Irony of it all

[Iktar]

I think this is very definition of oxymoron.
As a nation, we mourned the loss of seven astronauts and presented them as the earth's best for space. In meanwhile, the US military and its allies are stepping up its planned actions for Iraq.

I still find it very ironic that so called modernized 1st world nations mourns loss of seven astronauts while it takes another step closer to war in Iraq that will bring deaths to thousands.

For the better or worse, as the world turns. :P

People turn blind eyes to things they don't want to see and accept things as it is for one's further benefits. Like, this one I never understood. No offense but Jews go ballistic when holocaust is involved, but doesn't it seem wierd they all ride around BMW and Benz. Benz built the engines and furnances that burned them at those concentration camps. As korean american, I also am guilty of this by riding around Japanese made cars when under 70 years ago. Japanese slaved my country and my grandma still remembers that stuff. Kinda wierd eh

[Corth]

Iktar,

Astronauts dying and war in iraq? The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I assure you that it is possible to fight a necessary and justifiable war and still mourn the loss of life.

"Jews go ballistic when holocaust is involved"

Ummm.. ok.

"but doesn't it seem wierd they all ride around BMW and Benz."

so every jew drives around in a BMW and Benz? Or just most of them? *roll* Your getting close to Cherzra territory with your blatant use of stereotypes. FYI, I have actually met a jew who refuses to drive a German car. However, I wouldn't think less of him had he chosen to drive one. What I dont understand is what message you are trying to get across? Are you trying to say that jews put on an act about how much the halocaust has effected them but in reality it didnt matter to them that most of their families were killed?

"As korean american, I also am guilty of this by riding around Japanese made cars when under 70 years ago"

Guilty of what exactly? Guilty of not holding grudges against people for what their parents or grandparents did a long time ago? And what exactly does this all have to do with war in Iraq and astronauts dying?


Corth

[Iktar]

I never said we will not be mourning the loss of life from the war nor that the war is not justifiable. But the lives of the astronauts lost from the accident and those that will perish in Iraqi war are just as valuable. It seems ironic to me that as a nation who places high value on life, we are the ones pushing hardest toward for Iraq solution by politics or war. Regardless of its justifiability, result will either be peaceful solution or death of thousands. To prevent or for further greater good that we might be forced to end lives of thousands.

I also should've phrased my words properly. I should've said many jews. I have met a few who do refuse to drive german car as well and my grandma refuses to ride in Japanese car. Call it their morals or grudgery. and I was stating I was guilty of doing what I think is wierd irony.

And I was discussing about ironies that flashed through me, not specifically with astroanuts, Iraq, and their death.

[Ambar]

astronauts and iraq are very different animals

we mourn the lives of those lost to space exploration .. that is a very necessary *risk* ... where the hell are we going to go but to space when we finish the destruction of a world already in shambles ...

if we are to hate everything bad that has been done to us .. let women hate men .. let blacks continue to hate whites (altho blacks had a VERY important part in the slave trade) let jews hate germans .. the list goes on and on ... let the friggin hatred STOP of shit beyond our control .. shit that happened in some caes CENTURIES ago ... decades ... etc ...

tho i am still uncertain where my future lies (does it rest in God's hands? does it rest in my goddess' hands?? i still dont know) ... all i can do is be the best person i can be ... and hatred does NOT make good people .. no matter what race color creed religion you are


mini rant follows:
i ran into what i consider the *arrogance* in americans today ... in my damn soc class ... this GIRL (18 year old college student) who feels that immigrants should learn to be like *US* when they come to the states, BUT we dont have to blend into their culture when we visit *their* countries ... this was in regards to a discussion in culture ... she feels we don't show prejudice in our country .. this kid is so clueless i got pissed off ... this is *us* today's parents, teaching kids this SHIT ... where is the world headed??? opinions??? maybe i make a different thread??? later perhaps ...
/end rant

I love you ALL ...

-Jennifer

[cherzra]

Hey Corth, I'd ask you to read your own post again and notice how loud, self-righteous and aggressive you are, but I know I may as well talk to a wall. You aren't god, you aren't always right.


"You are an idiot"

Great way to talk to anyone who isn't even addressing you, but is only voicing their opinion on something.

