Tarry for the Nonce

September 12, 2005

One Good Turn Deserves Another

Filed under: News — lmwalker @ 2:43 pm

Iraqi soldiers serving at Taji military base collected 1,000,000 Iraqi dinars for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Iraqi Col. Abbas Fadhil, Iraqi base commander, presented the money to U.S. Col. Paul D. Linkenhoker, Taji Coalition base commander, at a Sept. 5 staff meeting . . .

The amount of money is small in American dollars – roughly $680 – but it represents a huge act of compassion from Iraqi soldiers to their American counterparts, said U.S. Army Maj. Michael Goyne.

“I was overwhelmed by the amount of their generosity,” Goyne said. “I was proud and happy to know Col. Abbas, his officers, NCOs and fellow soldiers. That amount represents a month’s salary for most of those soldiers.”

The reasoning, according to Abbas, is simple:

“I would like to console all the ASTs who helped us rebuilding our country and our Army. We appreciate the American’s help and support. Thank you.”



  1. Ok, I’m not trying to insite a holy war here but it was the US who wrecked their country through sanctions and outright war. It’s awesome that they’re doing this but his logic seems a little like thanking a mugger for giving you your wallet back after bonking you on the head and then feeling bad about it.

    Comment by Mark — September 12, 2005 @ 3:33 pm

  2. I thought the U.N. imposed the sanctions.

    Comment by laura — September 12, 2005 @ 3:53 pm

  3. You’re right, they did. But I thought we were a powerful factor in those sanctions’ initiation and the war that preceeded them. I guess I should have said US and Western World.

    Comment by Mark — September 12, 2005 @ 4:05 pm

  4. But aren’t the sanctions lifted now…after all, its a new government.

    If you want to get upset about something, think about the embargo against Cuba. Makes one wonder why that hasn’t been lifted yet…is it because Cuba pointed their missiles at us, and we want to send a really strong message? Or perhaps we just don’t like Communist dictators who get too big for their britches and we have to give them a good, long, hard slap upside the head.

    [Cuba’s embargo started in 1960 under President Eisenhower’s Administration, and was increased to a full embargo in 1962 under President Kennedy’s Administration, due to Cuba’s Communist ties to the Soviet Union].

    Comment by Andrew P. — September 12, 2005 @ 6:03 pm

  5. Actually, the country was already a wreck by the time of the Kuwait invasion, thanks to the ruinous Iran-Iraq war, started by Hussein. Sanctions — imposed by the UN after Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait — just made it impossible for Hussein to continue enriching himself and support a functioning economy, at which point he chose the former, driving his helpless subjects further into ruin. (And the UN was quite cooperative in helping him out in that endeavor.) U.S. actions had very little to do with the destruction of the country — we didn’t exactly carpet-bomb the place, and it was no paradise prior to U.S. invasion, no matter what Michael Moore may have told you.

    Comment by Toly — September 13, 2005 @ 1:06 am

  6. we didn’t exactly carpet-bomb the place

    Oh yes we did.

    We also made use of depleted uranium which has since been banned. I’m no Michael Moore fan but you seem to be getting your news from Anne Coulter.

    Hussein screwed up Iraq pretty well but that doesn’t mean that we just dropped flowers and cookies from our B52s.

    Comment by Mark — September 13, 2005 @ 8:40 am

  7. Would you have liked it better if we had dropped flowers and cookies on them? You do know, of course, that it’s not our fault that they had a bummer of a government and were under the rule of a madman. We were attacked and, like anyone with real guts and courage, we stuck back. And, of course, you know that it’s not always Iraqis that we’re fighting but other nations that use Iraq as the battleground. They’re the ones doing a lot, if not all, of the damage. We’re just there trying to stop them from spreading about the world like a disease.
    Mark, your constant dislike of the President and our Military Forces is based on what the people who hated them in the first place are telling you, so you have no real legs to stand on. If that made any sense, I’m kind of tired at the moment.

    Comment by Alistair A. — September 13, 2005 @ 10:08 am

  8. We were attacked and, like anyone with real guts and courage, we stuck back.

    ??? Did the Iraqi navy shell New Jersey? Was there an Iraqi beachhead in Flordia? Did they sink one of our subs?

    Please explain. If you cite 9-11, you’ve been brainwashed yourself. There are some justifications for the Iraq war but “we were attacked” is just loony.

