December 21, 2003

AHEAD OF TIME

Time magazine is obsessively secretive over its annual Person of the Year selection. This year’s choice is due to be announced in the US on Monday. But if you click here, you’ll see this:

US troops are the People of 2003 -- and someone in Time’s online imaging department will be looking for a new job in 2004.

UPDATE. Time’s Person of the Year announcement is scheduled for 1 pm Sunday (GMT) in Europe and late Sunday (ET) in the US. Their site has pre-empted the announcement by at least 19 hours.

UPDATE II. Confirmed.

UPDATE III. Via Ryne McClaren, Time reports on an individual soldier who deserves the Person of the Year award.

Posted by Tim Blair at December 21, 2003 04:02 PM
Comments

A great choice, even if Time's people flubbed it.

Posted by: Matthew Stinson at December 21, 2003 at 04:39 PM

Eh, it could be a fake meant to throw people off.

The media can be really cagey about these things when it's something as important as their primary hype generator of the year. It's only trifling things, like saving the lives of soldiers or keeping terrorists off the streets, where they totally drop the ball.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at December 21, 2003 at 05:09 PM

I second that emotion.
The US is blessed to have such decent public servants.
It would be nice if those higher up the pecking order would follow the selfless and dutiful example of their humbler bretheren.
Perhaps that was Time's point.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 21, 2003 at 05:09 PM

I think that is a great choice!

I hate to be picky but... it looks to me like the words in white read "The American Soldier". If so I am sure that there are some Marines, Sailors and Airmen who might feel a bit slighted... after all it takes all branches to fight and win!

Posted by: mapchic at December 21, 2003 at 07:17 PM

I can't tell if one of them is a woman. If not, it's not the real cover.

Posted by: Ron Hardin at December 21, 2003 at 07:30 PM

"humbler bretheren"? please explain!!!

Posted by: pauline at December 21, 2003 at 07:33 PM

jack is referring to bureaucrats who sit in offices and make decisions about those who do the real work

Posted by: ilibcc at December 21, 2003 at 08:30 PM

Ron Hardin said:

"I can't tell if one of them is a woman. If not, it's not the real cover."

It is. Reminds me of a photo taken at the end of a course I attended many years ago. There was only one woman on the course. Someone asked why she was in the middle and some wag replied "they always put the c... in the middle"


amortiser

Posted by: Mike Murphy at December 21, 2003 at 08:40 PM

I can't see so good, especially with these possums eating my eyes, so I thought it said "The Armed Forces." Anyway, Drudgey just posted it.

Always funny to find such stuff, but does anyone actually read "Time"? I got my hair cut today and there was an old issue about the jeebus, but I read the ESPN mag's story about Kobe instead.

It's probably a lie, but I semi-recall hearing that Slate.com, the webzine, has as many readers as Time Magazine. (4 million?) Anyway, hooray for the armed and/or american soldiers / forces.

Posted by: Ken Layne at December 21, 2003 at 09:18 PM

I used to read it when that Tim Blair guy wrote for it.

Posted by: tim at December 21, 2003 at 09:39 PM

Well, Apple leaked their new G5 Power Macs the same way this summer - including the excact specs and configurations... Guess "security" should be a new mandatory course for all web monkeys... =P

Posted by: Döbeln at December 21, 2003 at 10:11 PM

"Why didn't you fight?" one Governing Council member asked Hussein as their meeting ended. Hussein gestured toward the U.S. soldiers guarding him and asked his own question: "Would you fight them?" - Washington Post

Some people will be looking at that cover and thoughtfully asking themselves Saddam's question.

Posted by: Ernie G at December 21, 2003 at 11:23 PM

Count the typos and misspellings. Numerous to say the least. It's good to recognize the men and women who executed an extremely successful war with minimal civilian and troop casualties.

Posted by: Scott at December 21, 2003 at 11:50 PM

WHAT??
IT`SNOT SADDAM!!!
CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION IMMEDIATELY...
Ooops, sorry, I don`t have a subscription.
I know I`ll get a subscription and then cancel it.

Posted by: nick at December 22, 2003 at 12:04 AM

While all honor is due to that abstraction known as the American soldier, and to each soldier individually, normally the Time Man of the Year nomination would go to some individual who had been important for good or for bad. This is a transparent attempt on Time's part to avoid naming the obvious choice, the one they would have named were they politically unbiased, and that would surely have been President Bush for embarking on his project to remake the Middle East and turning in a series of stunning successes (whether you agree with the project or not).