[Daz]

bah, who cares.

i hate to say it, but i don't mourn the lives of those astronauts. they died living their dream, and i am happy for them. i cry that the death of those astronauts will end the dreams of another little astronaut who used to stare at the stars and dream.

i won't mourn the loss of anyone in iraq, either. if it is american or iraqi who dies, i don't care either way. every person who puts on a uniform for his country should accept the fact that he may die defending it. we pay tribute to those who fall every day, merely by enjoying our freedom. in the end, what matters in iraq, wether you hippies believe it or not, is that america is fighting for freedom, and we are taking steps to liberate those who would also be free, but can not do it themselves.

the reason why we have let shit go on as it has in the middle east, was because it didn't affect us. gas prices, thats about it, really. when september 11th happened, it affected all of us. that was when george bush said 'stop.' before this happened, i had no respect for the man, but his tenaciousness in doing what is right for the nation, even at great personal loss (look at his opinion polls, a poor leader could be working on improving those - but Bush is doing this for the country, and letting the people hate him as they will.) if you don't think that iraq plays a roll in the terroristic actions that affected us, you are naive. if you think the war is unjust because president Bush has not sat down to drink a Budweiser and grub on Mac&Cheese with you, holding your hand through his polical motivations, then you are naive.

this war is very real, it is going to happen if you stomp signs and smoke weed or not. people will die, thats right, DIE. hundreds of years ago, people died to make America the land of freedom that it claims to be today. not everyone who fought and died in that war was british or american. whatever the motivations, outside nations took a role in the war, and possibly because of that, we are a free land.

one day an iraqi child will be born, and he will be born free. his mother will walk alone and unashamed in the streets, proud of the gift of life she carries. and when that happens, you anti-war assholes will be the ones who she carries a distrust for. because we, the warmongering, hate-machines that you like to think we are, fight to free and liberate these people. and YOU, will be the people who fought so hard 100 years gone to see that she remained afraid and enslaved.

and i hope she drives a fucking ford, too.

[Kthxbye~]

how's it goin bro

- no comment on this topic

Vlorm - I was cool once....honestly!

[Iktar]

hey vlorm!! long time!!! wut u up to
mmail fibble or iktar!

[belleshel]

I'm all for the war myself, but if you think for a moment that oil doesn't play a large part in this, think again. There are more than a handful of countries out there with worse records of human rights violations. We do nothing to prevent them from continuing. There are countries out there that are far worse security threats to our country (North Korea, China) yet we haven't made any invasion plans for those countries.

i won't mourn the loss of anyone in iraq, either. if it is american or iraqi who dies, i don't care either way.

You don't care if american soldiers die? Thats a pathetic thought from an American.

every person who puts on a uniform for his country should accept the fact that he may die defending it.

Who should we mourn for? If you drive to work in the morning you should accept the fact that you could end up in a fatal accident, and thus nobody should care or mourn for you, since you knew the risks involved...

The daz-mind seems like a scary place to spend a few minutes....
Belle

[thanuk]

Bel -
I agree with what your saying to Daz and all, but i think you are severely underestimating the threat iraq really presents to our country, and overestimating other threats.

China has shown no desire, nor need to use any form of chemical/biological/nuclear weaponry against us. As long as the country is moderately affluent, there is no desire to push the issue, as they have alot to lose as well.

North Korea isn't a very real threat. It is believed that they have the capability to produce nuclear weapons, however, they have no delivery system. Even if they did have a range of nukes just lined up, unless they are dumping them in tire rafts and pushing them out to sea, they aren't coming anywhere near the United States. The real threat of N. Korea is that they might possibly sell a nuclear weapon to a country like Iraq, who's leader is dumb(insane?) enough to actually try and use it.

Im not telling you oil isn't a very real concern here, but if anything, it is the reason the U.S. has met with so much international opposition to this prospective war. Iraq has had oil since the last time we fought there, and the U.S. hasn't felt the need for military action until now, when it is revealed that Saddam could potentially host quite an arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weaponry. I think this war would be happening even if Iraq had no oil, I just think it would be making a lot less international noise. Sure the oil is nice, but i truly believe the U.S. would go to war with a country like Iraq just because there is a distinct relationship between the country and known terrrorists operatives, who have already proven to have no qualms about causing mass destruction to our country. That fact, plus a potential chemical/bio/nuclear arsenal, gives us every reason to strike first. North Korea, although part of the "axis of evil", is not directly related to terrorists, and are using their nuclear threat as a means of bargaining for food and money, because they are running short on both. They have yet to show their nuclear threat as anything but a bluff, whereas Iraq has shown the willingness to take that extra step if they believe it will benefit them.