    Mark, your constant dislike of the President and our Military Forces

    Ha! Only here do I get called a bleeding heart liberal and get accused of hating a president for whom I’ve voted. Since when have I said that I dislike the military? Since when does the president do everything right or when is he above question or reproach?

    So are you saying that the US didn’t carpet bomb Iraq, blow up buildings and law down anti-personnel bombletts which amount to mines?

    Back to the point, if we’re helping rebuild Iraq, it’s because it’s the least we can do after waging two wars against it. It’s not some spontaneous humanitarian effort.

    Comment by Mark — September 13, 2005 @ 10:18 am

  9. Actually…. we did provide ample arms and benefits to Hussein during the Iran-Iraq conflict (as much as the Russians propped up Iran). So, in essence, we are somewhat responsible for the conditions; however, I put most of the blame on Hussein, as he should have been more of a leader, and less of a tyrant. We were merely using him and his vicinity to Iran to try to take down Iran.

    So, Bush must have been right; there were WMDs in Iraq at one point. πŸ˜‰

    I think its quite commendable of the Iraqi soldiers mentioned in the story to donate a month’s salary to help the Hurricane victims. Hopefully they weren’t forced to contribute. πŸ™‚

    Makes me think of the Widow’s Mite. Hopefully they’ll be blessed beyond comprehension.

    My biggest problem with all of this is that people are acting like its a surprise that during the Cold War both the US and the Soviet Union propped up local skirmishes. In fact, it surprises me that people are so upset about this; as if there were alternate means by which we could have prevented the soviets from attempting to inject communism into the entire world. People act like Communism isn’t a bad thing, in and of itself. Let’s ask the Chinese, I bet they would tell you differently. Especially those who want more than 1 child.

    That’s what’s lost today among the youts…they don’t have the duty, honor, or understanding of the evils of the world to really give a hoot. If you ask anyone over the age of 70, you’ll get a very interesting picture of the Communists that you don’t get by asking an under 70s left-wing liberal nutbag.

    Case in point: The Communist party infiltrated the Catholic Church in the 30s and sought to destroy it.

    The Communists were evil. The Communists are still evil. The sacrifice we have given to prevent Communism, including those killed on 9/11, is nothing compared to the horror we would have seen had we let them win the Cold War.

    Unfortuantely, Clinton gave the most favored nation trading status to China, a Communist country. Glad he could just throw away 50 years of anti-Communist history in order to help boost our economy. What a dick.

    Comment by Andrew P. — September 13, 2005 @ 11:26 am

  10. I usually agree with you, Pavman, but this comment:

    Hopefully they weren’t forced to contribute. πŸ™‚

    is a slanderous accusation against the American soldiers you are implicitly accusing of coercion and it belittles the good-hearted donations of the Iraqis. Why should we assume the Iraqis are less capable of an independent charitable action than Americans are?



    Comment by Janice — September 13, 2005 @ 3:58 pm

  11. Hey, I was just saying I hope the Iraqi leadership didn’t force, coersively so, those soldiers to donate. Nothing to imply that Iraqi soldiers aren’t generous. πŸ™‚

    I’m sure if they did force them, they would have probably given more money.

    It was more of a testament to the change in how the leadership does things now, rather than an accusation against American or Iraqi forces.

    And how do you know my nick ? Who’ve you been talking to ?

    Comment by Andrew P. — September 13, 2005 @ 4:18 pm

  12. Mark said:
    “It’s awesome that they’re doing this but his logic seems a little like thanking a mugger for giving you your wallet back after bonking you on the head and then feeling bad about it.”

    You talk about logic, and then give an analogy that doesn’t fit in any way, shape, or form, to the situation to has formed between America and Iraq! Do I even need to list the 2 million! innocent people that Hussein has brutally murdered in cold blood, in “Hitler-esk” style! And you some how want to imply that what we are doing in Iraq is possibly somehow worst than that?!?!? W T H, are you kidding me?!?!?

    And if anyone thinks we have been in there for to long, after the war, I would just like people to know that we stayed in Japan for SEVEN years after WWII!

    Mark said:
    “…it’s the least we can do after waging two wars against it. It’s not some spontaneous humanitarian effort.”

    I’m sorry Mark, but what history book are you reading? The Ronco (http://www.ronco.com) book of “Recent American History” with the optional white-out?