Posted by: thucydides at December 22, 2003 at 12:15 AM

Don't call them "soldiers." Marines, sailors and airmen don't like that term. But if you call them "troops," that's okay.

Posted by: Acidman at December 22, 2003 at 12:24 AM

It should have been Michael Moore.

Posted by: Michael Moore at December 22, 2003 at 12:26 AM

Great choice.

Eat shit, you nay sayers and moonbats.

Posted by: Pedro the Ignorant at December 22, 2003 at 12:31 AM

To me this is no supprise.

Time has always said that the man/person/people of the year cover had only to do with who made the most news during the year.

They have never yet chosen individual(s) just because they "like" them, only those that, in the cover committees estimation/opinion, dominated the news during the previious year.

Posted by: Uncle Bill at December 22, 2003 at 12:35 AM

thucydides: Not that I have any particular reason to defend Time, but non-individuals have been the Person of the Year several times before. "The American Fighting Man" was the Person of the Year in 1950. The personal computer made it one year. Three women were Person of the Year in 2001 (instead of bin Laden).

Posted by: Brian O'Connell at December 22, 2003 at 12:42 AM

Correction: Guiliani was POTY in 2001. The three women were POTY in 2002. Hey, here's a list.

Posted by: Brian O'Connell at December 22, 2003 at 12:46 AM

I'm with our historian. I think it's made the award even more meaningless to not award it to an individual.

Uncle Bill, you're almost correct. They don't choose the entity that made the most news, they choose the awardee based on what will sell the most magazines and advertising.

Posted by: Mike Rentner at December 22, 2003 at 12:56 AM

Pauline:

""humbler bretheren"? please explain!!!"

There is a saying: "There are no atheists in foxholes." This is probably not true but a variation of it might be: "There is no arrogance in foxholes." Arrogance is reserved for many of those safely behind the lines in academic halls, journalistic offices, etc. being protected by those in foxholes. The opposite of arrogance is humility, as exemplified by President Bush.

Humility is a virtue, pride/arrogance is a sin.

Posted by: Dean Douthat at December 22, 2003 at 12:59 AM

"The American Soldier ? They swept across Iraq and conquered it in 21 days. They caught Saddam Hussein. They are the face of America, its might and good will, in a region unused to democracy"

And this is from Time magazine?!? There is still hope for the media i guess.

Posted by: madne0 at December 22, 2003 at 01:53 AM

Hm. First Libya backs down and now Time magazine...

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 22, 2003 at 01:56 AM

Hmm, regime change at Time, perhaps? Didn't hear any reports.

Will we next see the NY Times endorse Bush?

Eric Alterman leave his wife for Ann Coulter?

Gotta stop here, I'm getting woozy.

SMG

Posted by: SteveMG at December 22, 2003 at 02:00 AM

Scooped? Big deal.

Posted by: lk at December 22, 2003 at 02:02 AM

Would it be asking too much for the Australian edition to put Aussie diggers on their cover? Likewise the Brit edition could do the same for the Royal Marines, Paras etc....

Still, good choice. And I can't wait to see it on French newstands.

Posted by: Wilbur at December 22, 2003 at 02:03 AM

Time magazine awarded Hitler also. F*** them. They are the glossy version of the NYTimes and they can ship off to Cuba as far as I care.

Posted by: papertiger at December 22, 2003 at 02:06 AM

1st thought - perfect choice.
2nd thought - what's the catch?

"the very messy aftermath of the war made it clear that the mission had changed, that the mission had not been completed and that this would be a story that would be with us for months, if not years, to come," Time Managing Editor Jim Kelly said.

This is Time trying to bash Bush without bashing the soldier. Pretty slick move by a disgusting bunch of tree-huggers.

Posted by: Cowboy Bob at December 22, 2003 at 02:16 AM

I'm with Ken Layne on this. Who reads Time? Good for the soldiers, however. They deserve it.

Posted by: Roger L. Simon at December 22, 2003 at 02:17 AM

As for who reads Time, I don't because I consider it ABC, watered-down news for The Many. However, I think it's the most widely-read news magazine in the country.

Posted by: Doug at December 22, 2003 at 02:27 AM

Wow, looks like TIME really screwed up... The US Military represents all those things that a Lefty rag like TIME despises... what's next? Support for the 2nd Amendment?