[belleshel]

The potential threat of North Korea/China far surpasses anything Iraq could do. We have 37k servicemen on the border of North Korea, which I believe is fielding an active army of over 1 million as well as a large amount of artillery. Kim Jong-il is also described as one of the most unstable leaders in the world. Remember juust because they can't strike the US directly doesn't mean they aren't a threat. They may not have ICBM's but they do have systems cable of delivering a nuclear payload as far away as Japan, which also houses a large amount of US servicemen as well as other Pacific bases that house many thousands of US servicemen. China has the largest army in the world, nukes, and is in dispute with Taiwan and has continued to stress it will use its military to reclaim the isle if it must. Now both of these issues are much 'colder' then the middle east at the moment. And I would highly doubt anything happening, but the threat could be far more severe.
Both countries have human rights violations that at least match or surpass Iraq's. I think there is very little concern that Iraq has, or will have soon the ability to use nuclear weapons. Russia's vast stock of unaccounted or poorly protected arsenal scares me a lot more on the nuclear front.

Which brings us to the terrorist aspect of the war. Is Iraq a sponsor of terrorism? Against Israel I would say absolutely, I haven't seen anything to tie them to acts against the United States. What I consider just as dangerous is Saudi Arabia. Where does the money come from for most of the middle east terrorist activities? SA. Where did most of the terrorists from 911 come from? SA. I will bet you money that the next terrorist act against the USA has the majority of the resources come from SA then anywhere else (cash, people). Why are we so buddy buddy with them? A friendly government with oil...

I'm not naive enough to think the US foreign policy is run based entirely on oil, but to ignore the fact that it does play some roll is naive.

They have yet to show their nuclear threat as anything but a bluff, whereas Iraq has shown the willingness to take that extra step if they believe it will benefit them.

I guess I missed it when Iraq threatened us with nuclear weapons;)
Belle

Don't get me wrong, Im looking forward to removing Sadam, and I think it's the right thing to do. But we are doing it for the wrong reason, disarming rather than democracy.

[thanuk]

Well no, they haven't come out and threatened the use of nuclear weapons. But the have used mustard gas on us troops, as well as their own citizens, and kuwaitis, and anyone else who stands against them. And if you watch the news, every few days another threat from an unnamed iraqi official or a religious leader warn of small pox and ricin attacks, suicide bombings, and such.
What does this have to do with nuclear weapons? Nothing...until you check up on our national policy, which states that we do not distinguish between the use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. We consider them all to be weapons of mass destruction, and will have the same reaction regardless of which of the 3 it is.

Which basically means threatening america with anthrax is the same as threatening america with an atomic bomb.

[moritheil]

"less talk, more smite." - anonymous zoner

[Zen]

Equating or even comparing the space shuttle tradegedy to a war is simply idiotic. There are plenty of things say both for and against either, without comparing them. If you want to compare something, try comparing the space shuttle to the twin towers of 9/11. It is a lot closer to compare non combatants in a scientific mission loosing their lives to the normal people who lost their lives on 9/11 than it is to compare them to soldiers.

I won't even speculate if Iraqi soldiers choose to be in the army, but I know that American troops have all made the decision to be who and where they are, and they have made that decision for themselves, knowing that they will fight and even die.

Don't compare armed combat with people who choose to be there, give their lives and have a chance to shoot, be shot, and shoot back, to people who died in what can only be described as an accient. When our soldiers pass away, they will be honored and mourned with as much dignity and sincerity as our astronauts. Ironic? Not hardly.

-Zen

[Tasan]

Hey Corth, I'd ask you to read your own post again and notice how loud, self-righteous and aggressive you are, but I know I may as well talk to a wall. You aren't god, you aren't always right.

"You are an idiot"

Great way to talk to anyone who isn't even addressing you, but is only voicing their opinion on something.

Yes Corth, take it from the master!

Wait wait, where's the "irony" smiley?