    We didn’t “wage” anything! We responded to someone else, namely Hussein, waging it!

    We did not start the war against Iraq…Hussein did when he attacked Kuwait! We (America) had an alliance with Kuwait, that alliance being, that if Iraq attacked Kuwait we would protect them. So when Hussein messed with Kuwait, he messed with America. That was the agreement we had with Kuwait. (Not to mention that the U.N. had also asked us to get involved!) What were we supposed to do…go back on our word, not fulfill our agreement with that country, and let Hussein just waltz right in there and take over that country…and let him murder tens of thousands of innocent people?!?!? I guess you think that is the compassionate thing to do, right?

    Bush Sr. was going to finish the job back then, but the U.N. asked him not to over-throw the then Iraq government. No surprise there, with the whole: oil-for-food scandal, that has come to light recently.

    Hussein had signed a “Cease Fire Treaty” with America. Hussein then flagrantly violated that Cease Fire Treaty back in 1992, and in every year since…’93, ’94, ’95, ’96…all the way up to 2003. As soon as he did, Mark, he violated the conditions of the Cease Fire Treaty, thus making that treaty “NULL AND VOID”! Once the Cease Fire Treaty became null and void, things are to revert back to their former hostilities…the last state between the two parties…before the Cease Fire Treaty was signed…which was war! This fact was one of the many reason listed by President Bush (Jr.), when he decided to re-started the war with Iraq, but has completely been ignored by the media, ever since.

    So to re-cap:
    1.) We had an agreement with Kuwait, if Iraq attached them, we would help them.
    2.) Iraq attacked them! Drawing us into a war HE started.
    3.) Hussein signed a Cease Fire Treaty with us.
    4.) Hussein violated the Cease Fire Treaty, causing the Cease Fire Treaty to become “null and void”, reverting everything back to their original state…namely WAR!

    With these historical facts, I don’t see how we “waged” war against anybody. We just finished what Hussein started.

    I’m sorry Mark, I don’t mean to flame you, but too many good men have given their blood to have someone over look the historical facts of how we got involved in all this. Personally I kept saying way back in ’92 and ’93, when Hussein first violated the treaty, that we needed to go back in there, but I knew Clinton wasn’t about to do what he ought to have done back at that time. So for me, when it came to going to war against Iraq, I really didn’t cared whether or not Iraq had WMD in the first place.

    Mark, I say this in love…put down the white-out Mark, put down the white-out and step away from the Ronco history! πŸ˜‰

    Comment by Dave R. — September 13, 2005 @ 5:29 pm

  13. I’m no Michael Moore fan but you seem to be getting your news from Anne Coulter.

    Mark, at Laura’s request, I’m going to hold back on the answer that that comment truly deserves. Suffice it to say that I’m not impressed with your pitiful attempt at sarcasm, and I doubt anyone else is, either.

    Furthermore, you never actually refuted my point. The PBS article on the B-52 was fascinating — and I’m so glad that you know how to do a phrase search in Google — but it talks about us “carpet-bombing” the Iraqis during Desert Storm — that would be in the first war with Iraq, when the Iraqi Army was in Kuwait, and bombing them did not put Iraqi infrastructure at risk. Had we actually carpet-bombed Iraq Dresden-style, you’d have known about it, and the Lancet wouldn’t have to be making up bogus studies of “100,000 casualties,” because real casualties would be in the millions.

    I won’t even bother to address your comment on depleted uranium — it’s a total red herring, and please believe me when I tell you that few things interest me less than what some goobers at the self-styled UN “Human Rights Commission” chose to “ban” in 1997.

    Comment by Toly — September 14, 2005 @ 12:40 am

  14. Andrew, a couple of things:

    The Russians didn’t support Iran, either before or after the Islamic revolution. They only recently started working with Iran on “peaceful” nuclear technology, mostly because they were desperate for cash.

    Prior to the Islamic Revolution, Iran was in fact an American client state. Shortly before the Iranian revolution, Iraq was actually a Soviet client state, and it continued to be a Soviet/Russian client state through the end of the Cold War. (Which is why the Iraqi Army was so well supplied with Russian MiG fighters and T-72 and T-80 tanks, not F-16s and Abrams.) The big difference after the Iranian revolution was that both the U.S. and the USSR started viewing Iran as a threat, so what we got was a weird situation where Hussein got support from both sides. This even led to the construction by the French of the Osirak nuclear reactor — in a country swimming in oil! — which the Israelis promptly bombed to shreds, angering President Reagan in no small way. (Despite his many accomplishments and correct viewpoints, Reagan was not without his foreign policy blind spots.)