Posted by: Mike Steele at December 22, 2003 at 02:34 AM

Dean Douthat has said, "Humility is a virtue, pride/arrogance is a sin." But I say unto you :-) that humility and pride are both life-sustaining and both life-enriching and that neither is a sin. Even C.S. Lewis, who did profess to think pride is a sin, thought that the main reason people hate other people's pride is that it offends their own.

We're well off topic now, I'm sure, but we got here by degrees.

Posted by: Doug at December 22, 2003 at 02:35 AM

God bless the troops, but Thucydides is absoulutely right, and, if I may say (blushing), I called this a week ago within five minutes of the thought occuring to me that "Hey, TIME's Person o' Year is coming up, I wonder who it is."

I ain't brilliant. It's patently obvious. THE person of the year is George W. Bush, categorically and unequivocably. Remember PoY is NOT an "honor", it is "awarded" to the person(s) who basically are most responsible for the events that unfolded during the year in question, as TIME continually takes pains to remind us. Thus, there is no possible way then that it CANNOT be Bush.

Ah, but this is a Manhattan newsroom making this decision, and any way you say it, it still does come out to be an "honor" of sorts. And there is no way a Manahattan newsroom is going to give the President his due on that score. Ergo, the ONLY option they have that won't raise a firestorm, based not on TIME being "unpatriotic" or some nonsense, but outrage being genuinely based on TIME turning their back on their own PoY rational simply to avoid handing it to Bush... the ONLY option they had was "the American Soldier".

So God Bless Them All. They deserve even far more than that.

But I KNOW that's how it went down in New York. I just know it.

Posted by: Andrew X at December 22, 2003 at 02:48 AM


Hmmm. As a Yank, I'm a bit bummed that it's just Americans. I know that the US has the greatest numbers of soldiers there by far, so honoring "The Coalition Soldier" might slight the US contribution somewhat. Still, I think I would have preferred that. Hopefully, the article will give fulsome credit to the Brits, Aussies, and Poles.

Posted by: Dave S. at December 22, 2003 at 02:52 AM

I'll go along with Thucydides and Andrew X. Time Magazine's PMOY made much more sense when it was given to the person who influenced the events of the last year the most, for good or for ill. It's entirely appropriate for a news magazine to spend an issue focusing on that person, and certainly Khomeni and Hitler were both perfectly reasonable choices for this non-honor.

It's gotten silly in the last decade or so, with "personal computers" getting it instead of Bill Gates, and last year's pathetically obvious attempt to "slight" Bush by giving it to three people. Anyone even remember their names?

Posted by: John Nowak at December 22, 2003 at 03:03 AM

I think Dave S has hit the nail on the head. Nobody could argue that giving it to Bush would slight Blair or Howard; giving it to US Forces certainly slights the British, Australians, and Poles.

Posted by: John Nowak at December 22, 2003 at 03:05 AM

The U.S. troops do deserve the accolade, but Time magazine really didn't want to do was to give it to George Bush. This way, Time is trying to give the appearance that it's not always a worthless piece of left-leaning drivel.

Posted by: Mace at December 22, 2003 at 03:39 AM

Can't complain about the choice of the American soldier, but I'm a bit surprised that George Bush wasn't even an option.

In their "People Who Mattered" section, Bush isn't listed, although Jessica Lynch, Jiang Yanyong, "Queer Eye", Kim Jong Il and Frank Gehry and several others of less renoun did make the list.

Maybe it's buried someplace behind the subscriber-only wall.

Posted by: Kevin Murphy at December 22, 2003 at 03:46 AM

I wonder how many Time subscriptions are for professional places with waiting rooms, such as doctors' and dentists' offices. That's really the only place I look at Time or Newsweek ... and then, usually just the letters to the editor. Sometimes they're intelligent critiques of the coverage; sometimes they're from idiotarians whining that some article or another wasn't idiotarian enough. But at least the opinions aren't masquerading as "objective coverage."

I might also look at the brief bits on technology, medicine, or science; new products on the market; or reviews of movies, books, and other arts in the back. The "Quotes of the Week" can be amusing as well. Very rarely, though, will I bother to read a major "news" story. Not only are they biased, but I've usually already gotten all the truthworthy information online, often from blogs.

The "soft cover stories" (mostly on sociological and medical issues) are occasionally worthwhile, but too often they're bland overviews calculated to offend the least number of readers, rather than aimed at asking tough questions.