Twinshadow

[Iktar]

I reailze some of you only think of lives of Americans that will be lost. If we do invade Iraq, do you not realize many Iraqi civilians will perish? As well as lives of other coalition forces? Some of you guys are looking at it too narrowly.

Did I say soliders only? The war will cause death of soldiers of many nations as well as civilians. Our soldiers are not the only one that is over in middle east. There are quite a few civilians there assisting the military. For example, C3 communications is heavily involved in military activites and have civilians over there assisting.

Don't compare armed combat with people who choose to be there, give their lives and have a chance to shoot, be shot, and shoot back, to people who died in what can only be described as an accient

Men and women in US military is there by choice since we do not have mandatory service. But doesn't that make it more close to the shuttle tragedy? Those astronauts chose to be involved in the mission, worked hard, and they knew the risks. Travel to space is no walk in the park and it was a tragic accident that claimed lives of seven people.

When our soldiers pass away, they will be honored and mourned with as much dignity and sincerity as our astronauts.

I never stated that we will not be mourning the loss of soldiers nor did I hint that soldiers will not be mourned any less.

[Zen]

Iktar, you are an idiot. The point is that the shuttle and armed conflict cannot be compared. And even if they could, it would not be valid to say that american response to either event is inconsistent or ironic.

I am not delusional enough to say that no civilians will be harmed, but the number of civilian deaths as a result of US actions will be much less than the lives claimed in twin towers, and possibly even less than the seven lost on the shuttle, tho I myself do not think that likely.

Comparing the shuttle tradgedy to pursuing a war with a known enemy is like asking who lays better eggs, your dog or your cat. The answer of course, is Iktar.

-Zen

[Dungapol]

Daz, what you wrote up there has to be the most ignorant opinion out there I have ever heard. Pertaining to how the war is needed to support our freedom has to be the most absurd comment, that it gave me shivers down my back. If you didn't learn from kindergarten, that fighting and forcing people to believe a certain way or to act a certain way is not going to solve any problems, nor create a peaceful community. Things only get worse.

The problem in the middle east will not be solved by fighting a war with Iraq and using force to take away any (if any) weapons of mass destruction. The problem in the middle east will only be solved through diplomacy. If the US and allies do goto war with Iraq, this will only enrage Iraq as well as the other surrounding countries to hate the US and allied countries even more in the future. This is scary.. because technology in the future, will only enable roque states for say.. cause further and maybe deadlier terrorist attacks in the coming generations. (maybe a nuke suitcase or a deadly viral attack)

Fighting doesn't solve hatred, and that is exactly what is going on between the US and Iraq. Diplomacy and negotiations are the best way to resolve anything. The Bush administration is reacting too much on emotion rather than figuring out logical ways to resolve this terrible situation in the Middle East and in Iraq. When this war happens, I will pray for the many lives that will be lost over hatred.

[Corth]

Dungapol,

Iraq is not going to be enraged. Your typical Iraqi will be overjoyed. Many families have had at least one or two members 'disapear'. Its a brutal totalitarian dictatorship which maintains power by creating fear. There will be few Iraqi tears shed for Saddam Hussein.

In other news, the war preparations are almost complete. It looks like the actual war will start somewhere between Feb 10 and 20.

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2 ... ions.shtml

[Daz]

so let there be war,
and glorious shall it be to behold.

[thanuk]

fighting and forcing people to believe a certain way or to act a certain way is not going to solve any problems, nor create a peaceful community. Things only get worse.

The problem in the middle east will only be solved through diplomacy. If the US and allies do goto war with Iraq, this will only enrage Iraq as well as the other surrounding countries to hate the US and allied countries even more in the future. This is scary.. because technology in the future, will only enable roque states for say.. cause further and maybe deadlier terrorist attacks in the coming generations. (maybe a nuke suitcase or a deadly viral attack)

Fighting doesn't solve hatred, and that is exactly what is going on between the US and Iraq. Diplomacy and negotiations are the best way to resolve anything. The Bush administration is reacting too much on emotion rather than figuring out logical ways to resolve this terrible situation in the Middle East and in Iraq. When this war happens, I will pray for the many lives that will be lost over hatred.

