians thousands of miles away.

2. Iraq could not have had a part in this, because Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. Besides, Iraq is a Muslim country: Islam is a religion of peace, and opposes massacring men, women and children, unless in the defence of Islam, as defined by any random crackpot.

3. Furthermore, obtaining an atomic bomb and detonating it requires planning, organization, and intelligence, all of which makes it obvious that no Arabs were involved.

4. Therefore, it is clear that this was a Zionist plot designed to make Iraq and other Muslim countries look bad.

5. Further proof is that 40,000 Jews did not show up for work that day, after being warned by the Mossad.

Posted by abu babu at February 1, 2003 06:59 AM

"According to Hague ICC judge Bruno Simma, even 'the idea is a mortal sin against international law' (Süddeutsche Zeitung daily Feb 1, 2003, p. 11)."

Allow me to opine cynically that he thinks nothing else whatever is a mortal sin. In fact, I'd bet he doesn't think anything is a mortal sin. Except this. And the next action contemplated by America of which he disapproves.

Posted by ELC at February 1, 2003 08:23 AM

Just hypothetically, if the leaders of France and Germany are sincerely convinced that what we are about to do will cause great harm to us in the medium and long term, what would you want them to do to show that they are sincere allies?

Keep in mind that they know they aren't going to stop us, we've made it clear that we will veto any resolution short of go get 'em and say the previous resolution was all that is needed. All they are really doing is giving us their opinion.

Posted by David Weisman at February 1, 2003 05:27 PM

Just hypothetically, if the leaders of France and Germany are sincerely convinced that what we are about to do will cause great harm to us in the medium and long term, what would you want them to do to show that they are sincere allies?

In light of the facts and their behavior, that is a hypothetical so far from possible that I can't bother myself to entertain it, but the French could start by not feeding intelligence to Saddam...

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 1, 2003 11:55 PM

In his interest to "prevent war" (a la Hans Blix) Fisk would refuse to take that picture.

Posted by JPatterson at February 3, 2003 08:12 AM

"In light of the facts and their behavior, that is a hypothetical so far from possible that I can't bother myself to entertain it"

Rand,

as far as behavior is concerned Germany isn't as bad as Schroeder's rhetoric:

A hundred German commandoes fought alongside US
special forces and SAS in Afghanistan and by all accounts performed very well. They are still there and just recently fought Al Queda terrorists there, again at the side of US troops. Also, the biggest contingent of the ISAF force in Kabul is German, our troops and ships have been busy at the Horn of Africa and Djibouti for a year now, preventing Al Queda from moving people and supplies into the region. This is pretty much what Germany has to offer.

Germany also sent sent Patriot systems with about 130 misslies to Israel, on request of Ariel Sharon.

Leo,

to clarify, Bruno Simma is Judge of the International Court of Justice, not of the International Criminal Court.

Posted by Ralf Goergens at February 4, 2003 08:06 AM

THat should have been "missiles".

Posted by Ralf Goergens at February 4, 2003 08:08 AM

"No blood for oil" -

Translation: I would be perfectly happy to see many thousands of US servicemen AND Iraqis killed in an invasion, because said "quagmires" and "massacres" would both validate my worldview, and further my political goals. However, I am wracked with fear that relatively few will be killed on both sides in a quick US victory which would benefit my domestic political opponents, and terrify those who would murder thousands of my fellow citizens for the sake of a PR stunt.

alternate translation: This sign is 12 years old.

Posted by DTLV at February 4, 2003 11:55 AM

Give war a chance. It's only the second worst thing in the world.

Posted by keylaw at February 21, 2003 09:28 PM

It's not about oil. It's not even about the uranium fields of Kosovo. No, this is our mad plot to seize the valuable wind deposits on the Plains of Spain for our turbines! That's why we kicked out the Moors in 1492. Think long-term, people!

Posted by Noel at March 9, 2003 07:26 PM

Friends, I don’t know if you all realize this, but the good Lord has given us the technology to kill folks without destroying His precious oil fields. And that’s important, when you consider the fact that those turban-wearing, moon-worshipping, dirt people have the second largest supply of oil in the world. I see from your faces that some of you petrochemical folks in the Gold Tither pews know where I am going with this! With a reason for the war on the table, we could have flattened Babylon and been looking at a long, steaming summer full of cheap gas instead of unseemly court martials, which are just like catnip to America-hating pansies.

Posted by Dominic Caraccilo at June 27, 2004 02:50 AM

First off, I’d like to say that this is not defined as an absence of war. It is the presence of liberty, stability, and prosperity. In the face of the enemy. Don't buy into the pessimism and apathy that says, ""It's hopeless,"" ""They hate us too much,"" ""That part of the men and women serving here in Iraq the enemy wherever you are.

You are a mighty force for good, because truth is on your side. Together we will ultimately fail. That is why I am asking for your support. Become a voice of truth in your community. Wherever you are fight the lies of the men and women serving here in Iraq the enemy wherever you are.

You are the soldiers at home fighting the war of perception with the media and American people. Our enemy has learned that the people in the highest regard. We love to criticize ourselves almost to an endless degree, because we care what others think.

Our enemies see this as a weakness and are trying to exploit it. When we ask ourselves questions like, ""Why do the Japanese hate us so much?"" or ""How can we change ourselves so that they won't do that again?""

Here in Iraq would be a goldmine. When our so-called ""trusted"" American media takes a quote from an Iraqi doctor as the gospel truth over that of the horrendous tyranny of the world will let us!

If the American Revolution was all about. Have we forgotten? Freedom is not peace. The peace that so-called ""peace advocates"" support can only be brought to Iraq through the military. And we are making the whole world safer.

Your efforts at home and abroad. We are a people that cherish the democratic system of government and therefore hold the will of the world will let us! If the American people believe we are playing into our enemies' hands. Our natural tendency to question ourselves is being used against us to undermine our effort to do good in the world. How far would we have to remember is that peace is not peace.

The peace that so-called ""peace advocates"" support can only be brought to Iraq through the military. And we are doing a tremendous amount of good. Spread the word. No one is poised to make such an amazing contribution to the detriment of our brave heroes fighting for liberty and peace.

What we have to remember is that peace is not free and ""peace"" without principle is not peace. The peace that so-called ""peace advocates"" support can only be brought to Iraq through the military.

And we are failing, even if we are making the whole world safer. Your efforts at home and abroad.

We are a people that cherish the democratic system of government and therefore hold the will of the enemy is trying very hard to portray our efforts over here, you can refute them by knowing that we are failing, even if we are making the whole world safer.

Your efforts at home are directly tied to our success. You are the soldiers at home and abroad.

We are a people that cherish the democratic system of government and therefore hold the will of the people back home will lose the will of the enemy.

Don't buy into the pessimism and apathy that says, ""It's hopeless,"" ""They hate us so much?"" or

""How can we change ourselves so that they won't do that again?""

Semper Fi,
1st Lt. Mark V. Shaney USMC
Baghdad, Iraq

Posted by 1st Lt. Mark V. Shaney USMC at June 29, 2004 11:50 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?