And, though many here may disagree with me, I could do without the "Who Was Jesus?" and "Who Was Abraham?" type covers. As an agnostic, I'd rather that news magazines focus on ... you know, news, rather than speculative matters. However, if I were a believer, I think I'd be somewhat insulted by the superficiality of such articles and the pandering to my demographic that they represent. Obviously, conservative Christians don't have much love for these magazines, and I can understand why, even if my politics are different.

Posted by: Reginleif the Valkyrie at December 22, 2003 at 04:00 AM

Speaking of security, don't you find it curious that the log-in screen on Time's site is secure, but if you actually want to subscribe online, the page you enter your personal and credit card information is NOT A SECURE PAGE. Anyone up for having their lives destroyed by a little identity theft? The web monkeys at Time must be heavy into crack if they were stupid enough to miss that one...

Posted by: Lonestar at December 22, 2003 at 04:06 AM

I have to agree with those who think this year's award is another cop-out. As Bob Dylan said to Mr. Jones, "Who reads this shit any way?" or something like that. My vote would have gone to Tony Blair.

Posted by: S.A. Smith at December 22, 2003 at 05:07 AM

All the above trashings of TIME anent the "[miliary]person(s) of the year" haven't quite got to the cream of the insult. The story itself, part of which was quoted on Yahoo's news page, has TIME pulling a Hillary and lauding the American soldiers in order to set the stage for trashing Bush's Iraq policy and the war itself. Sound familiar? Once more a liberal creator of news ops has set up the American soldiers to use (i.e.., exploit) them for the purposes of attacking the president. As of now, therefore, the American soldiers in Iraq know two things: (1) They're great; (2) they're great patsies for Bush's (you-name-it) political agenda. When are these people going to learn that every time they do this, they're stepping into steaming piles of their of offal, and in public, too!

Posted by: Michael McCanles at December 22, 2003 at 05:37 AM

I took a look at the list of Time ---of the Year and saw the 1993 "The Peacemakers". What a joke!

10 years later and history has made a mockery of it.

Posted by: Pearl at December 22, 2003 at 05:38 AM

It appears Time magazine's motives are not at all noble, but
instead, to further Time's political agenda:

Soldiers were singled out as the top newsmakers of the year because
"the very messy aftermath of the war made it clear that the mission
had changed, that the mission had not been completed and that this
would be a story that would be with us for months, if not years,
to come," Time Managing Editor Jim Kelly said.

   Source: Associated Press
   December 21, 2003
   Time Person of Year: The American soldier

   http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/21/person.of.year.ap/

Posted by: Media (D, CA) at December 22, 2003 at 07:32 AM

"Time’s Person of the Year announcement is scheduled for 1 pm Sunday (GMT) in Europe and late Sunday (ET) in the US. Their site has pre-empted the announcement by at least 19 hours."

The story was available on the US AOL service as of very early Sunday morning (it was promoted off the welcome screen), so it seems unlikely that the Sunday release was entirely a surprise.

Posted by: John Scalzi at December 22, 2003 at 07:44 AM

Thursday's "Wall Street Journal" had a story about two Army personnel - a female lieutenant and a male corporal - who assembled the extremely complex information about Saddam Hussein's relations, tribal ties, and associates into a single diagram that could be easily followed. They identified the key people whose capture would lead us to Saddam; their work was invaluable. Both explained that their training had not prepared them for this sort of work, so they invented their techniques of information organization as they went along.

What struck me was that the corporal, a former English teacher, was 38 years old. He enlisted after 9/11; which means that he enlisted when he was 36 years old. Amazing. Clearly, the left-bank Ouiselles and our own media narcissists cannot grasp what would make a man do that: it would blow their circuits if they tried. But I thank God such men are out there.

Posted by: Brown Line at December 22, 2003 at 10:06 AM

Even though Person of the Year is not particularly a recognition of any inherent merit, I think it's entirely appropriate to remember the soldiers, especially those who have been killed and wounded.

The truest memorial would be a list of America's dead, along with those of all the other nations embroiled in this iniquity.

Dulce et decorum est. Still showing, on a TV channel near you: The Great Lie.

I'm off now. Merry Christmas, and a better new year to you all.


Posted by: Nemesis at December 22, 2003 at 12:27 PM

"I'm off now." Best Christmas present ever.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 22, 2003 at 12:48 PM

that there nemesis boy jes' haint right...