Have you watched/read anything in the news in the passed 6 months? We tried diplomacy in the form of U.N. resolutions, which Iraq has blatantly ignored and violated. Saddam Huessien only holds power because he kills anyone who stands against him. The fact that your so scared of a future terrorist attack means that terrorism is working;if the threat of terrorism prevents you from behaving as you otherwise would, than the terrorists have accomplished their goal. I would love to hear how you think diplomacy will ever solve anything in the middle east, when none of the countries there are willing to honor any agreements they would make. And they ignore their agreements even with the threat of war looming behind them! If they knew we weren't willing to back anything up, there would be absolutely 0 reason for them to listen. We tried diplomacy, Iraq called our bluff. It's too late to back down now. We gave Iraq an ultimatum: Disarm or be disarmed forcefully; THEY chose forcefully. If we back out now, why would any other country ever believe any threats we make are serious? The ball was put into Iraq's court a long time ago, and our response was pre-determined...peace and economic support if they complied, and use of force if they did not. It is the Iraqis who chose not to comply, they made the decision to go to war for us.

[Ambar]

"The fact that your so scared of a future terrorist attack means that terrorism is working;if the threat of terrorism prevents you from behaving as you otherwise would, than the terrorists have accomplished their goal. "


Thanuk, That is profound as hell ... Tat is almost exactly what Osama said after his WTC attack ... he WANTS us to live in fear .. he WANTS us to change ... don't let him force you into a cocoon and live out your life in fear, carrying your gas mask and constantly looking up in the skies for bombs and other weapons of mass distruction ...

war will happen on occasion, people will die, just dont live in fear of it .... dont change your life except to be a little more aware of what CAN happen .. not live in the fear that it WILL


holy crap i hate that preview button:P

[Gurns]

It is the Iraqis who chose not to comply, they made the decision to go to war for us.

No. You can, and do, argue that there are strong and valid reasons to go to war. But it is our decision to go to war, and we cannot and should not avoid the moral responsibility for that decision. If I stick a gun in your face and say "Your money or your life", and you don't give me your wallet, and I pull the trigger, I cannot argue that you forced me to pull the trigger. If you break into my house, and I pull a gun on you and say "Stop or I'll shoot", and you don't stop, I cannot argue that you forced me to shoot. People will argue that those situations (mugger/victim, burglar/homeowner, America/Iraq) are exactly opposite or exactly the same, but in all cases, the decision to pull the trigger can only rest on he who pulls the trigger. The decision to pull the trigger may or may not be justified, but if I hold the gun, the decision is mine, not somebody else's.

[thanuk]

Gurns,
I disagree with that analogy, for the reason that we are attempting to prevent Iraq from wielding weapons of mass destruction. If there was a scenario that occurred in everyday life that was similar to this it would be a police officer holding a gun on a suspect. The suspect is unarmed, but there is a loaded gun at his feet. The officer orders the suspect to freeze, and he does, at first. And then he slowly begins reaching for the weapon, looking at the officer and smiling the entire time. The officer orders him to stop, he does not. He repeats the order to stop. The suspect stops for a moment, but then continues reaching for the weapon. The gun is almost in his grasp...does the officer shoot the suspect, or allow him to grab the weapon? He has no choice, he must shoot.

[Gurns]

Gurns,
I disagree with that analogy... He has no choice, he must shoot.

No, he has a choice. It may be, by all we hold to be good and true, an obvious choice, but that choice is still there. (Just to be clear, in the situation you describe, and in a battle, one trusts that the choice was made long before, so the cop or the soldier will react quickly, without having to think about it. That's what training is about.)

But one must see that it is a choice. Self-defence brings the choice: "Will I kill rather than be killed?" By most standards, that's a relatively easy one. But note that one could decide, and a few folks historically have decided, the other way.

Now, much of the time, when folks say "I had no choice", what they mean is that the various alternatives had such obvious moral and/or practical weight that this was the only possible decision. But the possibility is when they say "I had no choice" and what happened is that they didn't even think about having or making a choice, which also means not thinking about the implications of the choice.

[thanuk]

Okay well since i have absolutely 0 desire to get into a debate with you about the nature of free will, ill use your own terms. The various alternatives have such obvious moral and/or practical weight that this war is the only possible decision.

[Gurns]

Okay well since i have absolutely 0 desire to get into a debate with you about the nature of free will, ill use your own terms.

Which by the usual BBS response assumptions means I'm right! *cackle* OK, so you just got tired.

