|
|
Post by Aravis on Dec 4, 2004 17:57:32 GMT -5
Talk about national or global events.
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Dec 4, 2004 18:54:13 GMT -5
*Yay* You're the best Aravis. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Aravis on Dec 4, 2004 19:04:25 GMT -5
*curtsying* You're welcome.  |
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Dec 4, 2004 22:58:42 GMT -5
I love this stuff (see below) and actually have been to Goa and checked out St Francis for myself.
From the ABC:
"About 1 million devotees have flocked to see the remains of a 16th Century Spanish saint, Francis Xavier, since they went on display in the Indian state of Goa.
The sacred remains of the saint, who is revered as the greatest figure of Christianity in Asia, were put on view to the public two weeks ago.
Every 10 years the saint's body, which is encased in an airtight glass-topped silver casket, goes on show for six weeks in the Basilica of Bom Jesus near Panaji.
Church spokesman Bosco George says that "already around a million have come and venerated the saint" since his body went on display in Old Goa.
"We expect millions more," he said.
The Jesuit saint arrived in 1542 in Goa, which was then the capital of the Portuguese empire in the east.
On Friday. over 70,000 pilgrims crowded the basilica for a glimpse of the saint's body during the annual feast day dedicated to the missionary whose works earned him the name "Apostle to the Indies."
Church records say the saint, who was canonised in 1622, began his missionary work in Goa and later carried his evangelical message to the rest of India and elsewhere in Asia.
Normally the saint's remains are kept in a casket on a high altar at the Basilica.
The saint's body was returned to Goa two years after his death in 1552 on an island off the Chinese mainland.
The Roman Catholic church says that when his body was exhumed it was in "a miraculous state of preservation."
The body will remain on display until January 2. "
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Dec 5, 2004 12:34:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Aravis on Dec 5, 2004 15:39:53 GMT -5
Perhaps. But I find it very funny that he mentions organised crime and drug trafficking, considering that the Russian mafia exercises far more control in Russia than the mob (of any nationality) does here. We've cleaned up a lot of our mob families. The most active mafias here now are from Russia and Asia. So he should look to himself on that one. And the Russians also have a problem with drug trafficking, so again that's the pot calling the kettle black.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aravis on Dec 6, 2004 3:44:38 GMT -5
While watching 60 Minutes last night I saw a story about men and women who thought they had served their time in the military and who thought that they were through. However because they didn't know to retire their officer's commissions, they have been called back into active duty. Some showed up, including a 55 year old woman who stands at 4'9 and whose gun is almost as big as she is. She hasn't served in almost 40 years. Others did not show up. They chose to fight it in court. One such person is disabled due to an accident which befell him while serving in the army. He had put in 16 years of service and now carries a disability. He got out in the 80's and now has a wife and three small children, the youngest only 2 months old. They are calling him back for active duty. He said he would be willing to try to serve despite his limitations as long as he could serve in a clerical capacity, preferably state-side. He was turned down and ordered to appear. He is fighting it in court, along with several others in his position who served their time and should be done. One man who did show up despite the fact that he was not in the best of shape physically, called the men and women who refused to show up "cowards." Not so, claims one such woman. She has been working as a covert operative against Colombian druglords since she left the service. Her job is one of the most dangerous you can have. It isn't about fear for her, she says, it's about what is right. She served the 8 years she had signed up for and met her contractual obligations. She has another life now and refuses to go. She too is taking it to court. I have just finished reading this New York Times article which tells of 8 people currently in Iraq who have served their time and are being held there under the stop-loss system created during the Gulf War in the 90's. These 8 people don't know each other, are not stationed together and have only one thing in common: they are suing to go home. What seems significant to me is, as pointed out in the article, the fact that military personel who are trained to follow orders unquestionningly, are asking questions, demanding answers and standing up for what they believe to be their rights. Is the military right in wanting continuity and experience in Iraq for the greater safety of all? Or is this a ploy to boost numbers and avoid a controversial draft which needs to be stopped? And what do you make of this recent trend among soldiers to buck the system? Remember a month or two ago when those soldiers refused a convoy mission because it was too dangerous? This is not your usual military anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Dec 6, 2004 9:40:00 GMT -5
I recently had occasion to talk to a friend who works for general dynamics. He had attended a conference at which all the buzz was the call up of reserve officers.