Posted by: roscoe.p.coltrane at December 22, 2003 at 01:25 PM

[*urp*]

Posted by: ali at December 22, 2003 at 05:59 PM

The thing I don't like about this is that in a few days/weeks, we'll be reading how "those ricans/spams/septics/yankees/etc/etc only honor themselves and not their allies", rather than the truth.

Ali - hey, ppl: first, get a grip. Then buzz off. It isn't a video game, you know.

Posted by: Winger at December 22, 2003 at 09:02 PM

Oh dear, it seems as if the troll-eating beast I employ here has eaten "ali's" comment.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 22, 2003 at 09:29 PM

ok here ali again :P

i wasnt intended to troll or something like that
i just wanted to mention that CNN etc made a huge show of an intrusion of professional killers (remember soldiers never fight for freedom and honor - they fullfill orders for money. thats the truth!). ok saddam is gone now - the only good thing about that shit that is going on down there but also remember that about 8.000 - 10.000 civilists lost their live during the action while CNN was hunting for quotes. again : about 8.000 - 10.000 civilists!

and now the killers of 8.000 - 10.000 civilists are men of the year? ridiculous!
it is also remarkable that no country got a higher budget than the usa , and the military industry is a economic factor where ppl live from (isnt it funny? ppl live from death)
so the next war will come thats sure.

btw did you know that the chemical weapons the iraq has (or had dunno) were sold from the usa?
i really like americans (ok not all - but most of them) but youre propaganda stuff is going on these days remembers me to too old days in my country (now guess where i come from :D)
maybe you think different about war if you have parent and grandparents (maybe with lost legs or arms)who can tell you how bloody and messy war really is instead getting shown cut pictures from embedded journalists.

however merry christmas to all who still live
ps im sure this post will get deleted cause you dont want to hear that - thats normal in propaganda medias

Posted by: ali again at December 23, 2003 at 04:42 AM

ok here ali again :P

i wasnt intended to troll or something like that
i just wanted to mention that CNN etc made a huge show of an intrusion of professional killers (remember soldiers never fight for freedom and honor - they fullfill orders for money. thats the truth!). ok saddam is gone now - the only good thing about that shit that is going on down there but also remember that about 8.000 - 10.000 civilists lost their live during the action while CNN was hunting for quotes. again : about 8.000 - 10.000 civilists!

and now the killers of 8.000 - 10.000 civilists are men of the year? ridiculous!
it is also remarkable that no country got a higher budget than the usa , and the military industry is a economic factor where ppl live from (isnt it funny? ppl live from death)
so the next war will come thats sure.

btw did you know that the chemical weapons the iraq has (or had dunno) were sold from the usa?
i really like americans (ok not all - but most of them) but youre propaganda stuff is going on these days remembers me to too old days in my country (now guess where i come from :D)
maybe you think different about war if you have parent and grandparents (maybe with lost legs or arms)who can tell you how bloody and messy war really is instead getting shown cut pictures from embedded journalists.

however merry christmas to all who still live
ps im sure this post will get deleted cause you dont want to hear that - thats normal in propaganda medias

Posted by: ali again at December 23, 2003 at 04:42 AM

ok here ali again :P

i wasnt intended to troll or something like that
i just wanted to mention that CNN etc made a huge show of an intrusion of professional killers (remember soldiers never fight for freedom and honor - they fullfill orders for money. thats the truth!). ok saddam is gone now - the only good thing about that shit that is going on down there but also remember that about 8.000 - 10.000 civilists lost their live during the action while CNN was hunting for quotes. again : about 8.000 - 10.000 civilists!

and now the killers of 8.000 - 10.000 civilists are men of the year? ridiculous!
it is also remarkable that no country got a higher budget than the usa , and the military industry is a economic factor where ppl live from (isnt it funny? ppl live from death)
so the next war will come thats sure.

btw did you know that the chemical weapons the iraq has (or had dunno) were sold from the usa?
i really like americans (ok not all - but most of them) but youre propaganda stuff is going on these days remembers me to too old days in my country (now guess where i come from :D)
maybe you think different about war if you have parent and grandparents (maybe with lost legs or arms)who can tell you how bloody and messy war really is instead getting shown cut pictures from embedded journalists.

however merry christmas to all who still live
ps im sure this post will get deleted cause you dont want to hear that - thats normal in propaganda medias

Posted by: ali again at December 23, 2003 at 04:42 AM

sorry for tripple post

i was a bit unpatient with my ie

Posted by: ali at December 23, 2003 at 04:44 AM

1. Where do you getyour numbers?
2. 10,000 "civilists", if it were true, would still be below the threshold for taking action if you consider the guy killed more than that every year.