The various alternatives have such obvious moral and/or practical weight that this war is the only possible decision.

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Or questions: alternatives, moral weight, practical considerations. Or were the questions, because the choice has been made.

I have grave doubts that this is the right choice, that we had no choice, as Bush has been saying for some time. However, I must now hope and pray that it is the right choice, was the only choice, because if so, then things will only be very bad. If it's the wrong choice, things will be much worse.

[Sarvis]

The problem is that if this is the "right" choice, we may never know. We're preventing Iraq from surprising us all and dropping chemical weapons into the heart of the world's largest cities.

[Mplor]

I am forced to concede that Gurns is correct. That will be all.

[Corth]

Heh, Mplor

I'm sorry to concede that the quality of your posts in the past few months have declined precipitously.

[Shar]

The problem in the middle east will only be solved through diplomacy.

The only problem with this, Dungapol, is: One cannot be diplomatic with a lunatic.

His own family has said he is insane. Can you reason with a madman?

[Mplor]

Heh, Mplor

I'm sorry to concede that the quality of your posts in the past few months have declined precipitously.

Oh, I still have inflammatory opinions with liberal leanings. I've simply become convinced that mine is the only opinion of consequence and I see no reason to discuss it further.

Your posts, on the other hand, are typically cogent and well-informed. You deliver your opinions having often read at least the liberal apologist view. Your conclusions usually miss wide right, but you are not me and I can hardly fault you for that.

[thanuk]

Which by the usual BBS response assumptions means I'm right! *cackle* OK, so you just got tired.

Well no, i used a figure of speech that when applied literally is obviously incorrect. Although i know that you understand full well the meaning which was implied, it's literal definition was incorrect and you called me on it. So yes you were right, but no it had nothing to do with what we are talking about:)

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Or questions: alternatives, moral weight, practical considerations. Or were the questions, because the choice has been made.

I have grave doubts that this is the right choice, that we had no choice, as Bush has been saying for some time. However, I must now hope and pray that it is the right choice, was the only choice, because if so, then things will only be very bad. If it's the wrong choice, things will be much worse.

Well my question for you and people who's rhetoric is similar to yours is, what then, would the right choice be? There are plenty of people out there saying that war is the wrong choice, that this is not the way to get Iraq to disarm.

Do you go the road of the french/russians? "Let us double, let us triple the number of inspectors" And where will that get us? I dont see how the "serious consequences" of violating a U.N. resolution can be more inspections. Thats not serious, or a consequence, thats exactly what they got in the first place. Perhaps your point is that George Bush backed us into a corner, and now war is the only way we can go, and that has some validity to it. But Saddam has made it painfully obvious that he just doesn't care what the U.N. says, and will do as he pleases regardless of the rest of the world.

What then, is left aside from the use of force? We could try and cause a coup, and train some Iraqis in guerilla tactics to fight Saddam themselves perhaps. But last time we did that, this little group called Al Queda popped up. There are not many options open to us that would still accomplish our goal of getting Saddam to disarm. And I think we will all agree that walking away and letting him do whatever he pleases is simply not an option.

[belleshel]

Do you go the road of the french/russians? "Let us double, let us triple the number of inspectors" And where will that get us? I don't see how the "serious consequences" of violating a U.N. resolution can be more inspections. '

The French? Invincible in peace, Invisible in war. The only reason we need the French involved in the war, is to show Iraq how to surrender.

For those that have seen 'Life of Brian' the U.N. is basically a fancy JPF.
Resolutions, committees, stronger resolutions, funny accents...

The U.N. is such a joke, the U.S. was voted out of the U.N. Human Rights Commission and replaced by Sudan (a nation whose government has spent the last few years bombing civilians, tolerating slavery and supporting international terrorism). The next chairman of the U.N Human Rights commission?... Libya. One of the world’s worst abusers of human rights will head what is supposed to be the world’s most prestigious international forum for promoting those rights.

Do you know who the U.N. is assigning to be the chair and co-chair of the disarmament and nuclear proliferation conference? Iraq and Iran. It's assigned alphabetically and they are the next two in line. What kind of sick joke is this?

The U.N. is a shame. Having to pander to the likes of it makes me sick.
Belle

[belleshel]

I'm not a republican, but a good article from one:

http://kyl.senate.gov/c013103.htm