    (Why not attack Iran directly? The U.S. military in lousy shape, Vietnam still loomed large, and American forces operating in the Soviets’ back yard was probably a dumb idea. Letting the local Soviet-supported Arab dictator fight the nutty mullahcracy until both sides bled each other white was the most suitable solution.)

    Fast forward a few years, to 1990. The USSR has collapsed, and the Russian sphere of influence is shrinking. Hussein, his economy destroyed by a decade-long war with Iran, attempts to grab Kuwait. This is unacceptable, but Iraq is still needed as a counterweight to Iran. So the Iraqi army in Kuwait is destroyed, no-fly zones imposed, sanctions put in place — but Hussein’s government is left intact, as the U.S., back then, had no particular reason to depose him and take on the responsibility of managing some Arab hellhole.

    Fast forward again to the time just after 9/11. Circumstances change. The USSR is long gone. Iran is at best a local power. Hussein has outlived his usefulness. And leaving in place some nutball who likes gassing villages, invading neighboring countries, and sponsoring suicide bombers seems like a really bad idea now. The rest you know.

    Comment by Toly — September 14, 2005 @ 1:05 am

  15. The Communist party infiltrated the Catholic Church in the 30s and sought to destroy it.

    I certainly hope that you are not implying that Vatican II is evidence of Communist infiltration into the Catholic Church.

    Comment by laura — September 14, 2005 @ 10:17 am

  16. Toly,

    My apologies, I don’t know why I added that. I just assumed that we both supported both countries, but as you maticulously pointed out, we supported both countries, and the Soviet Union only supported Iraq. Although, here‘s a bit of history for you that may be why there was such tension between the USSR and Iran:

    …However, the USSR, dissatisfied with the refusal of the Iranian government to grant it oil concessions, fomented a revolt in the north which led to the establishment (Dec., 1945) of the People’s Republic of Azerbaijan and the Kurdish People’s Republic, headed by Soviet-controlled leaders. When Soviet troops remained in Iran following the expiration (Jan., 1946) of a wartime treaty that also allowed the presence of American and British troops, Iran protested to the United Nations. The Soviets finally withdrew (May, 1946) after receiving a promise of oil concessions from Iran subject to approval by the parliament. The Soviet-established governments in the north, lacking popular support, were deposed by Iranian troops late in 1946, and the parliament subsequently rejected the oil concessions….


    I am not saying that. According to the head of the Communist Party of America, at least 12 years before Vatican II:

    Ex-Communist and celebrated convert Douglas Hyde revealed long ago that in the 1930s the Communist leadership issued a worldwide directive about infiltrating the Catholic Church. While in the early 1950s, Mrs. Bella Dodd was also providing detailed explanations of the Communist subversion of the Church. Speaking as a former high ranking official of the American Communist Party, Mrs. Dodd said: “In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.” The idea was for these men to be ordained and progress to positions of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops. A dozen years before Vatican II she stated that: “Right now they are in the highest places in the Church” — where they were working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism. She also said that these changes would be so drastic that “you will not recognise the Catholic Church.

    Dodd gave voluminous testimony on communist infiltration of Church and state before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee in the 1950s. In a lecture at Fordham University during that time, Dodd unveiled what would seem to be an uncanny prophecy of future chaos in the Church.

    If we take this information, including the fact that she had given testimony under oath to the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, and add that to a part of secrets from Fatima that In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…, we get a clear picture of the problems that Vatican II apparently created, and where the solution to this problem can be found.

    You don’t have to believe in Fatima, even if 70,000 people witnessed the Miracle of the Sun. In fact, according to the Church, no one has to believe it, regardless of whether the Church has approved it or not.

    I’m just saying that if Fatima is true, and Bella Dodd’s testimony was true, then we can conclude that Vatican II may have been manipulated by Communist or even Masonic influences. One of the links I posted yesterday postulates this idea. It does border on the idea of a conspiracy theory; however, the Soviets were very shrewd.

    If we add these things up with Pope Paul VI’s comment during a homily:
    It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God., which was in regards to Masonic infiltration with some of the clergy in the Vatican, then I conclude that there were problems surrounding Vatican II. Paul VI was the Pope during the closure of the council, which started with John XXIII.