Posted by: Yaro at December 23, 2003 at 07:54 AM

So sorry we removed your dictator, ali. I guess we should have left him in power so he could continue to ruin the lives of your countrymen with oppression, murder, torture, and so on as well as sponsoring acts of terrorism in other countries. (I am guessing that you come from Iraq; if not, then so sorry we removed a dictator from a country full of your brethren.)

Seriously, what did you expect? Saddam refused all the other attempts to make him behave (carrot/stick stuff like sanctions and diplomatic deals, stern talking-tos from UN functionaries, leaving a giant mousetrap spiked with candy in front of one of his palaces...) I'm sorry that the United States is not in any possession of magical powers that can end the rule of a ruthless megalomaniac without scaring cute grandmas and darling wittle kiddies.

Excuse me for being so harsh, but I am sick of this. We're no angels; yes, we are the richest, most militarily powerful country in the world, and maybe instead of taking advantage of our good nature to carp and whine at us, maybe you should be praising your god on your knees every night for the amazing, historically-unlikely good luck that we are, in fact, peace-loving and tolerant rather than ruthless and savage like all the other empires of the past. The ancient Romans, the Medean Persians, the Muslims of the Middle Ages -- none of these would have let you so much as utter a squeak of complaint against their rules, edicts, customs, or desires.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 23, 2003 at 10:55 AM

where the numbers are from: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
(maybe its also propaganda - from the other side)

america is not acting better like rome or the muslemes - they use just other tools to do it
the tool is capitalsm - btw did you never wonder why things dont change in the world? the answer is simple: money rules the world - and who are the richest? right americans an europeans.
so the world wont become more secure by bombing as there are still ppl who feel treaten unfair.
btw the only difference between killing with a sword and killing with bombs is that you cant see the blood streaming out.
and again: america sold chemical weapons to iraq

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg

we know these two guys right?

merry christmas

Posted by: ali at December 23, 2003 at 08:54 PM

"where the numbers are from: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/"

Okay, you have just invalidated yourself. That site isn't just "propaganda from the other side," it's lies.

Blah blah capitalism blah blah chemical weapons, blah blah more lies and stupidity fishcakes. Go away, ali. You are ignorant, and want to continue to be ignorant. I have no patience for you. And I don't, in fact, believe you live in Iraw or any other war-torn country; I don't believe you live anywhere but in some comfortable place like France. You're also too much of a coward to leave your real email. I can trace your IP, you know, and find out where you are really posting from.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 23, 2003 at 09:46 PM

Oh excuse me -- make that Germany:

Mannesmann Arcor Network Operation Center
Arcor AG & Co.KG
Department TBN
Otto-Volger-Str. 19
D-65843 Sulzbach/Ts.
Germany

This info I got from querying your ip addresses 213.23.157.113, 213.23.158.229, and 82.82.95.154 with the RIPE whois database. Oh yeah, you're suffering under those evil US capitalist bombs even as we speak!


Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 23, 2003 at 09:54 PM

dear andrea,
i didnt leave my real email adress to prevent spammage or other attacks. btw i have no problem whith, that you know where i live (actuelly in berlin) maybe we drink a coffee together if you visit there once.
as german i dont suffer from evil amircan attacks - and fact is that germany (still)lives very good (too good in compare to the rest of the world) with doing trades with usa. however these days many things are going wrong - we all can see it we all can feel it (if we really want). instead of acting in interests of the whole humanity we produce weapons and sel them to countries which dont treat their ppl fair (germans do also) just to keep our business running. THAT IS NOT A LIE! or do you think iraq invented the chimical weapons on its own?
remember: as long there is inequality in this world it wont become a secure place. and as long industrial countries produce weapons and paid killers (aka soldiers) we produce violence. and this violence will cause violence again. (also not a lie) i know this world is not a funy place like disney land or something like that (and it will never be, but we even dont try to change some things (we know why - cause its bad for business) please be patient with me - maybe i understand the deeper sense and the importance of war one day

merry christmas

Posted by: ali at December 23, 2003 at 10:39 PM

"as long there is inequality in this world it wont become a secure place."

We're all equal in the grave, ali. Safe, too.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 24, 2003 at 09:49 AM

yes true

thats what the church said too

it was in the middle age if i remember correctly

merry christmas

Posted by: ali at December 25, 2003 at 04:48 AM