I guess the concensus among those US soldiers present was that with the size of the Army having been reduced, post cold war, in the interests of higher speed equipment, the Regular Army can't do it alone. With six Divisions deployed, its all in, doesn't have the capability to respond to anything else, and can't even carry on mundane tasks (training etc.) back home, without assistance. In falling back on the National Guard and Reserves, however, it is breaking these organisations. Most Guardsmen I've met would go willingly to WWIII, but really resent the intrusion into their lives presented by being federalised for a little war, many of them disapprove of (if you think they don't, incidentally, talk to some). In addition, the Regular Army, to spare its members, is rotating regulars every six months, Guardsmen have been kept there, in some cases for a year and a half. Another issue certainly is that most Army Reservists are working class people looking to learn a skill, get education paid for, and for whom access to Veterans Department hospitals is no small perk. In any case, about 2/3rds of the Army Reserve is black. I'm guessing that there would be a signficant Dem component here, and a few really unhappy campers. I guess recruiting offices and NG armouries, following an immediate post 9/11 boom, are just about empty.
I think the administration in the US hasn't quite come to grips with the logic of its position. It wanted a quick war and a quick out. It got the quick war, but the withdrawal will be prolonged, probably indefinitely put off. Its got a high speed regular army, when what it needs is ALOT of low tech riflemen. Burden of producing these has been shifted to the NG and reserve. I think the Regular Army has done this in part, to save itself, and has been permitted by the administration to do it because its politically preferable to inconvenience a few patriots ALOT than to worry everybody else with mandatory registration. Easier to get votes, after all, if a feel good war is waged far away, by somebody else, and you're not immediately asked to pay for it. Payment, of course, will come later.
We'll see what happens if collective indiscipline, and desertion become a significant issue. My sense is that they are more of a problem than you might gather from the press. Many times (the transport mutiny comes to mind) a incident is reported, but then falls out of sight with the notion that it is being investigated. One I found really interesting concerned a Marine Reservist who claimed conscientious objection. His position was that, given current international law, the US was waging an illegal war, and that it was his obligation, therefore, to refuse to take part. His call up notice, in effect, was an illegal command. That would make for an interesting court martial! Alas, I doubt we'll ever read what happens.
Time will tell what comes of this. If things play out the wrong way, however, the government could end up breaking the Army & Marines, regular and reserve, and forced to move to a draft belatedly. I would guess that, if nothing else, would be the swan song of the Republican Party for a generation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Dec 6, 2004 22:40:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Dec 7, 2004 8:33:57 GMT -5
This is very interesting too. Appears that refugee boards, here in Canada, are considering the applications of three US Army deserters, who claimed, and had refused, conscientious objection. Interesting predicament. Their claim, insofar as the paper carries it, is that the current war is unjust, and waged by criminal means. Since CO status was denied, and non-combatant employment was refused, they could only: a) be a war criminal; b) go to Leavenworth; c) flee. These three fled. Wonder how many 'Bush-dodgers' will follow? An odd thing, given that we are VERY closely allied to the US, but also have realigned our courts systems entirely in keeping with current international law (ICC and World Court are superior to even the Supreme Court). We also signed all the conventions that would, for example, define a depleted uranimum shell as a prohibited chemical munition. Needless to say, attempts to avoid Geneva or the Hague convention would be more than suspect. Might end with a Canada Appeals court having to rule, for our purposes, on the legality of the Iraq War. www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041207.wxrefugee07/BNStory/National/ |
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Dec 7, 2004 10:16:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by demgoddess on Dec 7, 2004 11:30:03 GMT -5
Wyn...did you happen to see the join press conference with Bush and Blair last month? A reporter asked them if they would support a non-democratic Iraqi government (if that is what the Iraqis chose) and they both acted as if that was not even a possibility. Bush's response was something to the effect that if someone is elected, then it is democratic, period. The reporter tried to follow up and say "but what if that person does not allow further elections, in effect taking over" and Bush said "I don't understand what you are saying. If he is duly elected, then it is democracy." Basically, the upshot was that Iraqis are free...as long as they run the country the way we expect them to  |
|
Arancaytar
New Member
There is always hope...
Posts: 18
|
Post by Arancaytar on Dec 7, 2004 13:27:57 GMT -5
Well, of course Bush wants to wash his hands of this affair. He's got what he wanted - perpetual state of war, violence in the middle east, oil price rocketing.
Why should he be interested in what happens after the elections? After him, the deluge... that's his policy on the environment and economy as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aravis on Dec 8, 2004 15:23:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Aravis on Dec 8, 2004 15:43:26 GMT -5
|
|