    I must warn you that the link above and links below regarding this theory is one that is full of Bayside prophecy quotes, which I believe has been proven false by the Church.

    This would make an excellent book. You may want to read the second and third parts of the theory as well, it makes a compelling case.

    Either way, something was wrong with Vatican II, and we are just now starting to make things right. Hopefully Benedict XVI will make things better, assuming he’s not a Soviet plant ;p)

    …Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ, ‘ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains. 9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. 15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel–let the reader understand– 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now–and never to be equaled again. 22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect–if that were possible.
    -Matthew 24:4-24

    I’d end it here, but I had to throw in the idea that the current Pope is the false pope, and that there is a real pope in Spokane, WA. This, of course, is mainly to give you a chuckle.

    Comment by Andrew P. — September 14, 2005 @ 2:00 pm

  17. The Communist party infiltrated the Catholic Church in the 30s and sought to destroy it.

    I certainly hope that you are not implying that Vatican II is evidence of Communist infiltration into the Catholic Church.

    red herring. This deserves a post of its own!


    Huzzahs to Saddam Hussein in jail & about to stand trial for his crimes against his people!

    Double Huzzahs to strong intelligent women like Ann Coulter who are not afraid to say what they believe in a public forum!

    Triple Huzzahs to our President for being willing to lead our brave men and women in this war against terrorists who are trying to build their own ‘base’ in Iraq from which to wage their war against free nations!

    Quadruple Huzzahs to our men and women in the military, fighting against and killing the foreign muj who are in Iraq attempting to destroy any hope the Iraqi people have of living in freedom!

    And one note: We are entering our sixth decade of being in Germany after that war to ‘rebuild……..’

    Comment by auntlori — September 14, 2005 @ 2:01 pm

  18. And how do you know my nick ? Who’ve you been talking to ?

    I am Laura’s and Anne’s sister.


    Comment by Janice — September 14, 2005 @ 2:44 pm

  19. Janice,

    I’ve met you, remember?

    Aunt Lori,

    What the hell is a huzzah?!

    Comment by Andrew P. — September 14, 2005 @ 2:55 pm

  20. It’s to bad we can’t have another thread for this whole discussion on the Catholic Church and communism. πŸ˜‰

    A couple points of clarification about some things you said.

    Pope Paul the VI was referring to the Masons, but not just them.

    Bayside has been totally “condemned” by the Church. If I’m not mistaken, I think things got to the point there that they were so bad, that the Church actually said that anyone who goes there, and/or promotes it, was excommunicated.

    There wasn’t anything wrong with the Vatican II Council. It was an “Ecumenical” Council (which there are “21” of since the council of Jerusalem). All Ecumenical Councils are considered to be lead by the Holy Spirit. And anything that is in an Ecumenical Council- that falls under “morals and faith” and is ratified by the Pope, is considered “doctrine”, and therefore “infallible” under the ordinary conditions of infallibility. The problems in the Church comes from the “application” of what the Council instructed. The corrections the Pope needs to initiate, and what other Popes have tried to fix, have never been to correct anything from Vatican II, but have always been focused on the abuses that people have committed since Vatican II. These “abuses” were not caused by Vatican II, but instead have been justified by the deliberate misrepresentation and “spin” of what was actually taught there. There has never been a Church document, over the last 40 years or so, since Vatican II, that has corrected anything that was instructed by Vatican II. As a matter of fact, right now the American Bishops- lead by Cardinal George, are in the process of over-hauling the entire English liturgy of the Mass for America. They are actually going to re-do the entire liturgy for the Mass according to all the actual dictates of Vatican II on how the Mass is actually suppose to be done, since Vatican II’s instructions on how the Mass are supposed to be done have never been fully incorporated- like they were supposed to be. These changes will most likely take place in the next year and a half, to 3 years.

    Comment by Dave R. — September 14, 2005 @ 3:25 pm

  21. I’m so bummed! I missed this whole thing with the crashing of my computer! Grrrr.
    Mark I didn’t realize you voted for Bush, you just don’t SOUND like the kind that would.

    Comment by Alistair A. — September 14, 2005 @ 6:33 pm

  22. Mark isn’t the type to be pigeon-holed.

    Comment by laura — September 16, 2005 @ 12:36 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: